MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > The Choice was NOT between saving one li...

The Choice was NOT between saving one little girl or 80 innocent people

posted 8 years ago by gf1701
8 replies | jump to latest

Great film, but after watching it, I came to this board to read a discussion about the extremely questionable justification that this film repeatedly posited: that the choice was between the likely death of a single, innocent child, versus the certain death of 80 innocent people. But I cannot find such a discussion. The suicide bomber was under constant surveillance from the "eye in the sky." He could have been tracked when he left the village, and intercepted by military forces on the ground. That option is never discussed in the film. It would likely have resulted in the numbers 2, 3 and 5 most wanted terrorists escaping. They were the original targets of the mission, and as the film shows quite clearly, the driving force behind Colonel Powell's decisions. It's understandable that she would ignore any alternative way of dealing with the suicide bomber, as it would mean that her mission would fail and her six year pursuit would continue. But that no one else in this film discussed the option is, to me, simply unbelievable. In terms of probable outcomes, the choice was really the life of a single little girl--and other possible collateral damage--versus the lives of three dangerous fanatics, not "80" innocent people. It's still a moral dilemma, but both qualitatively and quantitatively quite different from the one the movie asserts.

[–] AngeloDavis 8 years ago

If I'm not mistaken, there is a moment where they talk about the idea of following the SB, but Alan character says they only have one Eye in the Sky, meaning that they will lose 1 SB, 2 of the persons in the most wanted list and 1 guy that provides the group with arms.

I think they did discuss that option, but maybe not as much. Still is a a movie that makes gives you a real finale of what happens in the world.

[–] timroth 8 years ago

Where is it established in the film that there are military forces on the ground? And even if there were and they were to intercept him in a crowded market place, he could still activate the bomb and take out the 80 civilians. The whole point was that they wanted to take out the suicide bomber while he was still in the house and the collateral damage was limited. The only cause of the moral dilemma is that a face is placed on the collateral damage, in the form of a girl selling bread. They didn't care about any other civilians that may have been taken out by the strike, except the girl.

[–] morgothbauglir 8 years ago

There is a whole bunch of Kenyan soldiers ready to strike. It is a capture mission in the beginning, remember? However, the terrorists unexpectedly change the location before the necessary identification is possible. They move to a Somali dominated area where groundforces can't intervene, probably because this would lead to heavy fighting with the Al-Shabaab (?) fighters (the armed guys around the house who want to kill the guy operating the bug drone). This is the first twist in the story that changes the mission from capture to kill. The second twist is that in the new location the immediate suicide attack is discovered and increases the urgency. However, for the commander, taking care of the top terrorists is clearly the main goal, preventing the suicide attack is just a bonus and used to increase the pressure on the British politicians to approve the strike..

[–] filmfancy 8 years ago

However, for the commander, taking care of the top terrorists is clearly the main goal

Exactly, which is why she orders the drone pilot to launch another missile when it's shown that one of the terrorists is still alive.

And all the pieces matter (The Wire)

[–] filmfancy 8 years ago

The suicide bomber was under constant surveillance from the "eye in the sky." He could have been tracked when he left the village, and intercepted by military forces on the ground.

There were two new recruits who were the suicide bombers, an American and a Brit I believe.

As another poster pointed out, the Kenyan forces on the ground could not enter the Somali zone. It would have incurred heavy fighting and more collateral damage.

And all the pieces matter (The Wire)

[–] EvilMonkey1972 8 years ago

Actually they did discuss it but Rickman's character says something like "What, intercept them on a crowded street? We're trying to minimize casualties, not cause more" and then it's dismissed.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

choice was between the likely death of a single, innocent child, versus the certain death of 80 innocent people.

So you are discounting the apparent fact the "innocent girl" was a greedy, opportunistic, (likely) thief?

Say WHAT?

Yes, The beetle operator had paid her for all of her bread, and put it in his bucket, so she would go home and leave the dangerous area.
Then, he ran from the soldiers, and dropped the bucket, spilling the bread in the dirt as he ran from the soldiers, who soon started shooting at him!

So, instead of folding up her clean table cloth and going home with the money since she had sold all the bread, what did she do?
She picked the bread out of the dirt, put the dirty bread on her clean table cloth, and began reselling the dirty bread. He probably was not coming back. And she had the guy's bucket too.

How's that for a "goof" in the movie?

Of course, the movie would have been spoiled if she had gone home instead of being greedy.

[–] cinephyler 8 years ago

Why do you keep posting this in all the threads? It's a dumb argument; stop trolling with it.