MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > What a perverted ending

What a perverted ending

posted 19 years ago by x4nt1
34 replies | jump to latest

Damn, I still can't believe he got out so easily.He killed 83 people.Ok, if the men had carried guns what about the children and the women?I don't want to show any disrespect to the US Marine Corps but is really this the way an experienced soldier will act(by ordering his squad to shoot at a civilan crowd)and is really a war trial going to justify his actions because he was protecting his men?I mean, come on, what about the snipers at the roofs?And it was clear that he lose control of himself by giving this order.I think this is punishable.My personal opinion on this movie is that it really has nothing to do with the real situation in the US army.I really don't know how are things there(I'm a Bulgarian and I live in Bulgaria)but I'm sure they are not the way they were portrayed in this movie.Your opinion?

[–] borchers34 19 years ago

um did you watch the movie, The whole crowd had weapons, the men, the women, AND the children, that's what makes the movcie so tragic. He was trying to do the right thing by saving his men's lives and it backfired because no one believed him about the women and children with guns. The Yemen government covered up their end of it just as much as the U.S. covered up the security tapes

[–] x4nt1 19 years ago

I never did really get that thing with the camera, maybe i've gotta see the movie one more time.Thanks for the reply though:)

[–] jackis-2 19 years ago

He's right. Just saw it. The video tape and Childer's flashbacks reveal the women and children firing weapons at his men.

[–] Lawdog1527 19 years ago

While this doesn't pertain to the film there is a line that gets crossed in combat when civilians cease to be civilians. If the crowd was working as cover for the snipers or as scouts, armed or unarmed, I'd give the command to fire on them.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bluegrassdude5601 19 years ago

Technically, those "civilians" were legitimate targets because they were giving the snipers cover. If I was in a situation where my men were being killed by snipers and the snipers were hiding behind civilians who were voluntarilly providing cover, I wouldn't hesitate in giving the order to open fire on the crowd.

As far as him getting off on the act, that picture that his lawyer showed with all the bullet holes on the front convinced me that the crowd was armed. I guess it was enough to convince the jury as well.

[–] shanayneigh 19 years ago

This movie is the most racist cr@p I have ever seen.

"What's that smell?"

[–] psmu 19 years ago

If i am commander, i will command my troop to retreat as soon as they can. Throw smoke granade down to make people confuse and run away.

If i see only 1 innocent people down there, i swear i will never shoot down even i been hit by bullets.

I can see why this movie get 6.2 point from 10.

[–] snake_eyes989 19 years ago

This movie represents harsh reality of warfare.There are no heroes in war.
As he said,in war,innocents always die.

[–] bluegrassdude5601 19 years ago

Those civilians weren't innocent. They knew what was going on, they knew the terrorists were firing on the Marines, and yet they didn't disperse. They were deliberatly providing cover to the snipers, thus making them legitimate targets.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] haim001 19 years ago

LOL , I think you didnt watched the movie... all the crowed had guns and weapons, the childrens 2. so watch again.

[–] evoken 19 years ago

Stupid either way.

Women and children with guns don't pose any threat to soldiers on a rooftop.

It was definitely not justified to open fire on a crowd like that.

[–] Lawdog1527 19 years ago

Women and children with guns don't pose any threat to soldiers on a rooftop.

A chimpanzee with a gun is threat.

[–] tripleup05 18 years ago

Yea ok...If I gave my mom a semi-auto rifle and my sister a handgun, would you go stand 100 yard away and let them shoot at you? I didn't think so

[–] ssteamboat1959 18 years ago

Well....let's see. I am under the impression ANY time a weapon is pointed at you, whether it is discharged or not, you are being threatened. Now maybe the women and children don't kill soldiers BUT the weapons they weld can and will kill. If this isn't beleivable ask any Vet of Viet Nam. The Embassy WAS under fire BEFORE the Marines even left the choppers. It is my opinion that the Col. should have been COMPLETELY exonorated.

[–] hepe-1 19 years ago

little simplistic, that the movie portrays
the whole crowd to be armed.
that really hinders any conflict in a
"what would i do" way.

[–] bluegrassdude5601 18 years ago

I did watch the movie, and frankly, I think the movie goofed. The snipers, from my observation, were on or near the roof of the building across from the Embassy, so why the marines suddenly decided the crowd below was shooting at them is beyond me. That scene where they were evacuating the embassy, I didn't see the crowd with any weapons, and I can guarrantee you that if they put as many holes in the building that the picture showed, there is no way I could have missed their weapons if they were carrying them. And that cock-eyed flashback really didn't help matters (I had left during a commercial and came back just at the end of the flashback, so what I saw really only confused me.)

As far as the civilians being legitimate targets: If the situation was as the movie seemed to be trying to portray it (the marines couldn't fire on the snipers without firing on the crowd), then regardless of whether or not those civilians were armed or not, they were legitimate targets. If civilians voluntarily form human shields around people firing on our soldiers, then I say those civilians just became expendable.

[–] snake_eyes989 18 years ago

Not everyone was armed.
Remember the scene in courtroom where Samuel L.jackson yells:"Yes,innocents died!Innocents always die!There isn't a way to fight a war and make someone happy!"
But still,I understand they had to open fire.

[–] jj1013 18 years ago

"I did watch the movie, and frankly, I think the movie goofed. The snipers, from my observation, were on or near the roof of the building across from the Embassy, so why the marines suddenly decided the crowd below was shooting at them is beyond me. That scene where they were evacuating the embassy, I didn't see the crowd with any weapons, and I can guarrantee you that if they put as many holes in the building that the picture showed, there is no way I could have missed their weapons if they were carrying them. And that cock-eyed flashback really didn't help matters (I had left during a commercial and came back just at the end of the flashback, so what I saw really only confused me.)"

Obviously you shouldn't make judgment when you missed critical scenes. The scnese from the beginning of the movie were cut so that the audience wouldn't know for sure what happened, otherwise the main hook of the movie wouldn't exist, and there would be no suspense. The crowd below was more heavily armed than the snipers on the rooftop, that is expressly shown when the State Dept official sees the crowd firing on the embassy in the videotape in his office (just before meeting with the ambassador and convincing him to cover it up) and in the final, detailed flashbacks (in which you see that the girl missing a leg is missing said leg because she was firing a revolver at the embassy).

---

"Stupid either way.

Women and children with guns don't pose any threat to soldiers on a rooftop.

It was definitely not justified to open fire on a crowd like that."

Women and children in a combay environment are not a threat? Do you even know anyone who was involved in combat operations in Somalia, Bosnia, or the Middle East? A drunken paraplegic blindfolded monkey with an automatic rifle (such as the AK-47) at less than 100 yards can still kill you, complete lack of skill or not.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bluegrassdude5601 18 years ago

but in black hark down they killed a 1000 with no comebacks,

One, work on your spelling and grammar.

Two, try watching that movie again; those "civilians" were helping to shield the gunmen, thus they were completely legitimate targets. In any case, in war, if civilians get in the middle of a battle and get shot, it's their own fault.

[–] nemesis2012 18 years ago

yeah sorry about the spelling

Hey i don’t have a problem with what the US did in black hawk down (fair play in my eyes.) what we are talking about is the world watching you when you do it, and i have seen the film plenty of times & and read the book and in the book they said they ended up killed anyone who moved (again i don’t have a problem with that as i would do the same). But don’t try kidding me about legitimate targets the US in Iraq like in Vietnam is getting quite a reputation for shooting anything that moves when you get shot at.
If you do the youtube video’s and look up the British in Iraq your see us beating a many around the heads with battens and stamping on there heads and the normal beating the s*@t out of them, that so we don’t have to kill them. This is what 30 years in Ireland has shown us pity the US does not have its own live training ground like Belfast to teach you some restraint. In stead of spray & pray in a firefights.

but here is prove if you want it 9/11 was seen by the world, and the world changed

the 10 years of sanctions in iraq killed 500,000 and the latest war has cost say 100,000 and its not changed anything out side of Iraq (apart from more country’s hate the US.

800,000 dead in Rwanda. No one saw it, no one cares
Hell Stalin killed about 20,000,000 again no one gave a *beep*

The price of life shoots up when a camera is showing it being taken

[–] bluegrassdude5601 18 years ago

"800,000 dead in Rwanda. No one saw it, no one cares"

Because Clinton was in office then and he didn't want another Mogadishu to hurt his career (democrats would sell their soul to keep their popularity high)

"Hell Stalin killed about 20,000,000 again no one gave a *beep"

Again, because democrats were in office and they considered Stalin's Soviet Union a paradise.

"the 10 years of sanctions in iraq killed 500,000 and the latest war has cost say 100,000 and its not changed anything out side of Iraq (apart from more country’s hate the US."

So the fact that Saddam wouldn't behave doesn't matter (all he had to do was comply with the requirements that would have lifted the sanctions). And what about the Oil-For-Food program; oh wait, that didn't work because the UN was taking bribes in exchange for letting Saddam divert the money and food to himself and his military.

And as far as the lastest war's casualties, compared to Vietnam and WW2, those casualties are a blessing. And I bet a lot of Iraqis would disagree with you on the changes the war has brought about (and I'm referring to the Iraqis who are enjoying their freedom, not the terrorists that liberals are so fond of supporting).

[–] nemesis2012 18 years ago

Its not about Clinton or the left in America, its a world thing. England, Russia, France no one cares.
Look this is not a anti-American thing I’m talking about, its human nature.
We are not bothered by death unless its in front of us and when it is, it becomes more important than the deaths we don’t see. That’s it
Not left wing politics, pro-life, communism, dictatorships. Neocons. Its us.

Everyone on this planet will die one day, but about 0000.1% of it will be reported lol

oh and one more thing. i have not seen any happy Iraqis lately

[–] bluegrassdude5601 18 years ago

"oh and one more thing. i have not seen any happy Iraqis lately"

Look harder:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732167/posts

[–] nemesis2012 18 years ago

your kidding me right, come on that was a joke.
ok first everyone seems very very clean, like its a photo op, now i have been in the army and on operations and my kit is not that clean

also all that frame etc looks new, like it might be in the green zone in baghdad or something.
you can go and download lot of videos of troops playing with kids on the street and giving out water and sweets etc and the kids looking happy.

but if thats what you think happy iraqis are then please go away and go back to fox news. numnuts

[–] bluegrassdude5601 18 years ago

Why am I not surprised by your reaction.

You said you hadn't seen "any" happy Iraqis, so I showed you that there are happy Iraqis. I didn't say all of them everywhere were happy.

And I suppose that picture that actually made it into a newspaper was fake too? Geez, what do people like you have to see before you stop dismissing everything you don't agree with as "propaganda"?

And if you've been in the army as you claim, you should know firsthand that American soldiers are always nice to children.

[–] cholo661 18 years ago

The dude aint in no Army he can bearly speak English right.

[–] AtheistRevolution 17 years ago

How stupid is that? Nobody considered Soviet Union paradise. There was nothing anybody could do. Did you forget about thousands of nuclear weapons and post-ww2, cold war? Not to mention the Soviet Union controlled all media and everything that came out of the Soviet Union. And the Rwandan Genocide was Belgians fault mostly along with other countries that did nothing. I would say the Republicans or Democrats don't care about anything besides themselves. Reagan sitting on his ass after the Beirut Bombings being such a case.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] LeeSir 13 years ago

Then things get worse, Propaganda and that's all!

[–] JRotten9802 18 years ago

It was all really just an excuse for Sam Jackson to say in the glorious voice of his, "Waste the motherf uckers!"