MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > That was just flat out murder!

That was just flat out murder!

posted 8 years ago by macktan894
17 replies | jump to latest

In real life, I don't think these people pause 5 seconds if there are innocent children in the area of a target. That the movie gave them that much credit is unbelievable. And it's never just one child they kill, it's many and they know it. So their constructed argument--sacrifice 1 child to save 100 people--is preposterous and rarely the case.

What is believable is the view of the Americans who chime in and don't even find the matter worth debating. They won't even acknowledge the child as a child but only as collateral. But what can you expect from a govt whose police will kill a 12-year old boy playing in a playground in under 2 seconds and justify it on the basis that he was big for his age.

I couldn't do that job. I'm not even religious but if I'd murdered a child, I'd immediately go to any church and beg for forgiveness. Then I'd just quit the military. If the US & Britain think they'll win against terrorism by killing innocent people from their play stations, they are wrong.

And I won't even get into the morality of a bunch of white officials ordering the murder of a bunch of innocent black people--but that's been going on for centuries.

Excuse me. I have to throw up.

[–] zooymtoo 8 years ago

And I won't even get into the morality of a bunch of white officials ordering the murder of a bunch of innocent black people--but that's been going on for centuries.

Please clarify this statement. Are you suggesting the men strapping on the suicide vest and the ones helping them do so are a bunch of innocent black people?
What about all the other innocent black people that they plan to kill with those vest?
You do realize this has nothing to do with color. These men..and woman ..were not going to get on a plane and find some white people to kill. They were going to kill locally and randomly.

[–] macktan894 8 years ago

So you are saying that these Great White Leaders are only there in Africa, in the Mideast, because they care about the lives of these people? You are saying that this is their pre-eminent motivation--a profound empathy and compassion for the black community?

That's what the state attorney said when he defended killing Tamir Rice, a 12-year old boy, in under 2 seconds. The lives of everyone in that vicinity were in danger. We had to kill him.

In this film, you don't see these officials bemoaning the lives of these people. They are there to protect the economic interests of the Empire, that's their priority. At least, in this film, the British worried about how this would look to the world if it were leaked, that instead of the terrorists killing people the Empire did it instead. Yes, the terrorists would have killed 80 people. The Empire killed 40 or more, but we don't know since they falsified the statistics and the reporting.

Yes, I deplore suicide bombers but I do have to wonder why, year after year, decade after decade, they continue to do it. Although this film does suggest why this kind of terrorism continues to thrive. By the end of the film, the Empire has created two new terrorists--parents of a little girl killed by some white people who decided her life was less important than their target. Parents who now have nothing left to live for.

If the Empire asks these people to give up their lives as collateral damage, at least have the cojones to have people there on the ground who risk their lives to save the innocent. But if you are doing the same thing the terrorists are doing, you are saving nobody.

[–] bonsai-superstar 8 years ago

These brown people in other countries do stupid things for the same reasons white people in North America do stupid things: religion. Ignorant people believe their god/way/belief is the "correct" one and are willing to die or kill for it. Bombing abortion clinics. 9/11. Carrying "God Hates Fags" signs. Genocide. Molesting kids. Vaginal circumcision. Etc. Despite this way of thinking being an embarrassment to the human race, these people are the majority. If the human race does survive, they will look back on these current ways of "thinking" with shame.

[–] macktan894 8 years ago

Although I'm not religious, generally I don't have a problem with those who use religion to better themselves. Unfortunately, the power hungry have figured out that religion makes people vulnerable and easy to exploit and manipulate so that it's used like another form of population control and power tripping...the same can be said about nationalism. Belief in god or country is used to control, recruit and weaponize people.

Yes, there are many days when I despair the destiny of the human race. Killing people day in and day out in response to killing people day in and day out doesn't bring peace, stability, harmony, security, etc. With the onset of technologies and unstable regions of the planet, there will come one day when someone will go nuclear. You look at the kind of unstable personality that could become a US president and that threat may come from the US. I'd like to think the Pentagon would refuse that order.

Yes, there's enough stupid all around the planet.

[–] bonsai-superstar 8 years ago

And yet another brainwashed idiot killed another 50 people today because of religion. "Believers" = ignorant dupes. "Preachers" = cynical exploiters.

[–] bonsai-superstar 8 years ago

And yet another brainwashed idiot killed another 84 people the other day because of religion.

[–] IMDbeans 8 years ago

Holy *beep* I'm glad there are real men out there to keep us safe and not nappy-wearing libtards like you who would let 80 people die rather than 1. It truly makes me sick to my stomach that such morally bankrupt people like you exist in this world. No wonder we have such loser politicians if people like you are allowed to vote. Please grow a pair ASAP!

[–] tbone382001 8 years ago

Right on BEANS. Not only all the people that are going to die from the vests but how many more people are those terrorists going to kill in the future if they live? You could be talking thousands. They are certainly going to try and kill as many as possible with those vests.

My God, no one wants to see a little girl killed but your talking about saving handfuls of kids if those vests are used and the terrorists live and do this again numerous times. Only possibly killing 1 person is as good as it gets pretty much.

I'd be sick to my stomach also if I had to press the button but I would know I saved lives and did the right thing.

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

So there was an episode of RadioLab that covered an experiment on brain activity. It studied what parts of the brain were most active when the subjects were asked what they would do in certain situations. Quite fascinating.

Anyway, the most interesting question posed was "would you kill your OWN kid if you knew that a whole village would die if you didn't?"

And the more I read these threads about this movie, the more I keep thinking - what if that hula-hooping girl was the daughter of one of the characters on the joint operations staff. AND, by extension, people posting in these threads - what would they decide in that case?

As the brain study found, the answers were strikingly aligned toward whether or not the subject was an actual parent. NONE of the actual parents said that they'd make that sacrifice. Things become quite a bit easier when it's someone else's family in the crosshairs.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mason25 8 years ago

Couldn't agree more bean, my only issue is that they ONLY assessed it at 80 or so potential deaths... I know they can only go on what they see at that time, but the #2,4&5 on the hit list, you can't tell me that they wouldn't be responsible for MANY MANY more deaths, to say nothing of what they had ALREADY done.

[–] apophianstudios 8 years ago

So would have it been murder if they didn't bomb that house and allowed those two suicide bombers to go out and kill 20 children? As usual, the OP type can't comprehend on a pragmatic level and is solely ruled by emotion and biased politics.

[–] simian_ninja 8 years ago

No, they don't - it's why you read about drone bombings killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The real tragedy is that people don't realise that killing innocent people adds fuel to the fire and creates an entire generation of even more disenchanted people that want to go and become extremists.

--------------------------------------
Death is the standard breach for a complex prize.

[–] macktan894 8 years ago

Thank you simian for refusing to promote the theory that killing people, including innocent people, brings world peace and makes us safe.

And the Jack Bauer argument that it's okay to kill one innocent person to save hundreds is just specious as well. It's never just 1 person vs hundreds. It's often hundreds of innocent people whose lives are destroyed just to get a few. The US invaded Iraq, dropped bombs, destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of Iraquis just to get Saddam Hussein, despite being told from a variety of sources that there were no WMDs there. Saddam Hussein didn't even participate in 911!

Also take note that among all the people on this phone call that decides whether it's okay to kill this little girl--the govts of Britain and the US--one is curiously missing. The leader of the country they are bombing. While I'm sure the leader of that country has given them permission to bomb the terrorists, I'm not so sure that the leader would acquiesce to killing the innocents in the process. The film presents this as a black and white choice, but we've seen repeatedly that they are always other options. You put people on the ground to safeguard the innocent community. Yes, their lives are at risk, but so are the lives of the people who live there.

This is just a bunch of bs from people who not only don't care about the little girl but who don't care about the people they are presumably "saving."

[–] BBogus 8 years ago

You spew a lot of verbal diarrhea while enjoying the freedom these people provide you. Arrogant crybabies like you are exactly the reason why terrorists have it so easy to roam around and commit their heinous crimes while you provide them with excuses and justifications. Moreover, you are more focused on the rights and freedom of terrorists than the common good. You should go talk and explain your nonsense logic to the relatives of the 49 in Orlando.

[–] Dubdub1974 7 years ago

Well you know, when the UK and US bombed the crap out of France during the 2nd world war to defeat the nazis there were many more collateral damage than there have been over the last 15 years of the middle eastern drudgery...and yet, they were welcomed as saviors after D day despite destroying half the country (no exageration) ...so collateral damage isn't the issue, war is not and can not be pretty or fair by definition...

The question which has yet to be resolved is how do you win a war where there are no battlefronts and the enemy is blended into the civilian population - no one managed to crack that in Afghanistan over the last 40+ years so it really doesn't look good: unless there is a local will to exterminate these radicals, exterior forces won't be able to do this alone...so what kind of partnerships can we build with a people who even if they are not radicals view the west with at best wariness and at worst profound distrust and who are NOT interested in importing our values... and the answer found during the 2nd world war where all the US could do was nuke Japan as at the time they were the radicals that would rather suicide bomb than give up is just not viable these days...so what does one do?...tough nut to crack...so far no good...

[–] dakowill11 7 years ago

Speaking as a Christian pacifist myself I am personally against the use of violence as a means of solving our problems and I believe Christ Jesus spoke truth when He said, "...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Although I concede that Old Testament laws (e.g. Exodus 20-23; etc.) advocating capital punishment, legitimate warfare and self-defense are fitting as a basis for national law, the New Testament example of Christ and His disciples prove to me that on an individual level, however, violence should not even be contemplated or considered as an option. And the longer I live the more I believe this to be true. For instance, abortion is a violent act an individual might resort to in an attempt to avoid the inconvenience or financial burden of an unwanted pregnancy or a disabled child. Likewise, if a targeted assassination of a terrorist leads to the deaths of innocent people as collateral damage how different is that to the terrorist's intention to murder himself along with innocent people elsewhere? Both choices are examples of violence and in my opinion reflect the perverted principle "the end justifies the means"—a mantra that is religiously followed on both sides of the conflict. Their contrived arguments are not unlike the hypothetical, "If you could go back in time and saw Hitler as a child drowning in a river would you save him or let him drown?" It is my belief that no one will be judged for the actions of another person, but their own. So how can my saving Hitler as an innocent child condemn me for his later demon-possessed acts as an adult? So although there are people who devise such arguments like that quoted in the film to justify their violent actions and seemingly get away with murder in the end I don't believe they do as I firmly believe in a future state of rewards and punishments. And in the hereafter before the judgment seat of Christ they will be held to account. Their day of reckoning will come.