Comparison Of 'V For Vendetta And' After The First Death

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  One of humanity’s most popular ways of getting its point across is through violence.  When words are no longer enough to argue a point, human casualties not only directly solve the problem, but symbolically send a message to all those affected as well.  Just as the American colonies fought against the British for Freedom when their voice was no longer heard, and just as the Islamic extremists used terrorism to send an evil message to America, both V and Chancellor Sutler used violence to gain a voice in a world of chaos.

The text After the First Death by Robert Cormier and the film V for Vendetta directed by James McTigue represent terrorism in ways that allow us as the audience to respond differently to each. The terrorists, V in V for Vendetta and Artkin in After the First Death both perform terrorising actions; however, I sympathise and correspond with V but consider the opposite for Artkin. V is seen as a revolutionary as he has a considerate and rational mind, he eradicates only those who commit immoral deeds to the society. In contrast, Artkin is presented as an emotionless killing machine able to murder without remorse. Thus, I feel hatred and fear towards Artkin, although both terrorists share similar motives. The terrorists are masked to hide their identities; however, we perceive them to have different ideas. Both terrorists use violence to present their ideas of anarchy, I understand V’s motive is to prevail justice for the people, therefore, deem his actions as necessary, whereas Artkin is willing to murder innocence to acquire freedom. After the First Death and V for Vendetta, both portray that terrorism has unseen motives and ideas, which make me as an audience question whether terrorism benefits or destroys the society.

Another element of the strategy is untwisting the “spiral of violence”. The classic mechanism, which assume the existence of cycles of suicide terrorism activity in a “action-repression-reaction” it is aimed at lowering the public support for the government, and increase it for the terrorists. By curried out the suicide terrorism attacks, the intension and aim of the terrorists is to hit the repressive actions of the authorities not only in themselves but also in the group indentified with them and/or their supporters (a specified ethnic group, religious, social or the entire society). As a result, this process has lead to massive social explosion directed against the government. Such a model of strategy for terrorism has been used by most of the leftist groups in Europe in the nineteenth century, and in the

While

This article by Isabelle Duyvesteyn starts off by summarising the objectives that challenge the perspective of terrorism since the last decade of the twentieth century is fundamentally new. In this article certain questions have been debated regarding new aspects of terrorism and they are: “transnational nature of the perpetrators and their organizations, their religious inspiration, fanaticism, use of weapons of mass destruction and their indiscriminate targeting.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)In order to understand the depth of aspects of new terrorism the article talks about “national and territorial focus of the new terrorists, their political motivations, use of conventional weaponry and the symbolic targeting that is aimed in order to achieve a surprising effect.” ("How New Is the New Terrorism?", 2017)

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Another instance where V 's actions harm innocent people without caring was when he ordered innocent people to wear Guy Fawkes masks and march to the parliament to watch the explosion. These citizens could have been killed by the military officers who waited for orders to strike though no orders were given. If V was a revolutionary, he could have found the way of making a statement without risking the lives of the innocent citizens. His evil actions present him as a rebel against the government and his fellow citizens. He also states that ‘ 'violence could be used for good. ' ' V 's actions of not caring about the others were the same as compared to Stanley Milgram experiment actions. The subjects in this experiment were suffering, but the experimenter did nothing to relieve the students the pain. Instead, he urged the teachers to continue to torture the students knowing very well they were suffering from the high voltage. The teachers played the sadist role as they agreed as they completely obeyed the experimenter 's instructions. V 's evil actions also present him as a sadist by enjoying hurting people and killing the ones who were in charge of the experiments.

Butko (2006; Freedman, 2005) slightly reflects on Symeonidou-Kastanidou’s (2004) definition in less mechanical way by adding to it that there should be certain psychological effect on innocent victims. In case of the Gunpowder Plot, if the Plot would have failed to achieve its intended purpose, plotters expected at least to evoke condemnation of the society towards the King. The most definitive feature of terrorism in Butko’s (2006) opinion is the threat of violence or use of violence towards ‘innocent’ people, if all of the barrels with the gunpowder would have been ignited the casualties would have been enormous and it is not that hard to imagine, in light of the September 11, the state of horror it would have inflicted upon the London and the whole

Terrorism has been a part of the history in the world for centuries. Although the definition of terrorism has developed throughout time, many threats and events are described as terrorism. There have been several waves of terrorism, according to David Rapoport (Weinberg, Eubank 2014). These waves showed different goals and outcomes of the terrorist groups during a certain time period. The earliest forms of terrorism were considered assassinations in attempts to change political power. During the eleventh century, the Sicaril and Hashshashin were terrorist of that time because of their attempts at assassinations and kidnappings.

Societies will always have problems that cause some sort of reaction from individuals who believe that their social stability is being endangered. There have been a number of moral panics which have captivated society in terror and more often than not, owing to unfamiliarity. This essay will discuss the perception of a moral panic and will look at the case of the September 11th Terrorist attack against the United States of America, which triggered a colossal conflict of morality within modern day society. This essay will also analyse terrorism as a perceived deviance, the role of the moral entrepreneur and folk devil, in order to develop a level of understanding to the causes of this particular moral panic and its effects on society.

Additionally, to understand terrorism, we must understand the motivations. In the 21st century, it is fair to say that many organisations are religiously and politically motivated. Which are primary observations from the film as well, however what is also manifested in the storyline is the idea of personal vendettas or struggles, honour and the need for recognition. What I have learnt this semester is that along with the interpretations of Islam, there are many diverse people, who are then motivated differently. In week 3 for example one of the readings discussed child radicalisation, and most definitely these children are

In the film, V is initially called a terrorist by the government, even though the first scene that he is in involves him saving someone from being attacked police officers (James McTeigue, V for Vendetta). The terrorism takes on different meanings to different people. Although terrorism is usually thought of as blowing up buildings, governments generally use the term to describe people who are going against them. Terrorism is usually defined as inciting fear for political gain, and is often used by people in power to describe actions of people without power (“Radical Concept of

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

In the article titled, “The spirit of Terrorism”, by Jean Baudrillard, 2001, He captures the notion that “evil is everywhere and is an incomprehensible object of desire” (pp.1). He further went on to explain that war is horrific and demeaning to humanity but it has its contribution. Furthermore, war ended, European supremacy and the colonial era, Nazism and Communism. I support this argument, there is evil all around us, lurking in wait. Many would argue that with war comes great suffering and pain, lost of lives, years of civilization has been wiped out with just a bomb and individuals who survive war are often emotionally, physically, and psychological damage. For example, when the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. To rebuild a country to its original state after a war takes years but there is just cause for war. Hence, in the context of war done to achieve what is deemed as the greater good, we can draw on the example of eliminating Nazism, European reined and the fall of Sadam Hussian. Indeed, many innocent people lost their lives but the consequences of war are bloodshed and suffering.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.