Beatty 's motives were to protect himself from higher powers, revealing that people will do almost anything to protect themselves or people they love. In the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, after driving to Montag’s house, Beatty asked him to burn it down. Some would say that this was Beatty’s challenging Montag or that Beatty was doing right and protecting himself. However if Beatty had not taken the calls and burned Montag 's home down, he would have had consequences for disobeying the rules. The government in the book had been brainwashing their citizens into believing books were bad for society and were constantly distracting them.
Babel With a hint of Rendition The films Babel (2006) and Rendition (2007) show how paranoia regarding foreigners and terrorism affect innocent lives. There has been a sort of hysteria regarding terrorism in America and unfortunately the faces that have been attached to it are brown. These films are especially relevant to the happenings in America right now with leaders such as Donald Trump expressing Islamophobic views. In Babel, there are different storylines and each of them is tied together with the gun that starts it all. The tour bus shooting is immediately broadcasted in America as having been a terrorist attack.
In the futuristic book Fahrenheit 451 reality is turned upside down when heroes become villains. The world is blind to the evils that lay inside the government. The people who aren't are educated are hunted, and seen as insane. Morals will be put to the test, and although this book focuses on one man's journey through it all, it is very clear that the issues this fictional society faces could not be to far from issues what could happen in real life. Fahrenheit 451 is a direct representation of the theme man vs society and his journey to wake up the sleeping civilians of the United states.
This is blistering stuff. The terrorists are not crazy Arabs hellbent on destroying democracy and taking over the world, as some commentators would have you believe was the case with 9/11, this is violence and terrorism used against an ignorant or complaisant people in order to enrage them, in order to manipulate them into doing what you want them to do. So, far from providing balm for the masses, The Secret Agent is actually more likely to fuel conspiracy theories; its take on the political world is, in fact, far closer to the popular conspiracy theory that the World Trade Centre attacks were an inside job, that they were brought down in order to give the US government a reason to wage war in the Middle East. One of the first things you will notice about The Secret Agent is that although the novel is purported to be set in London, there is not a great deal that is recognisably English about it. All of the revolutionaries, for example, have continental-sounding names – Ossipon, Verloc, Michaelis, etc – despite it being the case that they are meant to be British citizens.
The flaw in Cassian’s logic, as well as in the logic of utilitarianism, is that the act of killing becomes morally shaky ground. It is impossible to determine whether or not the Rebel Alliance or the Empire is more justified in their acts of “good” as they both see their rationale for killing as necessary to reach their goals and provide the most good for the most amount of people (McLarney 2018). In the eyes of the Empire, Cassian and the rest of the rebels are traitors and terrorists to the lawful regime, thus killing them weeds out instability and insubordination as punishment for attacking imperial troops. For the Rebellion, the occupation, exploitation, and oppression of people is more morally reprehensible than any act of murder they commit due to the imbalance of power. Utilitarianism reaches a stalemate when both parties believe themselves to be in the right (McLarney 2018).
One of the best examples happened in the 1980’s when the CSI had told the US government that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The US attacked his country and hunted him down until he was killed. Only at the end to find out that it was all a lie and that Saddam was innocent. This why it is not acceptable because it put people in a mind-set of doing much worse than getting proper information. Is it wrong?
Although it was unfortunate for all of the lives lost, life may have been worse without it. Something terrible always has something good hidden behind it. Furthermore, I think the King's execution was a very controversial event. He was killed for treason, which is betraying your country. This probably would have shocked some people because the Levellers (a political movement during the war) believed that the only crime you could be executed for was
Someone may say that people are not good at heart. People may feel this was if someone was hurting them (or something) and even if they told them to stop, they would continue harassing them (bullying). People may say that teriorst or criminals are not good at heart because they have done something hurtful or rough. In a story under the article People are truly good at heart? Sadly,no, It reported “In 2006, terrorist plotted to destroy as many as 10 planes flying from London to North America.” This is an argument that I would disagree with these people should not be looked at as objects because they have feelings to and probably have families that really care about them.
Decision about whether to capture or kill a terrorist leaders is dependent upon the goals that the states aim to achieve. Capturing of a terrorist leader depicts the thought that he is a criminal authorised to a legal hearing. On the other hand, killing him is treating him as a challenger to the state’s peace. Thus this settlement depends upon the counterterrorism policies created by national rulers. With the emergence of the topic of decapitation, certain questions occupy our minds regarding the merits, demerits and effectiveness of this method of ending terrorist groups.
They use violence to have a change in politics. The similarity between terrorists and criminals is their target. They do not think about which one is combatant or which one is civilians. They do their action to anyone; they attack both combatant and civilians. The example about terrorist is the Bali bombing in 2002.