Poll

16 votes (80%)
4 votes (20%)

20 members have voted

rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 160
  • Posts: 9184
May 9th, 2011 at 1:09:35 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Luckily, there are people who can make that decision (which ever way), and I'm unlikely to get myself in such a position.



I decided I would probably dither too long on torturing children until eventually the cities would get nuked. Then I'd probably jump out a window.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 264
  • Posts: 14159
May 9th, 2011 at 3:07:44 AM permalink
In A Bridge to the Sun an American woman who married a Japanese diplomat in Washington, DC and insisted on staying with him when he was returned to Japan after Pearl Harbor, there is a description of how she suddenly realized how long just combing her hair was taking her each morning because of the weakness and malnutrition.

Starvation would have been politically correct too, so I wonder why they dropped the bombs. Stalin already knew that Trinity had taken place but the USA was not aware he knew.

Ethics of warfare?
Eisenhower never ordered POWs to be shot, he simply said that certain POWs were "not to be brought into Division Headquarters". Well, what did he think would happen at the Company level? That they would build a hotel for them?

When a German battleship covered its guns with the international flag for Church Services and broadcast that it was steaming solely to rescue hundreds of men in the water, allied bombers were ordered to locate and attack the vessel.

Our firebombing of Dresden killed more than our atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In Dresden even the streets burned.

Concentration Camps? Hah! Both the practice and the phrase were first used by Great Britain in the Boer War, known in some quarters as the War of Zionist Aggression.
cellardoor
cellardoor
Joined: Jan 4, 2011
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 70
May 9th, 2011 at 11:39:53 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I'm not so much concerned with either/or, questions like this, but if/maybe questions? And of course, we could also be eventually considering U.S. citizens that are jihadists too.

if you're a U.S. citizen willing to be tortured on a "maybe we'll get some useful information from you basis", that's giving up a quite a chunk of rights for security. I'm less concerned if we have proof of a ticking bomb and people will be able to prove it also. I'm not concerned that much for people who would make a decision to torture in such a scenario, because even people sitting in judgement should be given latitude judging those people. Well, I think they should.

It's like one of those judgements that award a dollar. You don't make extra-legal powers for the government to fuck us over, but you give people in judgement the ability to administer a slap on the wrist where necessary.




I just watched this movie last night because of this forum, thanks to Netflix streaming. In this movie, the terrorist is a full blown American born citizen. When the main female character initially objected to his torture on the grounds that he is a US citizen and violation of the Geneva Convention, etc, one of the 'higher ups' said they revoked his citizenship and were treating him as an enemy combatant. I'm not very knowledgeable as to whether or not that type of thing is actually possible. Most of this movie, besides the moral issue of intense torture, were all the 'higher ups' knowing that they had to condone this torture but wording it and acting in a way to cover their ass from prosecution after the fact.
zippyboy
zippyboy
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1098
May 16th, 2011 at 10:30:43 PM permalink
I know I'm a bit late to this party, but I just caught this movie on one of the cable movie channels and only watched because of this thread.

What a waste of time. All the characters knew what was at stake, and I'm embarrassed for all the military types in the torture room who were too pussified to to the right thing. Only Samuel L. Jackson's "H" character had any balls to him, and he was constantly met with interference by Carrie Ann Moss (Agent Brody) who cried "Are we barbarians? We can't hurt the children!" or something similar every 5 minutes. Movie was so awful, the character of the General in charge of getting the info from our jihadist pronounced "nuclear" as "nucular" like our idiot last president did. Even if that actor couldn't pronounce it properly, you'd think someone in the studio would yell "CUT!" and correct him. Just a horrible movie. No wonder it wasn't released in theaters. Just my 2 cents. Please don't start another thread about a different shitty movie and have me waste another 1.5 hours. Thank you.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
May 16th, 2011 at 10:52:19 PM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

I know I'm a bit late to this party, but I just caught this movie on one of the cable movie channels and only watched because of this thread..


Quote: Unthinkable (Sony) Review

... itís a clumsy polemic that bounces between the boundaries of stage-play debate and torture porn spectacle as everyone argues over ethics, morality and just what we are willing to sacrifice to safeguard against a nuclear terrorist strike.
Full Review


I did post the review.
zippyboy
zippyboy
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1098
May 16th, 2011 at 11:15:40 PM permalink
Yep, paco, I guess you did. I should've read it rather than just blindly watching that movie just so I could catch up in this thread. In my short time on this forum, I've learned you are the respectable authority on virtually all things social or casino-related, and I'll be sure to listen next time. Seriously.

[/flatter]
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 422
  • Posts: 23621
May 16th, 2011 at 11:41:11 PM permalink
Was this movie a comedy? I laughed and laughed. The military is a portrayed as a bunch of simpering morons who have to depend on a midevil torturer to get the job done. They literally run and hide while Jackson bitch slaps the criminal and gives him a hotfoot. But the wascally Muslim fools them all, he wanted to be tortured because he knew he wouldn't break. They should have turned him over to the Mob. The Boys say everybody breaks, theres never been a holdout. One of the dumbest, most obvious and crappily done movies I've seen in years. I'm serious, I was laughing my ass off, it was very funny.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
zippyboy
zippyboy
Joined: Jan 19, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1098
May 17th, 2011 at 12:19:02 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

But the wascally Muslim fools them all, he wanted to be tortured because he knew he wouldn't break.


Yeah, but then break he did, like immediately, when his kids were brought into the room. Screamed like a little bitch, then shot himself so he wouldn't have to watch their pain.

The description on my DVR listing gave it 4 stars (!!) so I thought it might be worth a look. 4 stars! I think even Titanic and Avatar only got 3 stars, and they lead the Oscar statues for all history. Unthinkable didn't even get an theatrical release. Cable provider Cox Communications kinda loses credibility when they give it 4 stars. Shouldda named it Stinkable.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 422
  • Posts: 23621
May 17th, 2011 at 1:57:35 AM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

Yeah, but then break he did, like immediately, when his kids were brought into the room. Screamed like a little bitch, then shot himself so he wouldn't have to watch their pain.



Thats not what I got from it. They said he had planned all along to give up the 3 bombs and keep the 4th a secret by making them think he was broken.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
May 17th, 2011 at 6:38:48 AM permalink
Quote: zippyboy

I know I'm a bit late to this party, but I just caught this movie on one of the cable movie channels and only watched because of this thread.

What a waste of time. All the characters knew what was at stake, and I'm embarrassed for all the military types in the torture room who were too pussified to to the right thing. Only Samuel L. Jackson's "H" character had any balls to him, and he was constantly met with interference by Carrie Ann Moss (Agent Brody) who cried "Are we barbarians? We can't hurt the children!" or something similar every 5 minutes. Movie was so awful, the character of the General in charge of getting the info from our jihadist pronounced "nuclear" as "nucular" like our idiot last president did. Even if that actor couldn't pronounce it properly, you'd think someone in the studio would yell "CUT!" and correct him. Just a horrible movie. No wonder it wasn't released in theaters. Just my 2 cents. Please don't start another thread about a different shitty movie and have me waste another 1.5 hours. Thank you.



Quote: EvenBob

Was this movie a comedy? I laughed and laughed. The military is a portrayed as a bunch of simpering morons who have to depend on a midevil torturer to get the job done. They literally run and hide while Jackson bitch slaps the criminal and gives him a hotfoot. But the wascally Muslim fools them all, he wanted to be tortured because he knew he wouldn't break. They should have turned him over to the Mob. The Boys say everybody breaks, theres never been a holdout. One of the dumbest, most obvious and crappily done movies I've seen in years. I'm serious, I was laughing my ass off, it was very funny.



I didn't say the movie was good. I said it was thought-provoking. I also said that the Sony reviewer was so off on the content that he probably didn't watch it, and I also said that Hollywood simply cannot deal with some topics because of their political pre-disposition. It makes sense to me that a part of the world that thinks of these issues as a bunch of caricatures and trite stereotypes produces a film full of the same things. Sam Jackson's portrayal stands out because he's the only one who brought depth to any of the roles. The rest of them were just ... caricatures.

But it still poses the question and provokes thought with all its faults. I would also say that it's a dodge to avoid the question just because the movie is poor. I agree that a better-produced, better-thought-out, don't-assume-the-Hollywood-liberal-paradigm movie would be much more thought-provoking. But even that would still get attacked in a different way ... see also "Passion of the Christ."

So ... I would suggest you overlook the movie's faults and try to answer the question it poses. Anything else, like attacking its quality or however attacks on Passion took form, is just a transparent dodge. If someone is going to attack art because of the artist(s), that someone has to attack lots of the greatest art throughout history, which would, officially, make them a Grade A nimrod.

  • Jump to: