Favorite Scene

[Gem35]

Caddyshack : Rodney Dangerfield yells "Four !.... I should have yelled Two"
Airplane : "Joey... have you ever seen a grown man naked?"

[goodwoodrw]

Another couple.
"Sometimes there ain't just enough rocks"
and " the morale of this is story is, you can't steal 27 carats from a rabbit and get away with it!"

[ilovestrategy]

I like that part on "Airplane" where the inflatable pilot suddenly has a smile on his face.

[JudgeDredd]

And later when it's smoking! lmao at that [:D]

[Nemesis]

ORIGINAL: Doggie
Poor innocent Muslims being getting shredded by gunships in Blackhawk Down

Um, maybe I'm stupid or something, but what does their religion have to do with anything [&:]? Or did you watch Saving Private Ryan thinking "man, look at all those Christians getting killed..."?

That said, regarding the subject at hand...

The Mexican Standoff in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

In the beginning of "The Wild Bunch", when the gang is about to make their getaway from the bank. The atmosphere is so tense that you could cut it with a knife.

I always liked the scene in "The Winter War", where the small Finnish force tries to attack the church-hill, only to be beaten back, and then followed by thousands of Soviet troops swarming down the hill. It shows the size-difference in the opposing forces quite well indeed.

[JudgeDredd]

And here we go again...round and round [8|]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Nemesis

ORIGINAL: Doggie
Poor innocent Muslims being getting shredded by gunships in Blackhawk Down

Um, maybe I'm stupid or something, but what does their religion have to do with anything [&:]? Or did you watch Saving Private Ryan thinking "man, look at all those Christians getting killed..."?

That said, regarding the subject at hand...

The Mexican Standoff in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

In the beginning of "The Wild Bunch", when the gang is about to make their getaway from the bank. The atmosphere is so tense that you could cut it with a knife.

I always liked the scene in "The Winter War", where the small Finnish force tries to attack the church-hill, only to be beaten back, and then followed by thousands of Soviet troops swarming down the hill. It shows the size-difference in the opposing forces quite well indeed.

I don't know, maybe because their primitive superstitions seem to be the sole driving force for everything they do, for every offense they take and for every threat they make to murder we infidels for our transgressions in insulting their primitive superstitions. Would you have preferred he refer to them by their race rather than their religion so you could take offense at that instead?

[Nemesis]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I don't know, maybe because their primitive superstitions seem to be the sole driving force for everything they do, for every offense they take and for every threat they make to murder we infidels for our transgressions in insulting their primitive superstitions. Would you have preferred he refer to them by their race rather than their religion so you could take offense at that instead?

Was the conflict in Somalia "religious" conflict? I don't think so. Sure, somalis were muslim, but were they fighting the UN and Americans because they were muslims? No. If Somalia was a war between religions, then it would be OK to divide the participants in to "Muslims" and "Christians". But since it was not a religious conflict, I fail to see why religion needs to be dragged in to it.

How would I have referred to them instead? Well, how about "Somalis"? I mean, we refer to Germans as "Germans". We refer to Americans as "American". But when we talk about Somalis, the correct nomenclature is related to their religion and not their nationality? Why?

As to their "primitive superstitions".... Their superstition is not that different from the primitive superstition of Christians. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't care for the muslims who play the "eternal victim"-fiddle. I feel that Islam is a deeply dysfunctional religion. But Christianity is only marginally better. Neither do I care for the Christians who feel that they are being persecuted by godless heathens. They are both equally lame whiners in my book. They both want to push their morality and opinions on others. But in this particular case my question was only about the fact that Doggie felt compelled to drag religion in to the discussion, when discussion was not related to the subject at hand in any shape or form. We had a depiction of battle between Somalis and Americans, and Doggie turned it in to battle between "Muslims and Americans".

[HansBolter]

I'm afraid you completely misunderstood my reference to "primitive superstitions". It was not an attempt to single out the muslim faith. I consider all religions to be equally based on primitive superstition.

And you couldn't be more wrong about why the Somali muslims were fighting. The undeclared war between the muslim faith and the rest of humanity IS the reason why muslims in MANY different countries have been, are now, and will continue to fight. So the reference to them as muslims as opposed to Somalis is a prefect valid and technically correct reference. Singling out nationalies when the muslim "we must kill the infidels" plague is clearly pan-nationalistic is what would be an incorrect and insulting reference.

[Nemesis]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

And you couldn't be more wrong about why the Somali muslims were fighting. The undeclared war between the muslim faith and the rest of humanity IS the reason why muslims in MANY different countries have been, are now, and will continue to fight.

But we are talking about Somalia here. The Somalis did not fight the UN and Americans because they viewed them as infidels or something. They would have fought them had UN and US only sent muslim forces of their own in to Somalia. Hell, they fought the Pakistanis as well, and they were muslim as well!

So the reference to them as muslims as opposed to Somalis is a prefect valid and technically correct reference.

Only if you also stopped referring to the Americans in Somalia as "Americans" and started calling them "Christians" instead. Like I said, the conflict between US and Somalis was not religious in nature. USA did not go there because of religious needs, Somalis did not fight them because they were "infidels". The reasons were elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong: I'm well aware of the various conflicts around the world that have religious implications in them, and are more or less caused by bunch of ultra-religious muslims running around with AK-47's. I just don't see the conflict between Somalis and USA as one. Or do you feel that every single conflict where one party is USA and the other participant happens to (mostly) adhere to Islam, is by default a "conflict between USA and Islam", even if the reasons for the conflict are not related to religion at all?

Was the war between USA and Japan a "war between USA and militant Shinto"? No. It was a war between USA and Japan. Anyone who referred the Pacific Theater of WW2 as "war between the Allied and militant shinto" would get strange looks from other people.

To simplify: Suppose a war broke out between USA and Mexico. Would you call that war "War between USA and Mexico", or "war between USA and Catholicsm" (since Mexico is predominantly Catholic country)? No you would not. What if everything else was identical, but Mexico was a muslim country. Would it then suddenly be OK to call it "War between USA and Islam", as opposed to "War between USA and Mexico"? By your logic, it would be.

Singling out nationalies when the muslim "we must kill the infidels" plague is clearly pan-nationalistic is what would be an incorrect and insulting reference.

Since this WAS a conflict between nationalities and not between religions, I fail to see why religion needs to be dragged in to it. Because one side of the participant happened to be followers of Islam? By that logic, since most Americans are Christians, therefore the war in Iraq was a "War between Christianity and Islam", right?

[HansBolter]

I think perhaps both of us are a bit guilty of attempting to narrowly pigeonhole that conflict into an either/or status of nationalistic/religious nature.

While it is probably valid to portray the Somali muslims as fighting against foriegn occupiers as "nationalistic", the underlying animosities and arousal to fight the "infidel" cannot be discounted as a part of their motivation. Furthermore, the argument that they fought for nationalistic reasons is somewhat suspect when considered against the simple fact that there was no effective national government. They were in the midst of a civil war between factions motivated by the far more simple to assess human desires for greed and power.


As for your reference to WWII in the Pacific not being able to justifiably be portrayed as a struggle between the U.S.A. and militant shinto, I believe you are quite wrong. It was militant shinto that took over the Japanese society, as much by intimidation as anything else and set them on the course toward war. So, it is completely correct and justifiable to portray that conflict as one of the U.S.A against militant shinto, just as the war in the Eurpoean theater is often portrayed as a crusade against Nazism and Fascism and not just as a war between Germany/Italy and the rest of Europe.

[Nemesis]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
While it is probably valid to portray the Somali muslims as fighting against foriegn occupiers as "nationalistic", the underlying animosities and arousal to fight the "infidel" cannot be discounted as a part of their motivation.

Well, they were killing each other quite efficiently as it was, even though they shared the same religion. The war in Somalia was fought between warlords and semi-independent "states", and not between religious factions as such. When USa and UN got involved, their attention was divided towards them as well, and they did not do that because UN and USA represented "wrong religion". They did it because it seemed to them that they were interfering in the conflict and taking sides.

Furthermore, the argument that they fought for nationalistic reasons is somewhat suspect when considered against the simple fact that there was no effective national government.

I'm not saying that the somali-fighters represented the nation of Somalia which was fighting against USA and UN. What I AM saying is that they didn't represent Islam either. They represented various factions inside Somalia.

As for your reference to WWII in the Pacific not being able to justifiably be portrayed as a struggle between the U.S.A. and militant shinto, I believe you are quite wrong. It was militant shinto that took over the Japanese society, as much by intimidation as anything else and set them on the course toward war.

you are absolutely right there, but fact remains that the war is still not called "War between USA and Shinto", and the Japanese soldiers are not referred as "Shintoists", it's called "War between USA and Japan", with Japanese being called "Japanese". So I fail to see why the fighting in Somalia should be referred to as "fighting between USA and Islam", and somali fighter specially referred as "muslims" when reasons for that fighting were even less religious than they were in the pacific theater.

So, it is completely correct and justifiable to portray that conflict as one of the U.S.A against militant shinto

But fact remains that it is not portrayed as such, it's portrayed as war between USA and Japan, period.

just as the war in the Eurpoean theater is often portrayed as a crusade against Nazism and Fascism and not just as a war between Germany/Italy and the rest of Europe.

But when we look at Pacific theater, religion did not appear there. While the reasons for Japanese imperialism were rooted in militant Shinto, the grunts were not told that "this is a war against Shinto". The war was and is not referred as "war against Shinto". It has always been referred as war between USA and Japan.

In Europe the war has been referred as "war against fascism" or "war against nazism". But those are clearly identifiable political factions, with identifiable leaders that were at the very core of the conflict. Defining the two was easy, whereas defining "militant shinto" is harder. When does shinto turn from regular shinto in to militant shinto? Where do we draw the line? Shinto was not eliminated due to the war, it's alive and well as we speak. Same could not be said about national-socialism or fascism.

[Toby42]

Why do people continue to hijack a thread for their own agenda? Why does Matrix allow this?

[mack2]

"I hate illinois nazis".

"Conn - Bilge Bay, Seawater hatch is secured Sir"

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Clearly it depends on the size of the round peg and square hole...and vice versa

No, No, NO![:-]

It depends on the political leanings and religion of the pegs and holes in question!

(pardon my farcical sarcasm)

[andym]

I think one of the ALL TIME great scenes has to be from Zulu.The one where the Roll Call is being called by Col SGT Bourne,he calls out a name and there is silence to which he replies
 
 
"..........you arent dead,ive just seen you!"
 
 
"Arent i?Ooooo,thank you very much,Col Sgt"
 
 
"Sir,answer, Sir,Officer on Parade, Laddy!"
 
 

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: andym

I think one of the ALL TIME great scenes has to be from Zulu.The one where the Roll Call is being called by Col SGT Bourne,he calls out a name and there is silence to which he replies


"..........you arent dead,ive just seen you!"


"Arent i?Ooooo,thank you very much,Col Sgt"


"Sir,answer, Sir,Officer on Parade, Laddy!"

Although the effects are a little dated by today's standards, that whole movie was one of my favorites![8D]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Treale

Why do people continue to hijack a thread for their own agenda? Why does Matrix allow this?

I don't know, maybe because General forums were created to encourage discourse.

Why does every divergent thought and the discourse that folows it find itself being attacked by someone descrying the "highjacking" of the original thought?

[ezzler]

Eary in the film when the soldiers are first standing to, waiting, CSGT Bourne calls out
'Hitch , do your tunic up , where do you think you are?'

Reminds of a story about sailors unloading ships at Malta during the constant air raids.
A stick of bombs falls into the water some 500 yds away. The old sweats are unfazed but the newly arrived sailors begin to take cover.
A man with a megaphone shouts out 'what do you lot think you're up to ? get to work. . Those bloody bombs are nothing to do with you'

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Treale

Why do people continue to hijack a thread for their own agenda? Why does Matrix allow this?

I don't know, maybe because General forums were created to encourage discourse.

Why does every divergent thought and the discourse that folows it find itself being attacked by someone descrying the "highjacking" of the original thought?

For me to argue the point with you would take this subject even farther off topic. Then I would be just as bad as the people that I was talking about !!!