MovieChat Forums > Good Kill (2015) Discussion > Nonsensical film made for moral idiots

Nonsensical film made for moral idiots


Moral idiots are people who don't understand moral philosophy who can't seem to fathom simple logic to reason why a government would conduct drone warfare. There are simply a lot of logical problems in this movie.

- Ethan Hawke's character kills a rapist because he saw him rape (like as if rape = death penalty). But he's upset over kills where he doesn't SEEEEEEE the crimes committed (where the agency is telling him that such and such is a mass murderer; but Ethan hawke doesn't believe it). So his problem is not the drones or the agency. It's the fact that he doesn't see the crimes being committed in front of his eyes.

It shows his stupidity and human nature rather than any reality about drone warfare or agency procedures.

- The cycle of violence - It's not at all a cycle of violence. If you kill 5 terrorists, 5 other kids do not become terrorists because they saw 5 terrorist guys die. It doesn't work that way. This isn't like fighting bacteria. 5 horrible terrorists die, that's 5 less bad guys on the battlefield, their structure is weakened, their organization is weakened, their war effort is weakened. They need to replace it, but what happens when every new recruit becomes another victim? It starts to be a stupid way to fight. It makes more sense to not join that group.

- The drug-war comparison. Drugs are a business. The illegality of drugs, makes it more attractive, violent, and profitable of a business. It's a self-fueling cycle. Terrorism is not the same. The more you kill them, the weaker they become, the less likely they can wage war. They believe in terror not because it's a way of life or business. But because it is their belief. Once the believers of that violent ideology die off, they can't recruit new people.

- The movie focuses on drones. But how is that different with the jet strikes? if you're in an F16 the only difference is you don't get to see the carnage below your plane. The same number of civilians still die. In fact, more civilians die because an F16 does more damage than a hellfire missile.

- When will it end? Wars never last forever. One side has to eventually lose enough recruits and ideological steam that they will not be able to gain enough followers and funds anymore. We have defeated worse ideologies before: Imperial Japanese cult. The cult of Nazism. These were horrific regimes that were much more capable and much smarter and much better equipped than Taliban or ISIS. Why do you think the US can take care of Nazism and Imperial Japan easier than ISIS or Taliban over 70 years ago? In fact, we are more capable now than ever.

The Iraq War had what, 5000 American deaths? That's like a bad afternoon in WWII or WWI. We killed something like 40,000 terrorists. We won the Iraq War, up until we abandoned it and then in 2013, the stupidity of the Iraqi government caused the rise of ISIS.

- It's always our fault. Put troops on the ground, it's our fault. Use airstrikes/dronestrikes instead, it's still our fault. Take prisoners to interrogate, it's our fault. Don't take prisoners and kill them, it's still our fault. It's almost like as if the people arguing against drones and stuff are people who don't approve of ANY war effort by the US. It's like as if they are ideologically opposed to the US. Nothing the US does will please them except if the US is losing/surrendering/ceasefiring.

It's not always US fault. There are plenty of other players, individuals, making THEIR OWN DAAMN CHOICES. Their own moral choices.

They treat women like crap. They strap things on little kids. They plant mines and ieds. They oppress people. They specifically target the innocent, while we accidentally hit the innocent.

- The movie tries to portray the agency as if they intentionally inflict harm on civilians as a "war crime". But where is the evidence of this? Plenty of targets of drone strikes have always had terrorists. It was never "just rescue workers". It was never "just a wedding/funeral" ... It ALWAYS had a mass murderer as the main target.

reply

OP's comments clearly illustrate the problems with home schooling.

God might, I won't.
-JCVD

reply

dpexecute, you use the term "terrorist" as if it were simply synonymous with "bad guy". Real life isn't a videogame. In real life, terrorists have families and friends. Look at a concrete example like Northern Ireland. When terrorists in Northern Ireland were killed that led to bitterness amongst those left behind and made them all the more interested in fighting for the cause. The same thing was true when innocent bystanders were killed. All the killing led to more killing.

This isn't an argument against killing terrorists. But it IS a clear contradiction of the idea that killing terrorists somehow reduces the number of terrorists. In the end, terrorism in Northern Ireland was drastically reduced because everybody was fed up and the British government offered a carefully negotiated political agreement to satisfy the need for an end to the bloodshed. If you want to end terrorism then part of the solution has to involve tackling the issues which motivate the terrorism in the first place.

Faceless drones make the US appear like a faceless and easily demonised villain. Particularly to those unlucky enough to be wrongly targeted or accidentally caught in the blast.

reply

[deleted]

You had to be "that guy" didn't you? The OP is wrong on numerous points, but you had to add even more stupidity to the thread by making the same stereotypical statements of every other moron on IMDB. congratulations on adding nothing meaningful to the conversation.

reply

"Drone" has become the new buzzword. It has about the same amount of negative stigma as "holocaust". It's ridiculous.

▇ ▆ ▅ ▃ ▂ ▁ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ewVfsXIQNA ▁ ▂ ▃ ▅ ▆ ▇

reply

Wow you are a sad ignorant little guy.

reply

You are a CNN brainwashed moral dwarf preaching on ethics! You guys killed thousands and thousands of civilians in Iraq and you call them terrorists?! Wouldn't you fight the invaders in your own country? Shame on you.

reply

Terrorist alert

reply

I think you make some valid points. Some people are uneasy with the notion of the operator of the drone not being physically present in the battlefield. They feel that the kill becomes morally wrong because of this. I see this viewpoint as more of a gut reaction than a logical one.

I believe that drones are the most effective way of conducting terrorist strikes. The way I see it, a military has 4 options in regards to terrorists: they can use a drone, a manned jet, ground troops, or they can simply not deal with the terrorists at all. A drone and manned jet will undoubtedly cause civilians casualties, ground troops have the potential to avoid civilian casualties (but the likelihood of casualties is still quite high), and taking no action will obviously not cause any casualties. One should keep in mind that a common tactic among insurgents is to take refuge behind civilians, thus marring any attempt to cleanly kill them without collateral damage.

For each scenario there is also a trade-off in regards to operator death. Drones have zero potential for operator casualty, which is why they are so appealing to those operating them. Manned jets have the potential for 1-2 operator deaths, while Ground troops offer a much higher death rate, for obvious reasons. Again, taking no action results in zero casualties.

Now it seems that the general consensus is that ground troops are a no no. Americans hate sending their men overseas, and it doesn't really seem like the civilians of the middle east are too keen on them either. Soldiers have to be transported, fed, they need translators, bases, and often times they are simply ineffective. So let's take ground troops out of the equation. Clearly, manned jets offer a higher risk of operator death while maintaining about the same amount of civilian casualties. So I contend that a drone is a better solution than a manned jet (if someone disagrees with me on this, or knows something I don't, please give me a reply). So we are left with Drones and taking no action as the only remaining options. So it seems that the question we should all be asking here is not, "Are Drones a moral/proper way of taking out terrorists?". Rather, one should ask, "Should we even try to kill the terrorists/is it worth it?".

Now what I have said is not my opinion, but simply me following a logical path. If somebody sees an error in my logic, I implore you to point it out. I'm interested discussing this matter and coming up with genuine solutions, not pointless back and forth and name-calling.

reply

The main beef we should have as americans, is the question of why this all happened in the first place, and why it continues. Who created terrorists? Al Quada? ISIS? And if they already existed, why do they have any interest in attacking and killing us? We're millions of miles away, overseas, and yet they feel the need to burn our flags and take our innocent lives? Could it be that they have a reason for doing what they do, as psychopathic as it is?

Idk I don't have interest in what method of "counter" terrorism we use. That solves nothing in my mind, only further propagates a problem that will seemingly go on forever. The more we kill, the more terrorists that are bred. You kill a man, every member of his family turns his eye towards you for vengeance. And we have killed millions, thus creating millions more ready to die for what they believe, which is that we are an evil empire who had no business in their land in the first place. And guess what? They're right.

Sure drones are better for us since our government doesn't get the bad press that ground troops generate. But they're no less immoral and disgusting, as all of our involvement in the middle east has been.

reply

mmmh, this post is so full of BS, I'm pretty convinced this is a simple troll post. and as with all trolls, better to just ignore it.

reply

This post is nonsensical and for moral idiots lol. I'm sorry to say but if you think that you can just kill all the bad people and then the world will be better and free of anger you clearly have no idea what's going on beyond your borders. Your fear makes you believe you have more rights than other people. If other countries came to the states and did drone bombings in public places because they disagreed with our policies you'd be singing a very different tune about "terrorists and bad guys".

reply

They do, numb nuts. Why do you think we're bombing them?

reply