Well covered propaganda?

The thought did cross my mind while watching. The film is without a doubt presenting the Brits and The Kenyans in an humane way, rather than just killers, and it is clear that each and every Brit (and Kenyan) are doing their best to save lives, genuinely caring about collateral damage, while the films narrative essentially tells us the strike has to be made. This in turns makes us cheer against everyone opposed, brand them as cowards, and take the American side of "just kill them".

But no, demonstrably the film is not propaganda.

Why? Because propaganda requires the information to be one sided. People one both sides of the issue are made to have a decent case. Hell, when you think about it, if the pilots had their way, and just waited till the bombers tried to leave, the girl would be alive. Even more importantly, the Islamic militants themselves literally throw away their guns (or rather one big machine gun) to try and save the child. This could never happen in a propaganda film.

(Note: No one in the film was stated to be Christian. Britain at this point is 50%+ atheist/agnostic, and there is no mention of the religion of the Kenyans/Somalis. The sympathetic family caught up in it all could be presumed to be muslim).

My 1000 favorite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/PkAV7BgvMJg

If you're going to call this "propaganda", you might as well call any expression of thought "propaganda". The movie portrays the events as about as morally conflicted as they could possibly get, reflects multiple points of view, and does not really champion any one point of view as being the "right" one.