So H kills the dudes wife.... - Unthinkable (2010) Discussion

[–] clmryan47 14 years ago

What I found stupidly hypocritical about that was that they didn't care about the woman much but as soon as the children were even mentioned everyone was strongly against him and seem to be more concerned with stopping H then actually finding the bombs that could kill MILLIONS of women and children.

reply

[–] joenesmit 14 years ago

H had to discover the bombs' locations/existence, the wife was a tool like any other torture device he used and he employed it effectivelly.
Yusef was an extreme example. He was trained to withstand torture and his captors were aware of this, so extreme measures had to be used to get to the information that was needed.

"No matter what the cost" was on H's mind, the cost to what ?? Imo keeping his own family safe, like he said; he's as much a prisoner as Yusef. In fact he's as much a tool to the people employing him as the wife, the knife and the dentist drill were.
It's 'rationality' speaking when spewing numbers like 4 vs 10 million or the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Everyone agrees on what should happen, we just don't want to know about it, that's why governments do this 'off-record'. Is it barbaric ? Yes. Is it reprehensible ? Yes. Does it make 'our side' as bad as the other side ? Yes. Do I want 10 million people dying so 4 innocent lives are spared and I can take the moral high road ?? No, I just dont want any part in it and I dont want to know about it.

Loved the movie.

Ps OP you're a dick, bla spoilers bla.

_______________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."

reply

[–] Satchboogie3 14 years ago

I don't understand it, let H kill the damned children and save thousands of lives. It doesn't matter whether you can live with it, it's not about YOU. If I was put in that situation I would hope I would allow and encourage H to torture the kids. I would surely hate myself, maybe to the point of suicide, but it would be MY sacrifice. Just because you can't live with it doesn't mean it's not right.

I think the biggest point is that morality isn't real. In the end it's just 100,000 people vs 2 kids. Math doesn't lie.

reply

[–] CharlieTheMan 14 years ago

It's not just math. It is like H said making a point and being victoruious. "We" have doubts and "they" have faith. Torturing soldiers is agains Geneva conventions but when some1 becomes terrorist all rules come out the window.
I liked the SwordFish where John Travolta says something like "They bomb our bus, we bomb their whole city. They blew up our aeroplane we activate a tactical nuke."

INCEPTION

reply

[–] klew1 14 years ago

kudos for including a spoiler in your subject line. brilliant.

reply

[–] Vanessa248 14 years ago

Yep that was a horrible scene.

--------

I http://www.bestnutritionsupplements.com

reply

[–] AustrianA340 14 years ago

"I don't see how the authorities are any worse than Younger.

Younger wants the authorities to do something they don't want (meet his demands).
Authorities want Younger to do something he doesn't want (give them the bombs).

To get what he wants, Younger threatens the authorities to kill the people they care about (millions of civilians).
To get what they want, authorities threaten Younger to kill the people he cares about (his family).

Younger shows that he is serious by killing people authorities care about (50 civilians).
Authorities show that they are serious by killing people Younger cares about (his wife)."

Are you really so naive in believing that the authority or let's say the governments give **** about the lives of their people? The love for our families and our children by far outweigh the "love" given by the 'authorities' to their people. Why do they try to save millions of people you ask? To keep the country stable.... it's not about every single life that might be lost, it's about the countries image that will go down the sink that concern authorities. It's money. If one isn't capable of saving two lives, they won't be capable of saving millions of lives. Furhermore what was so hard to follow Younger's demands? He didn't want money... he didn't want anyone killed.... it sounded like he wanted peace and freedom! His wife AND millions of poeple in the US AND millions of people in the middle east could have been saved by agreeing upon his demands.
Killing (no matter if one or millions) should never be justified by any means.

reply

[–] Lesley_P 14 years ago

"Furhermore what was so hard to follow Younger's demands? He didn't want money... he didn't want anyone killed.... it sounded like he wanted peace and freedom!"

Oh yeah. Peace and freedom. Freedom and peace of mind for the terrorists and Islamic jihadis, so that they can continue to plant bombs and attack civilians, Iraqi police and Iraqi military. Who killed all these Iraqi children. Iraqi and muslim terrorists. Who killed over one million people before the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein. Who is the idiot Younger protesting against. The US government. Younger wanted no peace or freedom.

"His wife AND millions of poeple in the US AND millions of people in the middle east could have been saved by agreeing upon his demands. "

except that, Younger wants to kill millions of Americans. While his equally deranged coreligionists keep killing millions of people in the middle east.

"Killing (no matter if one or millions) should never be justified by any means.'

And why doesn't Younger go preach to the terrorists who actually do the killing? And why does leftards always consistently support terrorist causes?

reply

[–] AustrianA340 14 years ago

"And why doesn't Younger go preach to the terrorists who actually do the killing? And why does leftards always consistently support terrorist causes?"

Oh come on are you really so blind.... have you learnt nothing from history?
Who was responsible of killing more than a hundred thousand innocent japanese back in 1945?? A western world country! Who was responsible of killing a few millions during the holocaust?? a western world country!!
Who is today responsible of killing hundreds of people daily not to feed our stomach, but to feed our lust and greed?? western world countries.
So yeah perhaps in a way he is actually going on the 'real' terrorists in this world.
You people need to open your eyes a bit. Is it so hard to live in peace and harmony no matter where you're from, what skin color you have, how tall you are, what history you have?? Is it really so hard?? Is this endless fight against each other "Who is the better country?" really neccessary? Can't all countries co-operate to make a better whole? a better WORLD??
I am in no means defending terrorists.... I don't see myself as an Austrian or Brazilian.... I see myself as a world citizen. And harm done to anyone... no matter if American, Australien, German, Indian, Persian, African, etc.... it's a loss and harm done of a world citizen and loss of life, especially when there is no reason and there is never reason to kill another life of our own kind.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lesley_P 14 years ago

AustrianA340, the reason why the barefaced liar Younger did what he did not because 1.5 million Japanese were killed. So don't waste my time with strawmen. Younger clearly states that he wants to end the killings in Iraq. But who does the killings in Iraq - the Islamojihadis. Who did the killings in Iraq before US invasion - Saddam. And the coward and prejudiced *beep* that he is, Younger puts the responsibility for the terrorists actions on the US. If Younger was truly concerned about deaths in Iraq, he should have preached to the jihadis and the mullahs. No, Younger (and by translation, the movie makers) are playing to the libtard gallery by repeating the same false cliches. Blame the teacher for scolding the bully. Blame the victim for resisting the bully. The old leftie tactic that turns a blind eye to all atrocities except the ones that US commits.

You wouldn't talk about the millions of Chinese civilians killed by Japanese invaders. You wouldn't talk about the rampant cannibalism of POWs by Japanese army. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Mass_killings

You wouldn't talk about how Japanese wanted to continue with the war when the Germans and Italians ceased military activity. No sir. You are the one who is deliberately trying to misinform and obfuscate with your pathetic attempts.

"Can't all countries co-operate to make a better whole? a better WORLD?? "

Save your speech for the Muslim nations that persecute its minorities - Indonesia, Pakistan, Maldives, Bangladesh, Iraq, UAE etc. Your claim to talk for "world citizens" sounds empty and false when you and your libtard friends let these countries off the hook.

reply

[–] AustrianA340 14 years ago

Well you seem to at least be a decent kind of a person, that don't go on insulting like most people here... so I'll be happy and add something to this discussion. I just don't think that terror should be fought with terror. And in most cases it's not even about terror. The histor books showed us that during centuries it was the superior and/or richer nations abusing and trying to take control of the poor nations. It was killing to satisfy the wants (not the needs) of the richest nations. It has been like this since before Rome even..... why do you think it's sny different today?
I don't think it's fair to whine like a little girl when we recieve an attack that might cost us let's say 2000 of our people and we don't give a ******* **** about that number being killen in a regular (perhaps monthly?) basis else where.
What do we do? We go on raise security.... or let me say 'control' and go on and do exactly the same of what we whine about. Raising securit and control is certainly not going to make life better knowing I am being watched for even when I'm having personal talks with my girl-friend and that is not going to prevent anything that is associated with the word "terror".
I personally prefer the idea to fight against the reason for these stuff. Starting with perhaps altering the attitude... get rid of the greed, fear, distrust, etc.... that would make security, which is only being used to control people unneccessary.
It's all about control.... that's the reason for all the wars and killings.... that's what has been for thousands of years and that's what will probably continue for thousands of years.
The difference between you and me is perhaps not that one of us is blind or not or stupid or not.... It's just that I'm not afraid to see the officials of my country as at least equal terrorists in this world as the ones they claim to fight against. I'm not defending Muslims..... but I'm not defending my nation either when I know exactly that there equally (perhaps more) causing harm. No matter who, when or where... pain is pain!

reply

[–] Lesley_P 14 years ago

"I just don't think that terror should be fought with terror."

Then with what? Bleeding heart hand wringing and speeches for global peace? lol. See where that got the Tibetans in China. Or the Buddhists in Burma. Hand wringing and tears work against Western nations - which is why Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr were successes. Which is also why no Gandhi did arise in Nazi Germany or Pakistan or North Korea or China. A Gandhi would be nipped in the bud there.

"Raising securit and control is certainly not going to make life better knowing I am being watched for even when I'm having personal talks with my girl-friend and that is not going to prevent anything that is associated with the word "terror". "

But AustrianA340, those security measures are the result of the reluctance for direct confrontation. Why do US airports have full body scanners? Because they were reluctant to control immigration from nations like Pakistan, Saudi, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia etc etc. If you don't like racial profiling, here is your full body scanners for every body! Liberals brought it upon themselves - so don't start all crying now.

"I personally prefer the idea to fight against the reason for these stuff. Starting with perhaps altering the attitude... get rid of the greed, fear, distrust, etc."

Then why aren't you preaching to Muslims in Islamic states about not persecuting their minorities and women? Why not start with Sudan with the Arab Muslim on black Muslim violence (of course that can't be racism, can it?). What about preaching in Indonesia against destruction of the churches there. What about preaching to the Thai Muslim insurgents against creating a Sharia land there? No. You and your libtard friends wouldn't do that. That's not what the mainstream media teaches you. None of you liberals want world peace. What you want is cheap freedom from guilt. Of course you'd ask the US government to bring the troops back from Iraq. Just like you people cried about bringing the troops back from Vietnam, throwing the South Vietnamese into the hands of the VietCong. Where was your mainstream media when VC brutally destroyed all pro-democracy people in S.Vietnam. Where were the idiot students in their liberal campuses. Where was John Kerry and Bob Dylan and the other peaceniks? Yes, your pathtetic fool Bob Dylan now accepts censorship in China without even a tiny complaint. Thats the extend of his commitment to peace and all that liberal bs. Where are the feminists when Muslims engage in honor killing in the UK and the US and in stoning and beheading in the Middle East. Where are the great gay activists when Iran famously hangs its homosexuals from cranes? Where is the Pride parade in Tehran or Jakarta or Mogadishu or Islamabad or Samarkand? What you are doing now is exactly what you did when the USSR and China killed hundreds of millions in purges. When N.Korea, Cuba, Cambodia murdered political dissenters in their thousands. You liberals are irrelevant to the world and world peace. You make this world a better place for terrorists and oppressors and persecutors. The only thing you are good for is criticizing the US.

reply

[–] AustrianA340 14 years ago

First of all I am not in any kind of party and I'm not a liberal. I'm just an open-minded individual. That's a little difference you know? If liberals come up with ideas I don't agree with I'll share it.... all I am doing is sharing "my" personal point of view on this complicated topic. I haven't made any statement directly criticizing the US, as well as I have made no statement whatsoever defending Islam, etc..! I am just criticizing the unnecessary violence going on currently... something that has unfortunately been going on for centuries. I'm also not using any person as an idol to feed my arguments. Again it is just my own and personal point of view, which I keep open... not narrowed and biased to limit it just to my nation.... hence world citizen... as I would prefer to see everyone in this world as equals (no matter if American, German, French, Iranian, Iraqi, Indian, Australian, Ethiopian, etc...) and therefor I would rate a murder from an American on an Iranian just the same way as a murder from an Iranian on an American. It's a loss of life, period. And I don't care for what reasons it might be it still is a loss of life.
All those security measures on airports e.g. are all full of ****! You hear everyone in the news how well they have avoided a dangerous attack and yet it couldn't prevent a thing on 11/9/01. It doesn't sound very real to me. If they want to breach it they'll breach it no matter how high the level. It's like to opponents fighting each other in a video game.... every now and then opponent A will breach opponent B and later on it'll be the other way around and so on and so on. Why do we still use security then? It's just control.... control over the world.... nations will fight for this control globally and people like you and me will just watch and hope that it won't hit us.... this stupid fight over control. Yeah man... that's a way of life..... fear, distrust, being watched by every move we make. I don't know about you, but I prefer to live in a world knowing that as long as I don't harm others I am free to do and say what I want..... not being rated by every second person on the street.... not having to distrust every discount I see in a shop....
That's what I would describe as freedom and that is what I use to feed my arguments.
If you are the one who desperately wants to survive no matter what.... that's your choice and I won't take it from you. I on the other hand prefer to live. I'd rather live for 30 years free of greed, fear, distrust than survive 90 years in pain and fear.
And all that stuff going on in the world. I don't care if it's Americans killing Arabs or Germans killing Japanese or Polish killing Australians or my neighbor killing the bus driver it's just causing fear, pain and distrust that is not really much worth living for.

reply

[–] grendel824 14 years ago

I like to think of myself as the kind of person who would not stoop to a certain level, regardless of the math (and I say this hoping I never have to come close to a decision that important) - I imagine taking the philosophy of, for instance "No, I don't care if the universe is annihilated and everyone dies anyway, I refuse to sacrifice this child's life to activate the universe-saving machine. If that's the kind of thing required to keep existence going, I think we'd all rather not live in it."

But, I can understand the concept of a character would draw a line further than I would and not necessarily condemn him as evil without any consideration. This character's motivations, even if not shared, do make sense. There are people who do have to make decisions about how many people die and where and how, even many doctors will have to decide which patient will get a chance to live sometime in their careers. I'm not about to label them as monsters either.

reply

[–] Lesley_P 14 years ago

"If that's the kind of thing required to keep existence going, I think we'd all rather not live in it." "

"we'd all rather not live in it." we? WE? Who the *beep* are you to talk about what the rest of the world would want to live in, you *beep* You are the monster, fool, if you'd be willing to kill others for your deluded and pathetic "philosophies".

reply

[–] grendel824 14 years ago

"we'd all rather not live in it." we? WE? Who the *beep* are you to talk about what the rest of the world would want to live in, you *beep* You are the monster, fool, if you'd be willing to kill others for your deluded and pathetic "philosophies".

Are you illiterate? I was the one saying I would absolutely refuse to kill innocents, even to save everybody else. I just don't think I could bring myself to do it - like I said, it would take someone more monstrous than me. Maybe, since you're monstrously stupid enough to not get that, you'd be the one to call on? Please, rid the gene pool of your idiocy for the sake of everyone else, you absolute waste of space.

reply

[–] ThatDoesntMatter 13 years ago

Lesley P - okay, then it will be your child then...?

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blade025 14 years ago

lol what are they gonna do..arrest him? for what? killing a person that isn't supposed to exist...remember what the high ranking gov't official was saying "none of this exists"...lol every single person in that room is an accomplish and can be punished but obviously..they'll destroy any and all evidence..the movie was great you should have watched the ending to find out why he did what he needed to do

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lesley_P 14 years ago

yeah. Killing bin Laden before so conveniently before the polls. When Sir Laden was staying in the exact same compound near a Pakistani army facility for just 5 years. Some achievement. Now lets sip our cold lattes, sit back and relax. And deflect all criticisms with playing the old race card and puny achievements. Yeah, dear leader 'bama gave shoot orders on Laden - greatest military decision ever. You liberals should perform in bars for the laughs. What a joke. Gotoads, thanks for playing with your own strawman.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lesley_P 14 years ago

Good. Now go chew on 'bama's short hairs.

reply

[–] bigjohnnyhandsome 12 years ago

I saw a news report where Benazir Bhutto said Pakistan had caught the guy who murdered Bin Laden. In 2007.

Very convenient how the US claimed they got rid of his body at sea to respect their need for an early burial. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never heard of Muslims burying their dead by throwing them in the sea.

reply

[–] TwoMushrooms 14 years ago

Wow, all these people with their "it's one life against 10 000, do the math, of course killing her is ok" argument really disgust me.

Of course it easy to say "kill her" when her husband is a muslim extremist, and she has dark hair, speaks with an accent and wears a veil over her head. Regardless if she's a citizen or not.

But if the terrorist was named Mike, and the wife was called Carol, a friendly soccer mom who trains the little league and is loved by all her neighbours... and the kids names were Alice and Tommy, fair and blue-eyed and all... if they were in the situation of the movie, the posts here would be different.

And for all you who still think it's ok to torture and kill innocents, I sure as hell hope that Mike the terrorist was your friendly neighbour whom you have spent many hours on the golf course with. When the CIA finds out they'd think "hey, this guy has spent several hours with Mike every Saturday on a secluded place... best situation to exchange vital information between them. Let's bring him in for questioning". Of course you deny any knowledge of any terrorist activities because you had no idea about what was going on. Too bad the government doesn't believe you so it's you that gets your fingers cut of and get electrocuted until the excruciating pain is unbearable and you say whatever they want to hear, whether it's true or not. Tell me then it's ok to completely violate anyones human rights for "the greater good".

"I want a frisbee made of Mexico."

reply

[–] cranium1 14 years ago

For half the movie I thought the guy was just bluffing and that maybe he just wanted to prove how vulnerable the US was so that they would beef up internal security and close loopholes.

But when the first bomb went off, all gloves HAD to come off. I dont take care if he's named Mike or Yousef, I dont care if someone injects boiling oil into his balls, I dont care if he's GOD himself.... just make him TALK!

reply

[–] tranxHDR 14 years ago

i suppose the part to kill younger's wife was to make the movie plot more interesting but it wasn't really necessary. they could've made it shorter by bringing in younger's wife along with their children and achieved the same results as how the movie ended with younger revealing the three locations of the bombs when the children were brought in minus the wife.

reply

[–] milamber_17 13 years ago

I thought at the time they faked her death for his benefit. When she didn't pop up again my mind was blown. It had to be done. A shame they didn't let H finish the job with the kids as disgusting as that would have been.

reply