MovieChat Forums > A Most Wanted Man (2014) Discussion > It's not all black and white, give CIA's...

It's not all black and white, give CIA's view point a chance

posted 10 years ago by FrogFlanker
19 replies | jump to latest

Movie is a bit slow but Rachel McAdams made up for it :)

In the end it seems everyone thinks CIA is the bad guy, but I'm not sure it's that simple. This Abdullah guy used charity money to buy rocket launchers for terrorists, so he's partially responsible for the death of innocent civilians, and we're supposed to just let him go unpunished?

The argument is if we remove him, someone else will take his place. But this is conjecture, not a certainty. This line of argument can be used to free any criminal, "if you arrest a thief, another will take his place, so let's just let this one go free", a very slippery slope here.

So in the end while I have sympathy for Günther for being backstabbed by his so called allies, the overall result isn't that bad.

[–] jonesc460 9 years ago

Movie is a bit slow but Rachel McAdams made up for it :)

Don't be an ignoramus...she's certainly eye candy but don't denigrate the performances. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance was tremendous, . I think the film's slow pace is intentional. But I'll elaborate later.

In the end it seems everyone thinks CIA is the bad guy, but I'm not sure it's that simple.

No, it is that simple...he's a prejudiced and xenophobic jerk...who screwed over a ton of people. He's the representative of everything wrong with the western perspective.

This Abdullah guy used charity money to buy rocket launchers for terrorists, so he's partially responsible for the death of innocent civilians, and we're supposed to just let him go unpunished?

At the expense of more innocent people? I'd say that is even trade off...these people are not law enforcement. They've presumably allowed for that before considering Günther brought it up and that is technically what they agreed to.

The argument is if we remove him, someone else will take his place. But this is conjecture, not a certainty.

That's not technically the argument. But to elaborate...it's inexorable, it's not completely conjecture...and more harm comes with doing what was done than Günther's plan.

This line of argument can be used to free any criminal, "if you arrest a thief, another will take his place, so let's just let this one go free", a very slippery slope here.

That's a horrible comparison...thievery is caused by large discrepancies in wealth distribution and the creation of desolation. To prevent thievery we give financial assistance to those who are most destitute...so they're provided with adequate means of living. The point of the whole film was that were not concerned with the the safety of the world...our concern is our own sensibilities. him. It's essentially a commentary on how callous the West can be when it comes to actually achieving global harmony.

Technically Abdullah didn't do anything illegal. It was, in actuality, illegal to have surveillance on him, apprehend him without charge, to subdue and presumably detain him without charging him also.

So in the end while I have sympathy for Günther for being backstabbed by his so called allies, the overall result isn't that bad.

What are you talking about? The end was terrible...Spoiler Alert: Abdullah and his family will probably be deported and probably separated...not to mention legitimate charities will get screwed over now, after being apprehended...Issa will probably go back to Russia to tortured some more, and in the end what is accomplished? Quick answer......nothing! It's more of the same crap!

That's why Günther's so frustrated...not to mention feeling portrayed and being forced to portray people like Jamal...who trusted him and basically brought him to that position...which is why I believe the pace was slow...to allow you to soak up the nature of the investigation and the weight the characters were holding.

Not trying to be truculent here but I think you out missed the point of the movie.

[–] benman46 9 years ago

Read the original novel and find out what really happened. The novel is far superior. The main focus is on the banker and the lawyer, not Bachmann. In the film there are too many mumbled conversations in cafes, restaurants, bars and vans, which become tedious after a while.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Od1n 9 years ago

Never heard terrorists are killing innocent people from rocket launchers.

Movie brought to light interesting questions: could secret services push ME people for being accused in terrorism, because instead of Issa it could be an agent with proper legend and money. Therefore CIA and other SS are interested in catching "terrorists" who may be actualy innocent people for many reasons like increasing funds, more power, influence, etc.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] panteleon2 9 years ago

With this movie we come across two schools of spies. The aggressive one witch is obviously the Americans witch they suffered the most from terrorism as 9-11 and all the other older and most recent events, like the bombings in the Boston Marathon if you remember... And the passive spies, the burrocrats that address to terrorism with another more peaceful perspective, i think if the US didn't declare war on terrorism that this would actually work but Gunter should know better than let this scenario take effect. At the moment he put in the loop the CIA by giving them info about Abdullah the game was lost for him and all of his people. So in my opinion he made the mistake not the CIA...

[–] Od1n 9 years ago

He was caught just like he caught his informers. He pushed with reasons and good will people for working for him, CIA did the same with him. In the end Gunter didn't have a choice just like his informers.

[–] zombieDANCE 9 years ago

Agree with all of that^

I wanted to punch Robin Wright in the face lol. And I'm an American.

Now THAT was some straight up David Copperfield sh_t!

[–] filmfancy 9 years ago

Excellent post AlongTheGreatToneRiver. You've summed up the film beautifully.

And all the pieces matter (The Wire)

[–] joope666 9 years ago

The CIA didn't abduct abdullah to cease funding to terrorists, they abducted him because they knew if bachmann brought him under control he would be an immense asset in reducing terror and hence the pretext/justification for the CIA's continued existence and expanse of power. If you think the CIA has any genuine interest in actually infiltrating terror groups to an extent they may be dismantled/neutralized you are naive, they need an enemy to justify their own existence and the actual threat of said enemy is blatantly over-stated/hyperbolized.

[–] panteleon2 9 years ago

in the end Gunder said to CIA opp. the longterm use of the plan is to bring peace to the world witch the CIA opp. did'n like as an answer. So your op might be right in the authors perspective, i don't think in real life CIA has aggentas only aggression (short sighted) wich Gunder accused the CIA already.

[–] bryanmillsfist 9 years ago

That is asinine. The reality is that in a globalized world where actions have unforeseen consequences decisions made decades ago for very different reasons can and often do create new problems. Islamic terrorism is a product of the Cold War and the decisions during that time period.

If you want to blame someone blame the US and Russia for shortsighted policies that inflamed Arab nationalism and Islamic extremism. Blame Muslims in the Middle East themselves for allowing their once sublime culture to decay to the point where they are in an Islamic version of the Dark Ages. Blame them for their misogyny, their homophobia, their refusal to acknowledge their own historical sins(see: Conquest of Spain, multiple invasions of Europe, development of the slave trade and the mass enslavement of Africans and Europeans).

For 1000 years Islam was an aggressive, proselytizing religion. Every bit as much as Christianity in fact. What they have undergone for the past century is blowback for that--just as 9-11 as blowback for the US and it’s policies.

You are in desperate need of knowledge of the past. The fact that you believe that nonsense you wrote tells me that you are extremely uninformed when it comes to geopolitics, world history, and how powerful empires/civilizations behave.

[–] joope666 9 years ago

That is exactly my point: the CIA/pentagon are responsible for empowering the most radical elements in the mujahideen, it's always been obvious al qaeda are a result of afghanistan being pissed on by both world powers at the time. I know islam conducted crusades of it's own just as I know the islamic world is largely responsible for the primitive sciences, I am not speaking in a complete void of historical knowledge.

How 'powerful empires/civilizations behave' is precisely what I was describing: america creates it's own enemies, as does any empire. Regardless, while the manipulation and it's motivations may not even be conscious for those carrying it out looking at the systematic conduct in guantanamo, where they freely admit to family members of captives they have no connection to terrorism yet cannot release their loved one(s) "because reasons" (bureaucracy) or the indiscriminate use of torture against detainees and not consider it a deliberate attempt to incite terrorism. Consciously or not, the CIA, pentagon and the bush admin are certainly guilty of 'designing the enemy'.

[–] MisterMovieGuy 9 years ago

Great post Joope, I agree with everything you've written. I was trying to say something similar in response to an above post, albeit with far less eloquence.

[–] Stofft 9 years ago

Personally I think this movie portrayed very well just how messy US foreign policy and terrorist hunt is making the world by their actions.

//Om\\

[–] Neuronhead 9 years ago

In the end it seems everyone thinks CIA is the bad guy, but I'm not sure it's that simple

The CIA's result was lose/lose, other than scoring imaginary points for catching a terrorist supporter. Abdullah is easily replaced. The Seven Friends operation, Bachman's target, would not have been easily replaced. The arrest of Abdullah would have alerted Seven Friends that they were blown. They would then have the chance to modify their operation and re-emerge to continue operating in some other form.

Bachman's end game was to control Abdullah and possibly Seven Friends.

we're supposed to just let him go unpunished?

It wasn't about retribution, it was about making the world a safer place by having more visibility around Al Qaeda operations, something that has been very difficult for western intelligence agencies to do. The CIA's result achieved nothing in the greater picture.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

[–] dnrob7 9 years ago

It's showing the CIA for what they are. American foreign policy is very simple and as crude as this might sound, the philosophy goes: "Every other nation is our enemy".
It's important to get the definition of the term "America" right here. There's the people of America, the America we love and believe in, then there's the government of USA
Two totally different things. The mandate has been, since world war 2: Allow no other nation to possess the means to challenge the U.S.. There's no room for "friends" in this, just those who are willing to co-operate in return for a place on the higher end of the scale.

These radical terrorists the CIA are throwing into their cars were as good as their property and no European country is going to try stand in their way. It's not worth the problems. I was surprised the UK said No to an extradition order for McKinnon. U.S gov wanted to make an example of an autistic hacker. (though I do wish the PM would have just stepped in and said it like it was.. (No, you won't be putting him in one of your dungeons for revenge, sort your security out and take it on the chin)
The CIA, among others like it, is an expert at creating and supporting radical elements in nations they would rather see destabilized to ensure the pecking order is safe.. The innocents that die in the process? Well the people of America will never know beyond what the news tells them and that will always be a show of smooth talking suits "condemning these monstrous acts" and the people will believe it. No "reputable" (or just well funded) news channel is ever going to say otherwise no matter what proof they might have been given.

[–] leobourne 9 years ago

Stand corrected. It's not the lower rung of the CIA who are the bad guys. It's the top notch who are bad guys like in every Agency across the world. They're in it for the posts and the power and the chance to bully others and pretend to be James ******* Bond.