Would H really have tortured Younger's children?
Do you think that H would really have tortured/killed Younger's children if he still did not break?
shareI believe H was totally capable.
and the question the movie was asking us was...
would we want him to?
The part that seemed weak to me, was Michael Sheen's character, had planned all this.. to take days of torture... prepared to sacrifice himself for his cause... and many others... but was not prepared when they caught his wife and children..
Jackson was great in his role..
as was Carrie-Anne Moss.
Kids are frequently tortured by military forces to make their parents break.
I'm surprised than a professional like H would event hesitate.
It's a movie.
In real life, he would beguin with them as soon as they were delivered to him.
[deleted]
We Europeans frown on such things.
I posted the following in another thread in this forum:
Psychologists could have a field day with these questions.share
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
quoting: To answer your question: An immoral act is immoral, no matter the circumstances. There is no justification. It is simply not right to do anything to any human being that we don't want to happen to us. If we step into area of justification we are losing all the human values in the process.
You make it sound so simple. But is it, really?
"No matter the circumstances."
Is it not immoral to fail to act if by so doing you allow millions of people to be murdered, when there is something you could do to prevent their murders?
If you answer that, no, it is not immoral to fail to act in such circumstances, then do you also say, as the pacificsts do, that even violence used as a defense against a military assault is morally unacceptable?
Many nations/societies that like to think of themselves as being somehow more morally advanced and civilized, and that cite as an example their claim that they do not and never would use torture under any circumstance, feel no qualms in using violence as a "defensive" measure. This might mean, for example, dropping bombs or firing missiles from drones. But what about the innocent children and civilians who will be killed or maimed in the process? Why is using torture in a torture chamber unacceptable while pulverizing an arm with a bomb, or shredding a leg or an eye with shrapnel, acceptable?
First thing I did was rewatch this movie after the Senate torture report came out yesterday. Wonder how many people thought about this movie. I think it makes the movie's point very interesting. I don't think it makes a case in either way. I think that is up to us as people to decide how we will handle things, case by case, and who do we dare give the burden to make those decisions for us in situations like in this movie? Anyone?
Definitely something to be debated.
I don't think this film is widely known. I only found it by accident myself a few weeks ago.
shareThis statement is absurd. The fact that you are comparing murder to torture is laughable and it shows you just don't get it. There is a reason there are things called "War crimes." Someone like you would believe that it is redundant and that war is already a crime. But however, you just laid out how war is not a crime if its defense. So, that means you do believe in war crimes, which would mean, you would say the nation starting the war was committing the crime.
Most people who are tortured are held in jail for life or killed anyway. Being killed quickly is how many people would like to go no matter the circumstance. Also many people would rather be beheaded than tortured, I know I would.
Torture is on another level and because its proven to be quiet unreliable and unhelpful (unless you actually think torturing a guy in 2002 gave the US some information that lead to his capture in 2011 that the US would not have gotten that information elsewhere in the 9 years in between means you think our intelligence agencies are completely incompetent.
Either you are the type who sheds morality and tramples the constitution if necessary for political gain (or political defense) or you are completely ignorant on this topic and believe you know more than almost everyone in the world. There is a reason nations all over the world have agreed torture is unacceptable no matter the circumstances, whether at war or not. Heck, a majority of even fascist dictators understands that torture is crossing the line. As soon as we start violating our own constitution (how many constitutional amendments did the Patriot Act violate? 4. How many constitutional amendments did the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Agency violate? 9. But hey,m I guess that's ok when it is the republican party doing it. However, if Obama uses his completely constitutionally expressed authority, he is the one threatening our constitution. What an idiot you are.
Republicans call it duties - he has constitutional duties, not authority. Well, Obama is doing his duties by doing what he can to move this nation forward, get us off of oil, move the nation back to capitalism (something the republican party has not stood for since Reagan and the GOP after him have turned to pro-monopoly, anti free-market competition, pro fossil fuel subsidies, anti-college and innovation subsidies and anti-progressive taxation, anti regulation and oversight - which are ALL capitalist values).
The greatest trick the GOP has pulled is the way they have changed the peoples' comprehension of what capitalism is. Suddenly, capitalism is socialism and plutocracy is capitalism. Anyone knowing anything about economics knows this.
Adam Smith, the father of capitalism himself warned of only one thing, one danger that could destroy a capitalist economy which was, word for word "a vast disparity of wealth and income between classes." Capitalism is about a strong middle class, which means minimum wage increase, which means higher wages from corporations who are making record profits (2013 corporate profits broke a HISTORICAL record - what happened to the trickle down? never came) and the rights of workers. The bottom 80% of the nation makes up for 92% of corporate revenue from consumer spending yet they only have 10% of the nation's wealth. That is the most anti-capitalist thing we have and yet, its what the republicans have been pushing for ever since Reagan.
Now, the republicans have since repealed Dodd-Frank, putting taxpayers back on the hook to bailout banks for risky practices and allowing them to use taxpayer dollars to make risky investments. The republicans are also now trying to halt the Volker Rule (another necessary law that the republicans and President Clinton never should have repealed in the first place) from going into effect, which is another law that allows banks to use peoples' pensions and trust fund money for their investments as well. How nice for the banks!
Oh, and um, social security? Yeah, republicans are deciding to cut funding to social security even though social security has such a surplus (about 2.7 trillion dollars) that if people stopped paying social security tax right now, people could continue to get their social security checks until 2032. Yet, apparently, social security is in danger accord to the republicans so they are taking money away from people who worked all their lives putting money into it so they can make way for money to most likely find a way to spend more money on defense despite the military telling them to STOP.
You're a damn fool and people like you don't give a damn about drones until someone brings up torture and now suddenly you care about drone strikes? HA HAHA. That is so amazing. You conservatives really will say ANYTHING. You're idiots and morons.
By the way, this is a movie, situations like these DON'T HAPPEN. Only twits like you would actually think situations like this are that cut and dry. A terrorist does not put nuclear bombs out there and then lets himself be captured. What let himself be captured if he really wanted to nuke the nation and already had his bombs in place?
It doesn't bother me because its a movie but people like you actually think situations like this happen and its laughable.
Go watch some Fox News reruns before you respond so you can get your talking points straight.
That's because you Europeans are pussies.
shareShould you H have tortured YOUR kid ?
Because, you don't have to be guilty to be tortured.You just have to be suspect.