MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > Who is really to blame for collateral da...

Who is really to blame for collateral damage?

posted 8 years ago by dave-1662
35 replies | jump to latest

The reason there is collateral damage is because those who want to make war -- the people who blow up women and children at an Easter celebration, to give just the most recent example -- have intentionally chosen civilians as their targets. They intentionally hide their soldiers and their weapons inside peaceful places such as hospitals and neighborhood markets, forcing those who try to stop them to risk hurting the innocent. They do this cynically and deliberately.

They are ultimately to blame for collateral damage. They are those who force the military to choose between letting someone blow up 70 civilians, or to possibly kill 1 civilian in trying to stop them. There is no possible justification for intentionally killing civilians, but it is justified to try and stop these evil aggressors, and to target them and them only as much as possible.

One thing the movie draws out to great effect is the supreme difficulty of conducting war not only remotely by drone, but also remotely by committee. There you are, sitting on the can because you have food poisioning, and someone hands you a cellphone and asks you to approve the killing of a terrorist. It's an impossible question, almost absurd. You cannot conduct war by committee. I'm sure many Britons are comforted by the idea that the chain of decision goes all the way up to the Prime Minister (in real time!), but I was personally horrified. You need to figure out the rules of engagement BEFORE you even get into battle. You can't ask soldiers to put their lives on the line while you call up the phone tree. The Americans look cold by comparison in the movie, but in fact I think they had the better of it. You make your choices and then live with them.

A very thought-provoking movie.

[–] AWaite4 8 years ago

I noticed the Americans were all gung-ho, while the Brits were all pass-the-buckaroos. No more Churchills among em, I guess.

.
.
Tenser, said the Tensor.
Tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun.

[–] captkirk_459 8 years ago

As an American I am appalled by my country's use of drones and thus spy tech. This spy tech could be used by our own government against us. Some law enforcement have used drones for law enforcement but they were not lethal vs those used in the battlefield. Still I am very. Icon against drones. The families of the collateral damage would be raticalized to become terrorists out of revenge.

[–] Ed in MO 8 years ago

It's interesting how the language changes depending upon whether it's your citizens dying ("an atrocity") or theirs ("collateral damage"). We live in an Orwellian world.

[–] theRetiree 8 years ago

The British voice of moral superiority: well, if the terrorists blow up 80 people [because we're too morally upright to approve the strike] it'll be the terrorists fault. And the best line of the movie: Alan Rickman's next to last line. An absolute masterpiece. I think we know what Winston Churchill would have done.

[–] skylab00 8 years ago

that was pretty good. that lady was getting all high and mighty until he alan rickman says that he has seen the aftermath of 5 suicide bombings.

[–] decroissance 8 years ago

But hold on. The movie wanted to raise the question, what's the best method to win "the war on terror?" Is military force the best way, with bombs and assassinations, or is that military force a cause of terrorism? Does it cause some young people to join terrorist groups?

Many military and diplomatic officials are adamant that trying to "win the war" with military might will only attract more and more people to terrorist groups, and therefore we will have an eternal war.

The film argued this point when they were talking about a possible leak of their surveillance videos and their conversation. The Jeremy Northam character (I think) said that videos on YouTube (of just that kind of footage) are how ISIS and similar groups perpetuate themselves.

The woman started this discussion when she said, "I don't want to be the one going on the Today Show explaining why the British military killed innocent people in a friendly country."

Then a man in the room said something to the effect of: "she's right; if what we've done gets leaked, it will be a blow to the propaganda war."

I'm not advocating for either decision, (whether to bomb the house or not); I'm just clarifying the issues the movie presents.

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

Sure! He would have signed off on the fire-bombing of Dresden!

Your unthinking willingness to support slaughter could use some tempering perhaps.

With my complete lack of military and political training, I would actually agree that they made the right call in this story.

But I think its REASSURING that they did not, collectively, make it without serious consideration and discussion.

[–] frankzappayay 8 years ago

But they were the opposite of morally upright. They didn't want to kill one girl because the press would tear them apart, so said they would prefer 80 innocent people to die instead because it fuel the hatred towards terrorism instead.

[–] lottapaws 8 years ago

Read some factual history books regarding WWII. Talk with the elderly in Italy, France, Germany, and other European countries about collateral damage. They welcomed our planes and the bombing because they were suffering the consequences of being overtaken by a terrorist. They understood the cost of freedom and the cost of doing nothing. Freedom comes at a cost, always. If you don't want to pay that price, and it is horrendous, then try living in a terrorist occupied part of Iraq. Of course, you won't have the freedom to come back home, you'll have little freedom, if any. We are fighting radicals that want to take over the world, literally. They WILL bring the war to our soil, make no mistake. They are doing so right now. They are patient, they are waiting until we are totally vulnerable, which is the direction we are heading.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] decroissance 8 years ago

I hardly know where to start. It don't think you actually read my post.

I didn't say anything about collateral damage. I'm talking about how terrorist Islamic groups sprang up in the first place and how they attract a steady flow of new recruits.

There are many military and diplomatic officials who believe that it will be impossible to stop the terrorists through bombing. Their opinions have nothing to do with concerns about collateral damage. They're talking about what will and won't be effective to stop terrorism.

There are also books about the history of US and European intervention in the middle east and what the consequences of this intervention have been. I don't have the titles at hand right now; I'll find a couple and post them.

[–] Inspector2211 8 years ago

I concur. I was stationed in West Germany from 1988-1992, and rented from a combined American/Germany family (father was a retire American Master Sergeant). The mother was a German woman who was among the few in her family to survive the complete destruction of Hanau. She showed me pictures and told of how Hitler ordered Hanau, which is just east of Frankfurt, to keep its lights on and draw bombers off of Hanau. She said she never blamed the Americans because Germanys started the war and there was only one way to win it. She never held a grudge.

[–] kyle_delaney 8 years ago

The Americans were not all gung-ho. Aaron Paul and his copilot were some of the most reluctant characters in the movie.

I don't know what you mean by pass-the-buckaroos, but I'm guessing you mean something approximately opposite from gung-ho. This is also false. Helen Mirren was arguably the most vehemently in support of the strike.

[–] decroissance 8 years ago

She was, but the British politicians passed the buck all the way up to the Prime Minister.

[–] pretzelal 8 years ago

Maybe they learned something.

[–] mylesag 8 years ago

Of course. Who else? It's the islamic fundamentalists aim to litter the streets with bodies and limbs of as many innocent souls as they can take!!

Fight fire with fire!!

[–] DD-931 8 years ago

The film takes the right approach to the subject: sometimes you have to pull the trigger, but you should NEVER celebrate it, and you should never ignore the consequences. Collateral damage is a tragedy even when you're right.

God save us from people who think a choice like this is a no-brainer. Although perhaps it is helpful in warning us about their own lack of a brain.

[–] Milkdoesabodygood 8 years ago

For now, I blame the stupid girl for sticking around in a fundamentalist controlled area that her father MADE very clear to her. Something I learned living in a ghetto, take the money and run, don't stick around. The kid got greedy to make more money instead of going straight home and telling her papa what happened and he would have told her, stay inside now since the solders were chasing somebody around and to hold the bread for the man who dropped it.
They also could have waited until they got into the cars and then bomb them but that would have shifted the collateral damage more to the other houses.

Spoiler alert for them spoil sports out there! Y'all like spoiled milk, stop crying over it!

[–] decroissance 8 years ago

She only did that because the writers made her do that, so maybe it's a flaw in the screenwriting. Or, maybe it's unrealistic to expect a little girl to think logically like that, and besides, if the family really needed the money, it's not greed, it's need.

[–] lukefarnbach-66076 8 years ago

No, she sticks around, because that's what poor people in poor countries do. They don't have the choice like you or I to just pick up and move because *beep* gets bad. This is their life. Really, people who are commenting here need to get out of their insular little cocoons they call a life and take a look around. These people do not choose this life. And then we go make a *beep* life *beep* by bombing them, and justifying and dehumanising it with words like collateral damage and friendly fire. We are slowly but surely losing our humanity

[–] zumaondeki 8 years ago

Firstly I thought it was an outstanding film that posed the right questions amid a crisis for the powers to be,however Like you I posed the question was it greed by the child that created the collateral damage?

[–] dreamchildrulesfandorina 8 years ago

in my opinion the most sensible answer.:-))

[–] vadllens01 8 years ago

"Those who want to make war" LOL. Let me guess, you are a trump or cruz supporter who has never read a book in your life unless it's written by bill o reilly and may or may have not have attended a confederate civil war reenactment. You have no ability to objectively look at cause and effect. If china invaded the US, ousted and executed donald trump and installed a surrogate that would allow them to exploit natural resources do you think we might have some rednecks in alabama that would take up arms and become "terrorists"? You go into someone elses country with a gun and try to take there *beep* and you better be ready to fight jack. We kill more civilians than anyone but fox news justified it for you real nice short didn't they. Can't get a conservative to read anything longer than a meme.

[–] goatbut29 8 years ago

Oops! Your Bernie Bruh is showing!

Evil Fox news again.
Lol.
Say no more...

[–] MaryZona 8 years ago

For those who want to explore more details, I recommend:

The morality of collateral damage
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory/

The jihadist movement
http://www.c-span.org/video/?200888-1/words-raymond-ibrahim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XptkI6CHndM

How to end the jihadist movement
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/09/jihad-america-end/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2015/11/ten-steps-to-end-jihad-against-the-west/

[–] featheredsun 8 years ago

Your links are garbage, and I'm sure your blog sucks too.

To save rational folks the trouble, the links go to a site that energetically proposes total war with Iran and Saudi Arabia as a means to end terrorism against the west.

That's so retarded, I won't even go into it, aside from just saying that it is perhaps the most surefire way to ensure a complete destabilization of world peace that I've seen in some time. It's almost as if Great Cthuhlu himself were writing it, just hoping we'd take that option to hasten his return!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hillrosemary 8 years ago

Frankly, I think that's a question without an answer for anyone who hasn't been involved in conflict. It's very easy to make judgements about who's responsible for what and what certain parties should or should not do from a safe distance away from the pressure. As for 'rules of engagement', they're fine if both sides are playing by the same ones. What do you do when terrorists (who usually don't) deliberately position themselves among civilians so as to present those hunting them with precisely the dilemma portrayed in Eye in The Sky? If you decide not to strike because of the risk to those civilians the terrorists will most likely slaughter others, equally innocent. If you decide to give the operation the go-ahead and innocent civilians being used as a shield by the terrorists are killed, then the world's press and keyboard warriors will slaughter you.

Here's another question - what would you do? I came out of the film asking it of myself, and after several days wondering I still don't know the answer. I don't imagine anyone who thinks in shades of grey instead of black and white does. As you say, dave-1662, a very thought-provoking film.

[–] Lt_Kilgore357 8 years ago

Who is really to blame for collateral damage?

Depends which side you ask.

“I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”

[–] Ithilfaen 8 years ago

They intentionally hide their soldiers and their weapons inside peaceful places such as hospitals and neighborhood markets, forcing those who try to stop them to risk hurting the innocent. They do this cynically and deliberately.

I had the same thought, watching the movie. These people say they are fighting evil but they know full well their "enemy" is going to think twice before firing into a civilian crowd.

However, if you're trying to assign blame, you can't stop at these cowards hiding in civilian markets, you also have to point the finger to our governments and our big corporations, oil, arm industry etc who engineered the situation in the Middle East.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] cdreid1 8 years ago

Drone technology isnt ultrahightech top secret stuff. Hobbyists were building long range drones before the US military was.. they just didnt weaponise them. So im curious .. how will you feel about "collateral damage" when it's an american hospital? Or a European soccer match? How will you feel when a terrorist group, or rebel army or small nation or intelligence agency sends a cheap completely autonomous drone built in a garage to slaughter people at the Superbowl?

The problem with spending so much of our intellectual and economic power to develop new ways to kill each other is that with each advance each INDIVIDUAL HUMAN gains more and more power to slaughter large numbers of their fellow humans. And as we humans seem to be, at our core, willing to do evil for the slightest gain... what do you think the endgame will be here.