When he saw the enemy car and the informer he didn 't hesitate to kill them. He knew they were threats and he understood he needed to shoot. His brain was ‘wired’ to kill the enemy and any threat was to be terminated. While reading you will notice that the sniper is a republican, while the barber is a revolutionary. Not only do they have different beliefs but they fight their battles differently.
War is one of the most controversial and fascinating aspects of human life, which includes sacrifice, argument, and worst of all human death. The argument of war is whether or not the sacrifice of human life is necessary or not. The authors of My Brother Sam Is Dead are totally against war; they are neutral and they give Tim the same idea as them in the novel. They even show the irony and cruelty of war in the book by the punishing and ironic deaths of Ned, Sam, and Life. This novel is based in Redding, Conneticut during the time of the Revolutionary War.
This includes the fact that it is barbaric, bluntly it is cold murder, and frankly there is no reason for it. To start, killing humans for fun is simply barbaric. Who has the right to take away another person’s life? Nobody should have that power, or capability, to remove someone from this earth. Everyone was given a life to live.
Both passages have a him-or-me mindset and the characters project their lives upon the men they killed, although only O’Brien gives vivid detail and multiple attitudes toward killing in war. In O’Brien’s short story, he states, “‘Tim, it’s a war. The guy wasn’t Heidi -- he had a weapon, right? It’s a tough thing, for sure, but you got to cut out that staring.’” (“The Man I Killed”).
His “resurrection” as the Winter Soldier is a denial of his right to die, his right to decide what to do with his life, his body. That type of control is a horror that we tend to think of as a horror above or beyond death; there is something worse than death, and it is losing what we think of as the basic embodied human right of inhabitation of, autonomy over one’s own body. That’s what he’s about to suffer, and it kind of turns this scene from tragedy into horror
Macbeth wanted Banquo dead because he did not want Banquo to be the one to say that he killed King Duncan. The author says, “He tries to defend his father when they are attacked but is not old enough or skilled enough. He just manages to escape with his own life” (General OneFile 1). When Banquo was killed, his son, Fleance, escaped before he was going to get killed. Macbeth sent the murderers to Fleance because he was with his father at that time.
Montag killed Beatty he thought what he was doing was right. Montag was justified for killing Beatty because he thought he was protecting himself and Faber, Beatty had to die for society to change, and Beatty wanted to die. Montags anger towards Beatty may have persuaded his decisions and made him do what he did to Beatty. In the event that Montag killed Beatty, he was justified because he was protecting Faber and himself.
Some people say, we all live only to die, which in some context is right, we are all going to die one day, so why can we not just end the agony and do it now? You see that reasoning is wrong, I think the only time you have the right to die, is if you have fully lived your life, and the only way you can prove that is if you die with a smile on your face. Mark Twain said, "A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.", meaning you are only prepared to pull the trigger if you know you have lived your life to the fullest, and I would like to believe that for
Alai also demonstrates, through his refusal, that he doesn’t possess the same compliance with inflicting pain on others despite being Bernard’s best friend. This exhibits the grandness of their humanity for they both sacrifice their own selves to prevent the boy they just met from getting hurt. “ He hadn’t meant to kill the Giant. This was supposed to be a game. Not a choice between his own grisly death and an even worse murder.
The guy wasn’t Heidi- he has a weapon, right?” (126) However, by giving insight on the man’s life, the reader learns that similarly to O’Brien, the man he killed originally had no intention of fighting. He wanted to be a scholar. The collections of short stories in “The Things They Carried” come together to show how complex war can be.
These are all examples of why there are no real winners in war, no matter who killed who or who had won the most properties. My second topic is that war is just not worth here is why, War is not worth it with all the violence psychical damage taken for example in the story when the IRA sniper took a bullet in the arm and had to self treat himself all of this could have been avoided if there was more communication Second innocent lives are taken for no reason because of dumb violence like the incident that happened earlier in the story when the IRA sniper killed the innocent old lady and the man just because of something small that token out of proposition, all could have been handled a different way lastly the killing of the IRA snipers brother could have been all been avoided if communication was just more clearly and more common sense was use, the ira brother could have still been alive and he would have not been so wounded. These all support that war is not worth it, it is just adding more to the fuel when technically no real winners
Truman Capote wrote the nonfiction novel In Cold Blood with the accounts from the murderers and investigators of the Clutter family. As Capote grew up, he found himself neglected by his mother and father. Because his mother and father often neglected him, he spent much of his young life with his mother’s relatives. While Capote was young, his mother often made fun of him for being “different” than other children. Although Capote faced many hardships throughout his early life, he was able to overcome them and attain a successful writing career.