The whole process is completed under the surveillance of the drone of the eye of the sky to eliminate the planners of the terrorist incident.
Instead of explaining the problem, the film raises the question. When faced with legal, political, and moral tests, as a leader who decides his life and death, what choice should he make?
The first is a moral test. In order to prevent a suicide attack that could lead to more than 80 casualties, the life of a poor but happy and intelligent girl was hurt. The image of a girl who lives in a closed-minded area, but loves learning and has an unrestrained mind, shows the vitality of life. If the plan is implemented, it will harm the freedom, happiness, and survival of the common people. This is morally unforgivable. .
Then there is the political test. If the plan is implemented, it will be the shooting of two British citizens and an American citizen by the United Kingdom. This is a political impermissibility. But then the film shows the world's unanimous attitude towards terrorism. As long as a person joins a terrorist organization, he will forever lose the state's protection of him.
Then there is the legal test, kill one person, or maybe eighty people? Missile fire on friendly areas? This choice is a matter of law.
Questions were asked, explanations were made, but the results were still very sad. Because the first missile shot did not completely eliminate the criminals, a second time was carried out, and the girl still did not survive.
I remember what the British military minister said in the film, never tell a soldier how much costs in the war, yes, there are gains and losses, and all that can be done is to minimize the damage.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
