"Unthinkable" is an excellent movie that will make you think

[pawe]

"Unthinkable" - Samuel L. Jackson, Carrie Ann Moss
A psychological thriller centered around a black-ops interrogator and an FBI agent who press a suspect terrorist into divulging the location of three nuclear weapons set to detonate in the U.S.

I give this movie :lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt: just because it challenged my approach to morality.

It really messed up my whole view towards the logical and the calm side of anti terrorism against the do-whatever-it-takes approach.
Will you remain human towards a terrorist but lose a million innocent lives or do the unthinkable and save people from certain harm?

If I know the man in front of me may hurt my family and only he holds the answers to where the bombs are located...I could've done worse!
In my opinion, one man who purposely tries to hurt people vs millions of innocent victims is worth it.

[Stringer_Bell]

Um, I think if a person really hates the people/symbol he's terrorizing - he could give two shits what you do to him and any violence/terror/threats you place on him just reinforces to him that you deserve to have a dirty bomb go off in your country. IMHO.

Plus, torture works on the assumption you caught someone with information. There's no telling the accuracy or validity of information you get from people who have no fucking idea what is going on and just want the pain/fear to stop. Sometimes people are at the wrong place at the wrong time or have the wrong associations, and they get fucked up for it. Oops?

[florige]

I have a feeling this is going to wind up in the political forum.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/img-wrongforum.jpg

[RandomGuy]

"Unthinkable" - Samuel L. Jackson, Carrie Ann Moss
A psychological thriller centered around a black-ops interrogator and an FBI agent who press a suspect terrorist into divulging the location of three nuclear weapons set to detonate in the U.S.

I give this movie :lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt: just because it challenged my approach to morality.

It really messed up my whole view towards the logical and the calm side of anti terrorism against the do-whatever-it-takes approach.
Will you remain human towards a terrorist but lose a million innocent lives or do the unthinkable and save people from certain harm?

If I know the man in front of me may hurt my family and only he holds the answers to where the bombs are located...I could've done worse!
In my opinion, one man who purposely tries to hurt people vs millions of innocent victims is worth it.

It is an odd conundrum.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to protect the vague notion of "freedom", and if you ask most Americans if they think that our way of life is worth dying for in a war, many would probably say yes.

"Freedom" consists of the rights of an individual against the state, where the rights of the individual are paramount, such as in the first ten amendments of our constitution, i.e. the Bill of Rights.

We also make much of the rule of law. Without our adherence to the rule of law, our country would be MUCH worse off.

We have occasionally let some of our freedoms slide, most notably during the civil war.

All of that said, do we then throw those freedoms and protections aside so easily in order to prevent deaths?

There are American citizens on our CIA's "kill on sight" list. They were put there without trial. This means, essentionally, that an American is being targeted by his government without trial. The guy is an Al Qaeda fuckstick, but he has not been found guilty of any crime, nor sentenced to death by any court.

How do we balance the rights of an individual that we say is so important that we are willing to die for, versus our own "security".

I think our long term interests are much better served by holding those rights above all else, even if there was a nuke in some city. I would feel the same were me and my family to be in that city or not.

Either our beliefs are worth dying for, or they aren't.

[dickface]

The best part was when Sam Jackson fell down the stairs and broke every bone in his legs.

[Leetonidas]

Um, I think if a person really hates the people/symbol he's terrorizing - he could give two shits what you do to him and any violence/terror/threats you place on him just reinforces to him that you deserve to have a dirty bomb go off in your country. IMHO.

Plus, torture works on the assumption you caught someone with information. There's no telling the accuracy or validity of information you get from people who have no fucking idea what is going on and just want the pain/fear to stop. Sometimes people are at the wrong place at the wrong time or have the wrong associations, and they get fucked up for it. Oops?

Yeah, I'm sure he doesn't care when he's getting his nutsack cut off.

[Blake]

The best part was when Sam Jackson fell down the stairs and broke every bone in his legs.

I saw this coming and I still loled..

:lmao

[pawe]

I dont think this belongs to the politics forum because it is just a discussion about how well I think the movie was written since it satisfies both the moviegoers who support and those who does not support torture.
It's a perfect example of why people should trust but verify.

[RandomGuy]

I dont think this belongs to the politics forum because it is just a discussion about how well I think the movie was written since it satisfies both the moviegoers who support and those who does not support torture.
It's a perfect example of why people should trust but verify.


It really messed up my whole view towards the logical and the calm side of anti terrorism against the do-whatever-it-takes approach.
Will you remain human towards a terrorist but lose a million innocent lives or do the unthinkable and save people from certain harm?

If I know the man in front of me may hurt my family and only he holds the answers to where the bombs are located...I could've done worse!
In my opinion, one man who purposely tries to hurt people vs millions of innocent victims is worth it.

[lefty]

That movie is gay