The legal adviser of Women's Benevolence was unable to make a decision and had to throw the pot to the prosecutor. It was spontaneously hot that the hot potato was thrown from the command room to the headquarters. As a result, politicians fell into the anxiety of worrying that public opinion would not be good for them. It was another round of dumping wars, which was called the preservation of the lives of innocent girls. Whether it is a politician or the military, you know that little girls are bound to die. The military chose to look directly at and bear the consequences, and politicians chose to conceal and shirk the consequences. From beginning to end, the military has chosen to "with tears" in the end. Politicians don’t care whether one person is dead or 80. All decisions are to shirk responsibility and save themselves.
What makes me feel ironic is that soldiers with no actual combat experience refused to perform the mission because of emotion. Then he almost sacrificed an eyeliner in order to save the innocent child. They completely ignored that the poor Somali undercover brother is still at risk, and the whole film is the one that worries me the most (although I hate the Somali). In my opinion, this black and thin African man is the real lone hero, and his appearance also eases the heavy atmosphere. When the colonel ordered him to enter the area where the terrorists were stationed, I clearly saw the awkward expression on his face. I guess there must be thousands of horses running by in his heart at that time. Manipulating beetles, pretending to sell barrels, and running fast, this agent is a superhero. In the end, it was only half a minute. He could have saved the little girl, but he really did his best.
That Virgin Angela is quite dark. Although she shed worthless tears, she remembers that Mr. Minister asked her, "If we don’t act, the terrorists will blow up the city center and will be invited to the TV station to explain our incompetence. Is it you or me?" Mother Mother said without burden, "You are the dead fellow! Come on. I can watch the Al-Shabaab kill 80 people with peace of mind and condemn them, but I don’t want to take responsibility. Explain that our bomb killed a little girl."
Finally, the female politician wanted to paralyze herself by blaming the general for the little girl’s death and reduce her guilt. Expressed her willingness to sacrifice more people to ensure that public opinion is on her side, and tried her best to throw away the pot). The general satirized the female politician's disregard of life with his own actual combat experience: because he realized the cruelty of reality and the preciousness of life, he made the decision to sacrifice one person to save more people.
This film reflects reality very much-the truth about the war on terrorism is not just the war on terrorism in the United States. In the future, Chinese leaders will face similar choices: bad choice or worse choice, which one is the worse choice? Should I be responsible? For example, after 9/11, all countries have plans to shoot down airliners controlled by terrorists, and I believe China also has them. From the perspective of God, it is clear that it is better to shoot down a hijacked airliner than to hit a building. The three hundred people on the plane are going to die. There is no need to pay the three thousand people on the ground. But no one knew the consequences at the time, so it was impossible to shoot down. And now, even if you know the hole cards, even if you know the consequences of 911, even if you have a plan. It can be said that it is impossible to intercept 90% successfully, and 911 will still happen. Because politicians and officials are willing to take responsibility? If this happens, it is a high probability event to wrestle with each other until the plane hits the target. Because the people killed were killed by terrorists, the officials were at best ineffective in fighting terrorism. If the officials ordered the killing of all the people in the plane, even though more people were saved, no one knew that he was saved. No one would know that if he didn’t shoot down, he would kill himself. No one would be grateful for the disaster that did not happen. The government, because there is no way to show the consequences of not being shot down in a parallel space. At that time, those well-known and political opponents will take the opportunity to question the conspiracy theories: "If you can be sure that you will have 911 if you don't shoot it down? There is no better way to do it? Is there really a terrorist on board?" And all the families of the victims know who their relatives are. If an official ordered to be killed, this official may very well become the emperor's scapegoat. If I were the leader, even if I knew that 3,000 more people would die, would I consider whether I should lose my career and life to save them? The point is that the rescued people will not appreciate me, they and everyone will accuse me of being more cruel than terrorists. To give up one's life to save people is neither profit nor name, and sin. Do you want to do this kind of thing? There have been two attempted aviation terrorism cases in China. Unsuccessful, just luck.
For a leader, it is easier to make negative decisions (regardless of right or wrong). If something happens, it is only the responsibility of the leader and will not become the culprit. If you encounter a possible 911, give your subordinates a vague instruction: smash the terrorist conspiracy at any cost and protect the safety of the hostages and the people. The subordinates took a look: This is obviously a shirk, take me to the top of the pot, and I also push it off: it is conveyed level by level, and conveyed to the pilot. No one can say whether to launch or not to launch. The pilot also knew in his heart: Don't launch the back pot, launch the back pot without authorization...I hit it, so I don't have to worry about it anymore. The leaders issued important instructions: First, condemning the murderous terrorists, and secondly condoning the murdered people. Everyone lit candles. An angry spear is directed at the terrorists, this is a must. When the Virgin said: "Death 80 people, the pot is for terrorists, the heart is on my side; when a little girl is killed, the heart is on the side of terrorists", this is very terrible. Does it know that terrorists want to hack and kill the masses and wait for him to hack some of them before stopping it? This is a real problem. After violent terror chopped down hundreds of people, the fighter who fired bullets at the mob was regarded as a hero by everyone, and the survivor was regarded as his lifesaver. If the violent terror is killed before the attack, will the public know that the dead are civilians, and will the Virgin say that these people are gentle rights defenders? The masses will be the police and the killer, because they only saw him kill. Violent Terror did not hack anyone to death, so no one knew that he was rescued by the police. They may even think that the police are more dangerous and may shoot and kill people indiscriminately.
Bad choices and worse gambling, this kind of problem will appear in all aspects of life. When the big flood comes, it is to avoid the danger (the masses suffer losses); or to take the risk (can't stand it all, many people die). However, the two cards will not be played at the same time. When the first one is opened, the masses will only hate which official caused them to be damaged. The last one was opened and successfully defended. The masses would thank the official for keeping everything he had. Failed, it was caused by the flood.
The Secretary of State in the movie is considered a normal person and has a role to play. It seems that Hillary used her cell phone to approve a lot of drone attacks, but the Secretary of State must make a decision to throw a bomb. This is not normal in itself, and it is not an atomic bomb. The little girl is cute, but her future is very dark, either to be a terrorist or a mother of a terrorist. Only by eliminating Al-Shabaab's extremism can the little girl's life be saved. If you can't, kill the little girl and the terrorists together, perform the operation to bleed some blood, and save the other innocents. The atomic bomb of World War II killed many civilians, but saved many more. The elites who make decisions are smart people, but smart people may not be good people, they will be responsible people. The politicians, lawyers and drone players in the movie should be sent to the front lines to fight the terrorists face to face. Those who survived a year later were reinstated.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
