ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

suicide bomber

Paths of Blood- Meet Al Qaeda Terrorists

Path of Blood is an opportunity to meet a few Islamic terrorists. Yeah, not the people I look forward to meeting either, but this documentary from Jonathan Hacker gives us a chance to meet some of those in Al Qaeda and we may be surprised at what we see.

The film is set in the six-year battle between Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and the Saudi security services. That in itself is a reminder to us that most of the things done by Islamic terrorists take place in the Arab world?and kill mostly other Moslems. The film is made up of footage shot by the Saudi security forces and footage that the security forces captured in raids on AQAP safe houses. Much of the captured AQAP footage shows training and some of the wills of suicide bombers made before their deadly missions. The footage made by both sides is presented without commentary, so that viewers can assess these messages for themselves. Those messages present two very different world views, both coming out of understandings of Islam.

In no way does this film glamorize or promote terrorism or Al Qaeda?s philosophy. But it does put a human face on some of those involved. The film opens with a series of outtakes of ?Ali?s? martyr video. Ali is something of a class clown and he is constantly messing up, laughing, or joking through these outtakes. He can?t remember the things he?s been told to say in the video. And yet, this is someone whose life will soon be ending. We laugh at Ali and then feel a certain amount of pathos for him, even though we never approve of what he plans to do.

Of course, we may be taken aback a bit when we hear those in Al Qaeda speaking of fighting God?s battle. But we should realize that people of many nations and times have claimed God was on their side in whatever war they were fighting. I found it ironic that AQ speakers frequently referred to non-Arabs in their country as ?crusaders?, because the medieval crusaders had the same understanding of what they were doing as AQ: They believed that they were fighting God?s holy war and that to die in the process was a ticket to heaven. The more things change the more they remain the same.

It should be noted that there is some slightly gruesome and cruel footage included in this film. That is natural considering the nature of the footage that has been edited together in this film. But the filmmakers have kept such distasteful visuals at a minimum.

While watching the film, I was mindful that this could easily be seen as a battle between good and evil. However, I was also mindful that both the Saudi security services and AQAP would agree with that assessment?with themselves being on the side of good. That serves as a reminder that people of any faith should be slow to ever claim God is on our side in any war or battle.

Photos courtesy of OR Media/Paladin

Eye in the Sky – Ethical Dilemmas in Modern Warfare

?What you witnessed today with your coffee and biscuits was terrible. . ..?

Now that drones are an important part of warfare, does it make war a little more sterile? Is it just a video game with actual explosions and real blood? Is it too easy to set aside the morality involved in waging war when it is done from the safety of somewhere half a world away? In Eye in the Sky, we watch in near real time as what was a simple military mission moves to new levels and decisions must be made rapidly that could have serious consequences.

Credit: Keith Bernstein / Bleecker Street
Credit: Keith Bernstein / Bleecker Street

Col. Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) heads a mission to capture a British subject who is part of a terrorist plot in Kenya. From her bunker in London, she monitors video from an American drone piloted by Lt. Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) and A1C Carrie Gershon on her first day in the job. The plan is to make sure all the terrorists involved are in a house together and then send the Kenya military to arrest them. But when the meeting moves to an armed area, the capture can?t happen. When it is discovered that there are two suicide bombers being prepared in the house, the mission begins to creep into more deadly options. Meanwhile, General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) is briefing a group of cabinet officials about the mission. As the mission changes, they are called on to expand the rules of engagement. When a girl selling bread sets up her table within the blast area of a possible missile attack, the question of collateral damage becomes a personal issue.

Because this involves different governments and nations, the responsibilities are never clearly marked. Often those who must make decisions want to ?refer up? to higher levels. But because the suicide bomber could leave at any time, there is little time to debate what is legal or moral. While the Christian Just War Theory is never explicitly brought up in the film, many of the issues in the film touch on the way society has come to judge the morality of war in a world of global terrorism.

EYE IN THE SKY

We watch all this, as do the people involved from a distance looking at the screens that they see. It is tempting to think that they are doing something very similar to what we do?look at a screen as something not quite real. But the little girl selling bread?an innocent bystander who we see clearly and understand the danger she faces?becomes a symbol for all the questions that war by drone brings up.

I have long been a fan of director Gavin Hood because of his ability to show moral ambiguity. (For example, see his earlier films Tsotsi or A Reasonable Man?or even X-Men Origins: Wolverine.) This is a film that creates a situation that morality must be judged within an ever changing situation. Is it just a numbers game? Does the possibility of killing a young girl outweigh the possibility of suicide bombers in a shopping mall? While for some of those involved (especially the politicians) this is something of a theoretical exercise, the closer one is to actually having to act (such as Lt. Watts and Airman Gershon) it becomes a very existential event. It will challenge who they understand themselves to be. It will be something that they will have to live with the consequences whatever they will be. Actually, it is something that all those involved hold responsibility for.

The film doesn?t expect us to judge for certain if what happens was the right thing to do. There are too many variables that come into play. Rather, in the end we are left wondering if the right choices were made at various points along the way. Does the debate over what should or shouldn?t be done actually make things worse? Is there a way to judge an ?acceptable? level of collateral damage? (The American government officials in the film seem to think so.) Should we mourn the loss of life that seems inevitable? Do we expect or want the military people involved to feel sorrow over this, or should they be hard hearted and stoic? Perhaps what I appreciate most about Eye in the Sky is that it is not a film that gives us answers, but gives us many worthwhile questions to ponder.

Photos courtesy of Bleeker Street