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

[–] bobbykanae 15 years ago

you must have missed the part about the nuclear bombs.

reply

[–] fatih007 15 years ago

lol

reply

[–] postagerequired 15 years ago

As Spock would say:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I know it's harsh, but one life as opposed to 10 million-who wins?
As a professional torturer, I often have to bring in women, children, even dogs and cats. I once brought in a doll to get the little girl to tell us where she hid the peanut butter because it was a matter of national security. But all jokes aside, as H said the guy had to believe he was capable of anything. It was unfortunate but necessary.

reply

[–] Jameslubin1-951-449928 14 years ago

LOL...LOL

reply

[–] BigTFrankenstein 14 years ago

IMDB should add the "like" feature for postagerequired's response!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mark-hansen11 12 years ago

You must hate most movies if you dislike events introduced solely for the benefit of the viewer.

I agree with you though! Just ONCE I'd like to see a James Bond movie without some guy set on world destruction being introduced.

Also, it wasn't H's plan to kill the wife like that, but when the other people in the movie burst in, he couldn't do whatever he wanted to do. But it did make Yusuf believe he would do anything, which is why he really broke down when the children were brought in.
So it didn't strengthen his resolve at all, he was being broken down bit by bit. And then he killed himself.

reply

[–] paytonsapp 8 years ago

On a side note, Casino Royale and Skyfall were not about world domination and very strong Bond films... check those out

reply

[–] wPatriot 13 years ago

That phrase in itself is pretty dangerous. The question is how many should be "many" and how few should be "few". In the case with the bomb threat this was clear however. Yet, I disagree that killing the woman could have done this investigation any good. If anything, it only strengthened the terrorist's resolve.
This part of the movie was especially dumb. I think it was introduced purely for the benefit of shocking the viewer.

Logically speaking, you should always choose the needs of the group that is larger. So purely logically, you should kill 9 million people, to save 9 million and one.

In the end, it's all about the person (or people) that have to carry out that which sacrifices the needs of the few. When 'the needs' is just an alias for 'the lives', it becomes a matter of how capable those that have to carry out the sacrifice are in distancing themselves from the act.

For example, many of us wouldn't be able to hurt even the kids in order to save the people (I was certainly glad they didn't do it in the movie). However, what if all you had to do was press a button, and somewhere (say, 500 miles away) an elementary school would explode. A lot of you might still not do it, but for everyone there is going to be a line somewhere. The only real question is: where is that line for you?

reply

[–] dbre 11 years ago

Actually, it should not be about numbers but about morality. Take, for example, Nazi Germany and the Jews. The Jewish people were much smaller in numbers but going to war with Germany was justified because they were committing atrocious acts against Jews, Gypsies, the handicapped and anybody else that got in their way or didn't fit their agenda

reply

[–] lts20stl 8 years ago

I think you have a misunderstanding of what WWII was about. World War II had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The war against Germany was about stopping Germany from conquoring Europe. The scale of the genocide taking place within Germany and Poland wasn't even known until the end of the war when the Allied troops found the concentration camps.

"I'm going to run them off their feet." -Harold Abrahams

reply

[–] dbre 8 years ago

Yes, that is true.

reply

[–] beancrisp (1689) 3 years ago

FACT: The ends never justifies the means. Prove me wrong.

reply

[–] berlin-brown 14 years ago

It doesn't have to be nuclear bombs.

Remember Abu Graihb?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

reply

[–] joelreitzloff 10 years ago

lol
like

reply

[–] Xcalat3 9 years ago

you must have missed the part about the nuclear bombs.

Perhaps the OP missed that part of the movie? *end Sarcasm*

Libera te tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex.

reply

[–] dadru 9 years ago

lol

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HajiAltair 15 years ago

These few days there been celebrating of the killing of the third most wanted terrorist in a bombing attack(don't know if it's true or not, how many third most wanted have we seen). Anyway, to the point: If you scroll down it says part of his family were killed in the attack. Despite that it's called a success. This happens surprisingly often in real life.

But for evil people to do good things, that takes Islam

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the_Iced_Earth 14 years ago

Jack Bauer FTW

It's a neccesary evil

reply

[–] the_Iced_Earth 14 years ago

The job of a leader is the willingness to make sacrifices. If you can't do it, then let someone else who can. Not everyone is built for war. That doesn't mean you should look down on it because of your personal beliefs. You have to look at the big picture here. Just like Mr. Jackson said in the movie, you're selfish if you condone such acts just because you think it's wrong, even if it's the best thing to do.

reply

[–] CazRaX 15 years ago

In case you missed it, H was basically a government protected, last resort, professional torturer. When he comes in, authorization is highest level and it's do what you have to, to get results. Since they were dealing with a highly trained former Delta Squad American turned Muslim who had the contacts, money and knowledge to make these bombs as well as history saying he has stolen nuclear material it was a last resort scenario. They did what was needed and what was needed was H doing what he had to, to make Younger talk.

Chances are this is not new or a rare thing, there are def things that all governments do that have no records and they want no one knowing about. You just didn't like it cause he wasn't held accountable for his actions, but then again the government was sanctioning his completely illegal actions to begin with, how him killing the woman and being allowed to continue surprised you I don't know.

You gotta remember in the plot of the movie there were 3 (at least) nuclear bombs hidden in 3 parts of the country all ready to go off in very short time. They were running low on options and at that point taking one persons life was acceptable as long as millions were saved from the nuclear explosions and fallout of the bombs.

reply

[–] markotheman-1 15 years ago

So as a professional torturer he is allowed to slit innocent women's throats....

reply

[–] UberNoodle 14 years ago

markotheman-1: H is not a real person. You seem to be confused. He is not 'allowed' to do anything. In this story, he DOES slit that woman's throat. That's what happens. Deal with it, or write some fan fiction where H get's what's coming to him.

H was not a hero in this. He is a monster, just like the terrorist. The film is designed to pose questions. When you turned it off, you sadly missed the point.

reply

[–] eric-280 14 years ago

You don't have to agree with it but that's the idea of _the whole movie_...

reply

[–] markotheman-1 15 years ago

One persons life yes, the bomber. Not his wife who did nothing!!

reply

[–] svender-1 15 years ago

Problem is that without killing the wife, you are also responsible for not finding those bombs.
So you are essentially helping to kill thousands and thousands of people.

That is the morality of it.
You might save THAT woman, but you are KLLING thousands of other women, men and children.

reply

[–] uzmarvel 15 years ago

If killing was necessary H would have killed that guy at the beginning. If sb kills the wife, husband is ready to die. Please understand that. Cutting her throat won't help, never helps. But threatening will help, until doing it. If they threatened him that they will rape and do the same to her what they did to him, then he might have told them everything, if, of course, he cares about his wife. Killing wife was not necessary.

Threatening children was effective, but they blew it.

This movie created so much debate among you, but you have to understand one thing. Killing one innocent man is like killing the whole human being. So, real muslim will never do these kinds of things. If any does, he is wrong. Being a muslim, I'm ready to take that guy (Steven) out. A muslim may be ready to die because dying is nothing but the beginning of a new life. So, they never go to that second life being a murderer.

People like Steven Arthur are either a real terrorist who is hired by other sides or still a real terrorist, but a misled muslim who still deserves to be punished. But, please, not his wife, not his children.

I started to watch this movie hating when Steven mentioned Allah at the beginning, but loved it then till the end. Two things I believe were mistake: Killing his wife and stopping torturing process. They shouldn't have killed his wife, but make him believe that they will do it. Or, they should have continued threatening his children (without torturing of course) by switching off the light ,for example. Then he should have told everything. This would've created a very good movie for both muslims and christians. And the right thing in real life.

Still, I loved this movie, except the last bomb at the end. That wasn't necessary. It just creates hate among two sides.

reply

[–] thegreatmastersamuelgree 15 years ago

Killing his wife was basically the method he used to persuade Steven that H would kill his kids. You're wrong and right. If he had no kids, killing the wife is pointless. He has kids, so killing the wife proved that H could do it.

A bit like how Steven proved he made real bombs by killing 53 people...

reply

[–] vannacut 15 years ago

You kill the wife, it won't matter anymore what else you are gonna do or who else you are gonna kill . For a guy who plans everything this detailed, leaving such important interference capacity issue half assed is..... After him telling them about them killing those numbers everyday and leaving a guilted impression on their faces, them saying that he killed kids among 53 people so it was ok to kill his is an ongoing never ending cycle ....

reply

[–] magiciennko 15 years ago

that Bomber didn't care of his own life, you have to give him something to shew on...

you can't possibly weight 1 innocent vs 10M... when brody said "we are human beings, you can't to that to 2 children, let the *beep* bomb go off", I was like wtf, she is cracking up... lol seriously, that's what you are saying with that word "innocent"...

I guess she was happy the bomb did go off...

yes "unthinkable"...

reply

[–] joseph-rybicki 15 years ago

Killing the wife was PERFECT.

The guy thought it was over until the kids showed up...

At that point he KNEW what would come of the process and had to tell. It's too bad they put that stupid hidden bomb in at the end right where they disarmed one. I am hoping that was just part of the alternate ending- the ending I shouldn't have watched.

reply

[–] dead_doll00 14 years ago

You miss the point. Brody is essentially the only innocent/moral character amongst those involved in the torture (excluding the wife and kids, I mean). The movie is just as much a statement about how horrific things are done on both sides, given the right circumstances, as it is about knowing when to draw the line, when to pack it up as a species and let the bombs go off because we're no longer worth saving. Brody could well have been the movie's embodiment of the human conscience. She knew that if they went ahead with killing/torturing the children, they would be crossing a line that would sink America, all of them, and humanity in general to a degree of low that is not worth coming back from.

reply

[–] move_over_fatso 14 years ago

Actually, you missed the point. Brody was the representation of American society's conscience. According to the film, American has none. Because she (we) never thought through the issue, she kept getting strung along with more torture crimes and gov't terrorism.

Brody already chose to go along with them inflicting excruciating pain, permanent physical damage, and by the time H killed the terrorist's wife, everyone knew they were going to summarily execute (murder) the terrorist. They had already accepted the "legitimacy" of torture, and everyone knew they would continue using innocent people. Common sense dictated they were going to cover up the crime.

When Brody drew the line with using the children, she was making a moral rationalization. They (America) already crossed the line. By choosing to "protect" two terrorist's children, she was condemning thousands of other innocents a horrible death. She just didn't have the emotional strength to stand by her moral choices. She wasn't demonstrating moral courage. If the previous actions were acceptable, using children was acceptable too.

reply

[–] faizan615 13 years ago

Interesting metaphor. To add more, I see the whole movie as a piece of symbolism. Younger/Yousaf as an extremist element of the world, H as the American Government (or coalition forces or whatever you say) who reacted accordingly to the plans of Yousaf. Brody as American society who is confused whether it is wrong or right what they are doing. Yousaf's wife as a symbol of all those killed by the reaction of H in war against terror (American Government) and kids as people who are waiting for their fate and being threatened.

P.S. Forgive my grammar as I am not native English Speaker.

reply

[–] dead_doll00 12 years ago

Sorry, but it sounds like that can be interpreted in both ways, depending on the point of view. So I think now perhaps neither one of us "missed the point", we simply have a difference in perception.

reply

[–] SeijiSuenaga 15 years ago

"One persons life yes, the bomber. Not his wife who did nothing!!"

See, so many people just seem to ignore the fact that the wife was innocent.

Suppose someone in your family becomes someone like Yousef. Would you then accept that it's necessary for you to die in order for your loved one to give information? How about the rest of your family?

If that doesn't give you pause, then your sense of personal morals must be much stronger and very different from mine.

reply

[–] ken2903 15 years ago

Suppose someone in your family becomes someone like Yousef. Would you then accept that it's necessary for you to die in order for your loved one to give information? How about the rest of your family?

If i knew it was going to save millions of people i'd let them kill me. Of course that's easy to say now. When they drag me into a dark room and are about to finish me off then i'll probably change my mind.

------------------------------------------
"Cunnilingus and Psychiatry brought us to this"

reply

[–] sinceimetjc 13 years ago

If I were in the wife's shoes...and my husband did this, I would totally understand someone using me to get him to talk. And if he didn't talk, I'd be pissed with my husband in my last moments of life.

"The hideousness of that foot will haunt my dreams forever."

reply

[–] Cidarus 14 years ago

No, any one life is less valuable than that of millions of people. If you had no choice but to choose to take one persons life, lets say at random, or millions of other innocent people would die, hopefully you would make the obvious choice. I believe almost all people would make the same decision.

reply

[–] uzmarvel 15 years ago

Steven feared that they will torture his kids, not killing them. If they're killed, their suffering will stop. But torturing will hunt them throughout their life. So, he told 3 Bombs. They should've threatened his kids again (without torture) and get the location of 4th bomb.

But killing his wife was mistake done by H, and he's cried for that part as a confession. That wasn't necessary.

reply

[–] scrimmo 13 years ago

But killing his wife was mistake done by H, and he's cried for that part as a confession. That wasn't necessary.

I disagree. I believe he cried due to the stress of not being able to break Steven and the millions of lives on his shoulders. H is smarter than he is given credit for, every action he took was rational. That part is obvious!

reply

[–] s0nspark 15 years ago

The key was the guy's children ... that is where he betrayed his weakness - that is where it was all headed. IMO the whole point was that you MUST be willing to go further than your enemy to overcome them... and they MUST believe that to be true!

H nailed that ... and the fact that so many refuse to accept that about war was one of the major points of the movie.

Rules are meant to protect the innocent, not the guilty!

reply

[–] Swordsaint 15 years ago

Jack Bauer would have totally finish the job on time. "H" was way to soft on criminals!

reply

[–] bsg_tns 15 years ago

I don't believe any of these jihadis really loves their family that much. Most of these guys hate women, for instance. And they're probably hardened by jihad against loving their kids too much. Someone with a real and abiding love for his family just isn't going to get caught up in all this jihad business. That's why this doesn't ring true to me.

http://countercultureconservative.wordpress.com/

reply

[–] sinnernerious 15 years ago

Ya thats why Afghans defeated the Soviets, 'coz they wanted some play time.
Most of them turn to extremism because of personal and family turmoil (like getting you family reunion gatherings disrupted by Predator planes)

Someone with a real and abiding love for his family IS most likely to enter in extremism, religious or otherwise we can't always be sure as they all aren't interviewed and don't have personal memoirs.

Your analysis fits would fit a minuscule minority of any section of world society.

reply

[–] abachynski 11 years ago

Actually the afghans defeated the soviets because america backed them. Gave them billions of dollars and weapons and training. See charlie wilsons war.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CazRaX 15 years ago

True, and killing the wife was part of it, H had to show he was dangerous and had to make Younger believe he could do anything so he would break down when H was left with his kids. Still being upset cause he did one illegal thing in the middle of a completely illegal torture session is just dumb.

reply

[–] admin-441 15 years ago

Exactly. That murder was simply another step on the scale of sliding morality in the room.

Most haunting were the words from the highest authority near the end.

"Christ... get those kids back in here, if anyone tries to stop you - shoot them". Not only are the wrongdoers in the line of sight, not only are their families in danger, but anyone who does RIGHT has to be eliminated. And of course, a minute later, the torturer's children are used as leverage against the torturer.

Shadows fell on their futile ways, and then there was nothing more...

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kentika20 15 years ago

The only disgusting thing at that point in this brutally honest movie was the fact that everyone in that room except for H thought they could afford to be hypocritical and take the moral highground on every single step H took...and still come back to him again and again with their tails between their legs.

Honestly, H was the only one throughout the movie who was true to himself, however ugly that truth was. The Brody character got schooled in that department, with all her expensive moral issues. I guess she got hers when the 4th bomb blew up and she had the blood of millions of innocents on her hands instead of the blood of 2 innocent children. But...she walked out with her delusions on Good and Evil intact, good on her...right?

reply

[–] packro 15 years ago

so are you saying muslim terrorists are not muslim? or are you just saying what you're saying because you're not white and american?

reply

[–] uzmarvel 15 years ago

Terrorist is a terrorist. muslim terrorist is a terrorists. But not all muslims are terrorists. It's exactly your media trying to put it on your head: "muslims" <=> "terror". Please, learn about islam, and then be christian or muslim, your choice. Be smart. But please, never kill innocent people whatever you are. I'm proud to be muslim, but I'll never do those things what Steven did no matter what they do to me. Terror is opposite to islam.

You should listen to George Carlin: We like war.

reply

[–] packro 15 years ago

I agree with you 100% uzmarvel.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ceceagogo 14 years ago

americans are such pussies. they never die for their beliefs.

reply

[–] Jello53 14 years ago

What right do you have to say that? None, so long as YOU have not died for YOUR beliefs. It is a personal "choice" which cannot be generalized to a large group (americans, muslims, ...). Do you think YOU are not a pussy because whatever group you associate to has people dying for what they believe in? What does it have to do with you?

I hate when people think they are somehow better than X group.

No, I am not american.

reply

[–] Dave1136 14 years ago

Yes uzmarvel, I agree with you 100%!

99.9999999999% Muslims on our planet are innocent god fairing people who believe in true Islam but all we hear about lately (the last decade) is terrorism being associated with Muslims......right? It's simply because it's true.

My question for you is what are you and the 99.9999999999% of other Muslims doing about it. Do you write books, preach in your mosques, Newspapers, about these wrongs? Is there a certain fear about speaking out?

I'm not criticizing you, Please believe me, I just would like to know?

reply

[–] FatNThoed 14 years ago

well from the beginning of the movie everybody should have been able to tell that he was going to die regardless

you dont sit through 3 days of torture and hope that they let you go because "you cant prosecute someone without fingertips" especially after you put 3 nukes in 3 different cities, YOU ARE GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

either the man torturing you is going to do the job, or you, or in the "unthinkable" case that the government did let you go (<-- HAAAA!) then you should set out some tea and cookies for the hit squad coming to take you out.

point is he was going to do this and killing his wife and kids would have only strenghten his resolve and in his own mind justified his actions

think about it if you set out to prove the country is hypocritical because they torture and say they dont, that they murder innocent people and say they dont, that they could care less about their own judicial process, the fact they black bagged and are torturing you and killed your wife only makes you feel like your right

reply

[–] scrimmo 13 years ago

My question for you is what are you and the 99.9999999999% of other Muslims doing about it. Do you write books, preach in your mosques, Newspapers, about these wrongs?

What do you do about fundamentalist christians committing crimes in the name of God?

People like you are such hypocrites and never learn. Makes me laugh! :D

reply

[–] uzmarvel 13 years ago

My advice: dont watch too much Fox news. My answer: I've never met, personally, any muslim who's ready to bomb or suicide. Your media takes 1% and says all of them are like this. Why should I preach when me and my all muslim fellow knows that this is a wrong thing to do.

Believe me, killing himself is a very big sin in my religion and based on this most muslims dont do this. Me too. I hope it answers your question, because you dont seem to understand islam at all. Just continue following G.Bush and his son.

reply

[–] Alnivol666 8 years ago

The only kind of religious terrorism which is spread all over the corners of the world is Islamic terrorism. 50% of all terror groups in the world are Islamic. So, I get your point that not all Muslims are terrorists, but Islam has a very big problem with terrorism. Islamism which is basically political Islam as an ideology, is very spread throughout the Muslim world. It is the only religious ideology that at this moment in time causes so much destruction in the world...especially to Muslims.
Terror is not opposite to Islam. Look into what Mohammed was doing in the 7th Century. That was by all definition terrorism. He was a terrorist.

reply

[–] sloveniapower 15 years ago

She was muslim so its ok if she gets killed by an American Hero who was protecting OUR rights because it was obvious she was carrying a belt filled with explosives to our companions in Israel!

He saved The American Eagle with that act of patriotism and lets be honest, who did Israel ever really hurt? Just terrorist kids who throw rocks filled with C4 to the tanks!

reply