Glory of Persepolis' goes on screen in response to insulting movie `300' [Archive] - Page 2

aecp

05-11-2007, 15:01

Exactly, most people aren't as intelligent or well-informed as most of the people on this forum are, but they still hold the right to vote. So films like this do have an influence on voters and as such on politics, wether conscious or unconscious...

Then I fail to see what the problem is. There really isn't much that a filmmaker can do to prevent his movies from being interpreted by people who are either incomprehensibly stupid or are so thouroughly affected by their own political agenda that they see examples of it even where there are none.

So the opinion of those who argue it is a good movie is worth nothing and they (we) never brought any acceptable argument? Good to know...

Of course no one can argue against opinion, if you think this is a good movie then that's how it is. But whether 300 is good or not based on it's merits is a completely different question. I have yet to see a single good argument for why 300 is a good movie, which isn't strange since there are none. 300 is garbage that has sold very well by appealing to the right demographic. But I am not trying to tell anyone that they can't enjoy it, to each his own. Hey, some people jerk off to badly drawn Simpsons porn and some enjoy videos of real life mutilation and murder, in that light 300 isn't so bad.

Given that "evil comes from the East" is pretty much one of the core building blocks of the whole damn plot, I'd say it matters fairly little if the Easterners were purple. The racism, or rather ethnocentrism, in the movie is not so much based on specific nationality and ethnicity as on a "the West vs. the Rest" duality, where the former - represented by the Greeks in general and the Spartans in particular - get to represent what really amount to "good old American values" and the latter - summed up as "Persians", "all the hordes of Asia" in one line at least - the negation of those values and duly everything vile and oppressive and whatnot.

In other words, crazy Easterners are assailing the very roots of human civilization as we (or rather, Miller et Co...) know it and it is up to Real Men(tm) to make sacrifices and if necessary do bad things to save it.

Well, the East vs West issue is kinda unavoidable, as it was the key theme of Herodotos Histories. And hasn't "evil comes from the east" been a fixture in the european world view for the last 2000 years or so? What with the lack of amphibious assaults by native americans and all. As for the whole evil thing, I will say this for the hundredth time, what does anyone expect from a movie such as this? But hey, why not be productive and suggest an alternate course 300 could have taken? Imagine the following, if you will, in the voice typical of tacky action movie trailers.

IN 480 B.C THE SPLENDID AND MAGNANIMOUS PERSIAN EMPIRE EMBARKS ON A PUNITIVE EXPEDITION TO PUNISH THOSE GREEKS WHO HAVE SUPPORTED REBELLION AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE BURNING OF THE WESTERN CAPITAL OF THE EMPIRE AND HAVE SINCE FAILED REPENT BY THE SIMPLEST TOKENS OF SUBMISSION TO THE GREATEST AND MOST HUMANITARIAN EMPIRE ON EARTH.
THE FIRST TO FEEL THE RIGHTFULL JUSTICE OF PERSIA WILL BE THE GODLESS SPARTANS, WHO IN THEIR PRIDE AND TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL DECENCIES DISREGARDED THE SACROSANCT PERSONS OF THE PERSIAN MESSANGERS AND MURDERED THEM IN AN ACT OF UNEQUALED IMPIETY AND CRUELTY. THESE SLAVE-MURDERING PAEDOPHILES AND PURVEORS OF EUGENICS WILL SURELY SUFFER THE WRATH OF GOD AND THEIR LIES WILL BE CONSUMED IN THE FIRE OF ULTIMATE TRUTH.

Somehow I think that wouldn't have appealed to 300s target audience.

Afro Thunder

05-11-2007, 15:36

And what's that say to you about their overall depiction ?

In other words, "the Enemy" are denied even the capacity for dissent and, thus, presumably individual (or at the very least certain degree of critical/rational) thought...

Actually there is one scene where the narrator tells us that the "ones in the back yelled 'Forward!!!', but the ones in the front yelled 'BACK!!!'" However, this is the only such scene in the film.

Tiberius Nero

05-11-2007, 17:00

Nevertheless the Ephors are Greek and not Persian and don't forget the corrupt politician who wasn't deformed or something like that - and that impression about the dying groans of Persian infantry I can not support

This is why I have been saying that the bias of the movie is not racial, but political/cultural. It matters not that they are Greek, it matters that politically/culturally they are on the same camp as the adversaries. Traitors in our ranks and all that. And the Persian soldiers, when they die, they sound like Uruk-hai who have smoked a cigarette too many, listen to them again (u-tube should have several battle scenes from 300) and hear for yourself.

btw the whole totally irrelevant queen/politician subplot wasn't in the comic, but I grant you that, it wasn't probably added to make an extra point (the traitors amongst us theme is already present with the Ephors), it is blatantly obvious that it was added because, hey, we got a fine chick playing Leonidas' wife, it is a shame not to include half an hour with her on screen, no? :p

Miles Sueborum

05-11-2007, 21:36

This is why I have been saying that the bias of the movie is not racial, but political/cultural. It matters not that they are Greek, it matters that politically/culturally they are on the same camp as the adversaries. Traitors in our ranks and all that.

But if miller and/or snyder wanted the Spartan-culture they created to be associated with the USA or the Western World than they are among the dumbest propagandists ever seen - for the Sparta that is shown in the movie/comic is fascist...
Lets collect things that movie Spartans and the West have in common:
They are in the West...
They have a superior military...
They claim to fight for freedom and democracy (not a big deal though as nazis also claimed to fight for freedom and communists also said they'd fought for democracy)...
But in both cases you have a superpower invading a smaller country (though of course the West claims to defend itself...) - just that Persia is the superpower in this case...
And Spartans (I know - I'm repeating myself) kill anyone who tries to speak to them (except that one guy who loses his arm at the wall built of men), they murder their children when they don't seem to be fit enough, they kill wounded enemies, they build walls out of corpses and they refer to their allies in a derogatory way - Leonidas sacrafices his men without hesitation, is sad that he couldn't sacrafice even more and refuses any terms given by xerxes without ever making a counteroffer...
Only a complete retard would show such a society with the aim to glorify the own culture/country or justify any politics...

But ok - I thought about the arguments presented and have to say - the way the persians are presented shows more similarity to the stereotype of a middle-eastern-enemy (soamee) than pure geographical origin:
Their infantry wears often some pseudo-taliban outfit...
They are religious fanatcis (They alsways claim to fight for a god-king)...
They use weapons considered to be the weapons of cowards (arrowshower/terrorism - though it is questionable wether blowing up yourself is an act of cowardice)
But there are also points speaking against this:
They often wear all that gold stuff at their body (soamees are expected to be poor)
They have this orgy tent (soamees are expected to hide their women)
They are often too afraid to attack (soamees are expected to be fanatic enough to fight to the end)
They have many Black in their lines (soamees haven't)
Xerxes offers Leonidas several times terms for a ceasefire (soamees are expected to be unconditionally out for destruction - not for a talk)

And the Persian soldiers, when they die, they sound like Uruk-hai who have smoked a cigarette too many, listen to them again (u-tube should have several battle scenes from 300) and hear for yourself.

I did as you suggested and have to admit - not only immortals but also some grunts make this orc-like sound when they die. Though this is maybe because of the slowmotion...
But I can't remember that they made this sound in the German version I saw...

btw the whole totally irrelevant queen/politician subplot wasn't in the comic, but I grant you that, it wasn't probably added to make an extra point (the traitors amongst us theme is already present with the Ephors), it is blatantly obvious that it was added because, hey, we got a fine chick playing Leonidas' wife, it is a shame not to include half an hour with her on screen, no? :p

:laugh4: - good point ^^
This whole subplot was to me the worst part of the movie - especially the embarassing scene in the council...

Of course no one can argue against opinion, if you think this is a good movie then that's how it is. But whether 300 is good or not based on it's merits is a completely different question. I have yet to see a single good argument for why 300 is a good movie, which isn't strange since there are none. 300 is garbage that has sold very well by appealing to the right demographic. But I am not trying to tell anyone that they can't enjoy it, to each his own. Hey, some people jerk off to badly drawn Simpsons porn and some enjoy videos of real life mutilation and murder, in that light 300 isn't so bad.

Hm - the effects are excellent, the actors convince (they are not brilliant but nevertheless good enough for an good action movie), the style of the comic is accurately brought on screen, the soundtrack fits and the narrator (at least in the German Version) does a good job at telling the story (not that there would be much story to tell) - all in all I think these are good arguments to claim that this is a good actionmovie...
And I hope you are not suggesting that people who liked 300 are potentially the same who like "badly drawn Simpsons porn" and/or "videos of real life mutilation and murder" ^^

Lowenklee

05-12-2007, 01:41

"But if miller and/or snyder wanted the Spartan-culture they created to be associated with the USA or the Western World than they are among the dumbest propagandists ever seen - for the Sparta that is shown in the movie/comic is fascist...
Only a complete retard would show such a society with the aim to glory the own culture/country or justify any politics..."

Hello, long time lurker first time poster. I apologize for making my first post on the Totalwar forums a potentially contentious one but felt compelled to address the above quote.

While I wouldn't care to characterize the majority of the 300's viewing audience as "retards" the facts of my experience with the film were that the overwhelming sentiment of the audience at the close of the film was positive and one dimentional in support of the Spartans which is perfectly natural as no thought-provoking counterpoint was given in the film to the moral position of the greeks. However, what was interesting was that this sentiment had not diminished in those I spoke to several days later. This I observed in people who had seen the film during it's opening week and had ample time to contemplate it's possible implications but largely did not do so, rather many chose to accept what was given at face value...after all, it's just a silly film?

You'll have to pardon me for not having mentioned my backround in film studies...and the fact that I am originally german by nationality and completed my studies there. During my study of film I was made quite intimatly familiar with the films of the german prewar period. These films were often times quite compelling toward a sentiment of solidarity, cultural identification, and a feeling of being besieged by foreign elements intent on destroying the traditions, culture, and unity of the volk. Often times this militaristic and nationalistic xenophobia was dressed in quite stunningly beautiful cinematography. Beautiful things, after all, are desirable and draw us to them.

Yet undeniably these films helped to condition a german population by reinforcing latent sentiments already present in the society and endorsing ever increasingly simplistic binary moral paradigms which allowed for ever increasingly simplistic solutions.

In retrospect everything as it occured in pre-war Germany seems obvious, it was hardly so at the time. While I am not suggesting that the current socio-political climate in the United States mirrors that of Germany following the collapse of the relatively moderate Weimar government, I am suggesting that one must be very careful with cultural trends toward which such films as the "the 300" lead. It is the very fact that reasonable American audiences cheered unreservedly this "fascist" Spartan culture that should raise a slight concern. This country (the USA) is yet in the grip of a startlingly conservative political movement to which a corrective balance has yet to be applied. We should be skeptical and encourage public dialogue in the wake of such films.

p.s.
As a side note I have the utmost respect for the many of you who post here, the level of discourse and maturity here is a wonderful example of polite civility. I have increased my little understanding of history by leaps and bounds through regular visits to this forum and am thankful for both the wonderful EB mod and this gratious community.

Teleklos Archelaou

05-12-2007, 05:04

Very interesting first post Lowenklee. Welcome to the fora! Glad you've come aboard matey! :grin:

abou

05-12-2007, 05:23

First of all, apologetics? And you have to consider the target demographic and artistic (HA!) intentions of the movie in question. The first is obviously the teenager/fratboy demographic and the second is ripped men in thongs spinning in slow-mo. Do you seriously expect such a movie to be concerned with portraying the villains fairly? And what does Trajan's Column have to do with anything? I have a hard time seeing the relevance of comparing a mindless popcorn-flick to a nearly 2000 years old monument. I hardly think the creators of the two had the same intentions.
Well that was a lame response. It hardly matters what the demographic is as people who are teenagers should have the facultative capacities to understand a more complex movie. An action movie shouldn't use the excuse that it is an action movie in order to avoid good acting or story-telling. The apologetics have been arguing the opposite and quite vigorously.

Furthermore, you're missing the point. Considering how subversively propagandistic 300 is, it compares quite well with the Column of Trajan. Both tell a story, but one did so without treating its audience as children.

Also, Lowenklee, thanks for your post. I wish more would consider it.

geala

05-12-2007, 07:22

Hello Lowenklee, a very good post but I don't agree with some of your conclusions and suggestions.

Not only is the political system in the USA different from that of post33 Germany, also the influence of the government on the movie industry cannot be compared.
Of course the zeitgeist favors anti-Iran and anti-Muslim sentiments and there are of course people who use this. I allege some bad motives in case of 300 fe.

This prevailing mood has nevertheless some cause, in case of Iran it has a long tradition reaching back in the 1970s. Iran now only wants to use civil nuclear technology (perhaps there are people in the world believing this) but acts against some international declarations. It's a bit ominous.
In case of Islam you should listen to some religious masterminds who declare war on the west in a spiritual sense. This spiritual war has real effects. In my opinion it stems from the -correct- believe that the western system threatens traditional Islam and the related forms of society so Islam has to defend himself. The western world reacts, sometimes overreacts. I hope it is not a vicious circle. But in my opinion not every threat to some systems of thinking and living in this world is totally bad let alone can be avoided.

Btw: If you would like to see a counterpart to German pre WWII movie industry, look at the title of this thread. The operation of that countrys answer to a privately made bad movie from another country reminds me a lot more of what you implied.

mucky305

05-12-2007, 08:20

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Thermophylae in Greece? Spartans are Greeks right? Persians? Are they Greek? Once again I'm kind of lost on the anti-west pro-Iran thing. Persia was invading Greece during this time period and the Spartans 3 day battle gave the Athenians time to raise armies and defeat the INVADING Persians. Now once again, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Athens the birthplace of democracy? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Persia. So, per the going logic, this movie insults true imperialist Persia by saying they are, well, imperialist and the Greeks are mistakenly held up as heroes for defending the cradle of democracy and their homeland. If that's progressive call me Captain Caveman. :thumbsdown:

Watchman

05-12-2007, 08:45

*groan*
That there, sir, is not only a fine example of swallowing propaganda hook line and sinker, but also of far too loosely used terminology.

Miles Sueborum

05-12-2007, 10:16

While I wouldn't care to characterize the majority of the 300's viewing audience as "retards" the facts of my experience with the film were that the overwhelming sentiment of the audience at the close of the film was positive and one dimentional in support of the Spartans which is perfectly natural as no thought-provoking counterpoint was given in the film to the moral position of the greeks. However, what was interesting was that this sentiment had not diminished in those I spoke to several days later. This I observed in people who had seen the film during it's opening week and had ample time to contemplate it's possible implications but largely did not do so, rather many chose to accept what was given at face value...after all, it's just a silly film?

Welcome to this forum - though of course I'm not registered much longer than you are ^^

That is a very convincing point I have to admit...
I saw that movie with a couple of friends and none of them saw the Spartans in the movie as heros - maybe this has other reasons...
However - I give up. If this is how most see the movie and it's Spartans than this is perhaps indeed propaganda...
Obviously more efficient than I could immagine...

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Thermophylae in Greece? Spartans are Greeks right?
The Greece of that time can hardly be seen as a nation - Sparta, Athens and some minor cities only had an alliance.

Once again I'm kind of lost on the anti-west pro-Iran thing.
I'm certeinly not pro Iranian - and I guess few others here are. However that doesn't mean that we are pro USA or pro war on terror...

Persia was invading Greece during this time period and the Spartans 3 day battle gave the Athenians time to raise armies and defeat the INVADING Persians.
First of all we are talking about a time when war was a legitime act of "diplomacy" - a time that ended in 1918 not even 100 years ago...
War - as long as properly declared - wasn't seen as a crime...
And you find other answers to this topic in this thread already: Athens attacked a Persian town or at least a Persian allied town (I'm not sure about this - but what I want to say that there were more complex reasons for this war than Persian greed for expansion...)
Nevertheless - it were the Greeks who started the war by slaughtering the messengers...

Now once again, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Athens the birthplace of democracy? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Persia.
And I'm pretty sure it wasn't Sparta -.-
1st There is much we don't know about many ancient peoples - who tells you that there never was a democracy before the Athenians? And you know that Athenian "democracy" is quite diffrent from our democracy...

and the Greeks are mistakenly held up as heroes for defending the cradle of democracy and their homeland.
The Greeks did not defend democracy - propably not the Athenians and certainly not the Spartans...

aecp

05-12-2007, 13:09

Hm - the effects are excellent, the actors convince (they are not brilliant but nevertheless good enough for an good action movie), the style of the comic is accurately brought on screen, the soundtrack fits and the narrator (at least in the German Version) does a good job at telling the story (not that there would be much story to tell) - all in all I think these are good arguments to claim that this is a good actionmovie...

You'll have to be more specific about the effects and acting, otherwise this discussion will amount to nothing more "yuh-huh" and "nuh-huh". IMO Butler was terrible as Leonidas. The role was pretty much a standard Mel Gibson action hero and Butler still managed to bungle it. Instead of the quiet resolve that defined Leonidas in the comic we got a constantly shouting fool who had to get his wifes permission for everything. And it was funny to hear him occasionally lapse into his Scottish accent. As for Gorgo she just came of as a sassy self-righteous bitch whose subplot seemed ripped straight out of Gladiator and sprinkled with a heavy dose of girlpower. Granted, some of the bad acting must've been due to the terrible script. As for example I think the guy who played the traitor is usually excellent in The Wire. And as for the effects, some of them were OK, some of them wouldn't have felt out of place in a God of War II cut-scene. But some, like the blood that for some reason never touched the floor was just sloppy. And in the scene where the 300 depart from Sparta, the whole lot of them appear to be shuffling in place at the end of the studio.

The only surviving elements of the comic is the sepia tone, the ridiculous amounts of blood and the lack of a coherent plot. The portrayal of Leonidas, the Spartan way of war and the Persian army were all changed for the worse and significantly dumbed down. The worst thing about the soundtrack was the nu-metal riffs that felt completely out of place. And the narrator was just grating. Sometimes he would explain things as if the audience was blind, his voice was terrible (English version) and some of the things he said just made me wince (for example: "Only the hard and strong can be Spartans. Only the strong. Only the hard."

And I hope you are not suggesting that people who liked 300 are potentially the same who like "badly drawn Simpsons porn" and/or "videos of real life mutilation and murder" ^^

Nope, just saying that we all enjoy different things, some of which might be hard to understand for others.

Well that was a lame response. It hardly matters what the demographic is as people who are teenagers should have the facultative capacities to understand a more complex movie. An action movie shouldn't use the excuse that it is an action movie in order to avoid good acting or story-telling. The apologetics have been arguing the opposite and quite vigorously.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but your post warranted nothing more. Presenting your own opinion as absolute truth and the nay-sayers as "apologetics" is far beyond lame. But I guess you're right, I'll see to it that my future posts match the quality of your straw men and irrelevant examples.

When have I said that teenagers can't understand a more complex movie? Stop distorting my arguments. The success of 300 alone is sufficent to prove that millions of people around the world enjoy mindless action. That isn't to say that the same people can't enjoy something more sophisticated, just that sometimes that's not what you're looking for.

As for the acting and the story, I've already complained about those a hundred times, if you won't even read my posts i don't see much of a point to this discussion. Looking for good acting and story in 300 is like buying a pizza and being surprised it isn't filet mignon when you eat it. There's room for both movies like 300 and Conan on one side and, say, Kingdom of Heaven on the other. With that said I dislike 300 intensely and find its success depressing.

Furthermore, you're missing the point. Considering how subversively propagandistic 300 is, it compares quite well with the Column of Trajan. Both tell a story, but one did so without treating its audience as children.

Please stop saying that 300 is propagandistic as if it were an established fact and not your own opinion. Both tell a story, is that your criteria? And I don't really get what you're saying here. Are you saying that the Column of Trajan isn't propagandistic or what? Is the point you're trying to make that good propaganda doesn't treat its audience as children? Why not compare 300 to something that's actually relevant. Such as Herodotos Histories, which was very fair to the Persians in comparison to 300. Or a recent movie like Kingdom of Heaven that treats the "the East" very gently.

Im no expert on roman monuments, but it seems to me that the Column of Trajan was made with accuracy and realism in mind, which 300 was not.

And as for comparisons to pre-war Germany, I think I'm just going to invoke Godwins Law and go bash my brains out against the nearest wall. Just keep reaching for that rainbow, while somewhere in the world there is a TV-series where the entire universe is run by evil space-jews and another where small children are brainwashed by the unlicensed likeness of Mickey Mouse.

Afro Thunder

05-12-2007, 13:42

The worst thing about the soundtrack was the nu-metal riffs that felt completely out of place.

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how backwards that opinion may be.

aecp

05-12-2007, 14:52

Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how backwards that opinion may be.

Certainly, if someone thinks nu-metal has any merit in a movie depicting an ancient battle or that including the "wailing woman" that has somehow become prerequisite for all sword n' sandal movies since Gladiator, then so be it. That doesn't change it from being tacky and unoriginal respectively.

Miles Sueborum

05-12-2007, 14:55

You'll have to be more specific about the effects and acting, otherwise this discussion will amount to nothing more "yuh-huh" and "nuh-huh". IMO Butler was terrible as Leonidas. The role was pretty much a standard Mel Gibson action hero and Butler still managed to bungle it. Instead of the quiet resolve that defined Leonidas in the comic we got a constantly shouting fool who had to get his wifes permission for everything. And it was funny to hear him occasionally lapse into his Scottish accent. As for Gorgo she just came of as a sassy self-righteous bitch whose subplot seemed ripped straight out of Gladiator and sprinkled with a heavy dose of girlpower. Granted, some of the bad acting must've been due to the terrible script. As for example I think the guy who played the traitor is usually excellent in The Wire. And as for the effects, some of them were OK, some of them wouldn't have felt out of place in a God of War II cut-scene. But some, like the blood that for some reason never touched the floor was just sloppy. And in the scene where the 300 depart from Sparta, the whole lot of them appear to be shuffling in place at the end of the studio.

The only surviving elements of the comic is the sepia tone, the ridiculous amounts of blood and the lack of a coherent plot. The portrayal of Leonidas, the Spartan way of war and the Persian army were all changed for the worse and significantly dumbed down. The worst thing about the soundtrack was the nu-metal riffs that felt completely out of place. And the narrator was just grating. Sometimes he would explain things as if the audience was blind, his voice was terrible (English version) and some of the things he said just made me wince (for example: "Only the hard and strong can be Spartans. Only the strong. Only the hard.

Hm - I look forward to get the DVD so that I'll be able to compare the original version with the German one. Leonidas was depicted as following: When he is not fighting he is sarcastic to cynical but if he faces something really important (few things seem to be important to this warrior though) he becomes calm - he is easy to outrage...
In the comic he is also easy to outrage - he kills the messenger with SPARTA on his lips...
But I agree - the depiction of him in the movie is different from that of the comic. And of course - in the German version he had no scottish accent ^^
Concerning Gorgo - it doesn't mean that she has done a bad job, just because her character isn't sympathic - however I agree that the subplot was useless and I think the scene in teh Spartan council was the most embarassing of the whole movie...
But in the comic the Spartans also don't keep their phalanx
And concerning the nu-metal riffs - i think they perfectly fit. ;)
Btw - I think there are very few scenes in the movie that lack special effects sicne almost everything was created with the PC. But I agree that some simply looked ridiculous - such as the flying head of the beheaded Persian general, though this was taken 1:1 from the comic...

PS

Certainly, if someone thinks nu-metal has any merit in a movie depicting an ancient battle or that including the "wailing woman" that has somehow become prerequisite for all sword n' sandal movies since Gladiator, then so be it. That doesn't change it from being tacky and unoriginal respectively.
First of all - I think that this movie hasn't all to mutch in common with the real battle at the termopylae - I wouldn't call it "depicting an ancient battle" but "loosely based on an ancient battle". It is fast action movie - not a monumental thing like lord of the rings. It's style is exaggeration and it uses lots of SFX. It doesn't tell an epic story - it focuses on combat...
What kind of music would you have prefered? These standart orchestral sounds during the complete movie? I think something harder (like nu-metal) fits better...

Sarcasm

05-12-2007, 15:53

*groan*
That there, sir, is not only a fine example of swallowing propaganda hook line and sinker, but also of far too loosely used terminology.

Indeed. :inquisitive:

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 15:58

I'm certeinly not pro Iranian - and I guess few others here are. However that doesn't mean that we are pro USA or pro war on terror...

Not pro war on terror?!?!

Miles Sueborum

05-12-2007, 16:26

Not pro war on terror?!?!
No - definatly not. To "War on Terror" belongs the war in iraq, Guatanamo and the patriot act...
How could I be pro the "War on Terror" campeign?

However - this is getting off-topic...

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 16:26

theres no such thing as a "war on terror"

Ardu

05-12-2007, 16:37

Was I the only one who kept thinking *Time for Faramir captain of Gondor to prove his worth* in a very silly way, everytime he started the voice over..

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 18:06

No - definatly not. To "War on Terror" belongs the war in iraq, Guatanamo and the patriot act...
How could I be pro the "War on Terror" campeign?

However - this is getting off-topic...

No, please this interests me, as how someone would not support defeating terrorism, slightly out of topic but still in the catogory of "Iran V. West".

the patriot act seems reasonable to me, have you taken a look at it?

The Iraq war...plz, this topic is soo worn out, better not discuss it.

Guatanamo, they are there for suspicions of terrorism, I'd rather have them graoning there than having them throw rocks at me for supporting a war on terror.

Foot

05-12-2007, 18:25

Sarcasm

05-12-2007, 18:34

No, please this interests me, as how someone would not support defeating terrorism, slightly out of topic but still in the catogory of "Iran V. West".

the patriot act seems reasonable to me, have you taken a look at it?

The Iraq war...plz, this topic is soo worn out, better not discuss it.

Guatanamo, they are there for suspicions of terrorism, I'd rather have them graoning there than having them throw rocks at me for supporting a war on terror.

Everyone is against terrorism and would be glad to rid the world of it. How you can make that a synonym with the current state of affairs in the middle-east is beyond me, just like the whole tendency to polarize opinions (in the gospel sense - with me or against me). Another example is that if you don't agree with everything the president says, you're automatically against the troops.

And I have read the patriot act and one of your founding fathers said it best...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

On Guantanamo, are you serious? You condone Human Rights violations in US soil? On anyone? Even terrorists (which btw, we have no way to know who they are or what they did, since they got no trial)?

Borderline fascism.

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 18:44

Indeed, Sarcasm speaks wisely .:2thumbsup:

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:22

Of course I would violate a terrorsits "right".

"MR. BEN" lived in a different time, how could he have possibly known what to do now? Desparate times call for desparate measures, and if these terrorists were caught in the act, why have them on trial?

Current state of affairs and the mid east, really... where does the majority of muslim extremist come from. And how did I "polorize entire opinions".

You offer criticisms but no solution.

Basileus Seleukeia

05-12-2007, 19:24

The majority of people in Guantanamo are just there because someone said they are suspicious of terrorism and there was no need for evidence. You get the idea what I mean?
And, wait a minute, what does the sentence "desperate times call for desperate measures"? Ah, yes, it's a small austrian, like 70 years ago. He said something similiar.

Watchman

05-12-2007, 19:32

:stop:
Wrong subforum for that, guys.

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:34

Ya but he was just plain mean!

But they are there because they were suspected, they cant just be thrown into there for no reason.

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 19:35

yeah, start a thread in the backroom id love to discuss this. food for thought there, Cossack--what is a terrorist? and how do you conduct a "war" on criminal organizations?

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:36

:stop:
Wrong subforum for that, guys.

Oh comon this thread is talkin' about a movie and everyone else suddenly talks about mid east policies. Might as well go with the flow.

Watchman

05-12-2007, 19:42

Well, it's kinda debatable if this whole thread actually belongs in this subforum to begin with. Still, until now the debate has touched on current politics only in passing - specifically debating them, unconnected with EB or the original topic of the thread, is however definitely in the wrong place.

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:42

yeah, start a thread in the backroom id love to discuss this. food for thought there, Cossack--what is a terrorist? and how do you conduct a "war" on criminal organizations?

Oh no you dont! I know the draw backs of "war on terror" !!

Terrorist- A person(s) that wages unconventional warfare to harm others physicaly for religion,and or personal gain.

Very specific huh?

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:44

Watchman

05-12-2007, 19:45

If one were to be strict, quite possibly. Somewhat irrelevant though.

Basileus Seleukeia

05-12-2007, 19:46

Please stop double-posting, and reciting passages of your encyclopedia won't make us believe you are right.

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:51

Please stop double-posting, and reciting passages of your encyclopedia won't make us believe you are right.

Nah it wasnt from an encyclopedia, the post was a quick response! sry I should've used EDIT.

Watchman, this whole thing is dedicated to discussing terrorism and the east. So it doesnt have anything to do with EB, but it wont hurt anyone...

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 19:53

Terrorist- A person(s) that wages unconventional warfare to harm others physicaly for religion,and or personal gain.

Very specific huh?

Hm, I'll agree with the personal gain part. The founding fathers of the United States were terrorists in this regard. But not always religion. There are in fact some terrorists who are fighting for altruistic purposes, though in nicer times we would call them 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance'.

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 19:57

Hm, I'll agree with the personal gain part. The founding fathers of the United States were terrorists in this regard. But not always religion. There are in fact some terrorists who are fighting for altruistic purposes, though in nicer times we would call them 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance'.

Yes, Terrorists also like to harm innocent civilians, hoping to capitulate the enemy. While freedom fighters want the occupier out.

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 20:48

civilians aren't innocent if they are a part of the military-industrial complex that orchestrates and funds these wars. What was the Boston Tea Party? a terrorist attack on civilian commercial intrests, much like the attacks on oil pipelines or facilities in modern times. It's all relative and cyclical.

Miles Sueborum

05-12-2007, 20:59

In recent history my country has made some experiences what can happen if a police-institution is able to arrest without out any evidence and to lock up without trial - we had the Gestapo (Secret Netional Police) in the Nazi-germany and the Stasi (National Security) in Eastern Germany...
No good experiences were made...
Human rights should be untouchable - that is freedom, that is something worth fighting for. What is gained when they are sacraficed?

And tell me the difference between an American Freedom fighter of the 18th century, hiding in the woods and killing British soldiers whenever possible, and an iraqui terrorist, hiding in the city and killing Western soldiers, whenever possible?

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 21:04

there is no difference save religion. Even the motivations of the few powerful men that are forcing others to fight for them is the same, look at the leaders of the American revolution and their financing of the war against their own country, many times during which they had to press the poor into fighting for their cause by intimidation and violence.

Ower

05-12-2007, 21:09

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 21:18

I would say that the main diference, is that the American freadom were not obliwiouse if children or woman were killed whitin the fighting, unlike the terorist in iraq who are obliviou to how many Iraqies (sp?) they take dow in the atack, sometime only directing attack on non-soldiers only.

that's what you think. research it a little and you may be suprised.

or, try looking into Andrew Jackson and his genocidal campaigns against the native american tribes of the south. that makes al-qaeda look benign in comparison. :dizzy2:

Jesus_saves

05-12-2007, 21:21

that's what you think. research it a little and you may be suprised.

or, try looking into Andrew Jackson and his genocidal campaigns against the native american tribes of the south. that makes al-qaeda look benign in comparison. :dizzy2:

I think he meant in modern times.

Ower

05-12-2007, 21:22

I didn't talk about american military actions generalz, the question was:
And tell me the difference between an American Freedom fighter of the 18th century, hiding in the woods and killing British soldiers whenever possibleand, and an iraqui terrorist, hiding in the city and killing Western soldiers, whenever possible
I ansewred to this :P for me the way the americans used on the Indians or the ways thez use today are not a crime:book:

Miles Sueborum

05-12-2007, 21:26

In France, the Netherlands and Russia directly after the Liberation the Freedomfighters executed all they could find who had sided with the Germans - I'm not completely sure about the revolutionary war in America - but has there never been any cruelty done by the freedomfighters to those who they considered to be traitors? If there was none - I'd be impressed...
btw - afaik many of those guys who blow up themselves in iraq are foreigners - most of those fighting with guns, attacking soldiers are however iraqis...

Oh - and no General in WWII did care wether Civillians were harmed during a bombing raid - sometimes exactly that was even the aim...

And another thing concerning K COSSACK's defintion of terrorists: At the end of the medieval the swiss peasants, who wanted to seperate from the holy roman empire (personal gain) used very unconventional warfare (pikemen) - would you consider them terrorists as well?

But this is way off-topic anyways...

Jesus_saves

05-12-2007, 21:29

In France, the Netherlands and Russia directly after the Liberation the Freedomfighters executed all they could find who had sided with the Germans - I'm not completely sure about the revolutionary war in America - but has there never been any cruelty done by the freedomfighters to those who they considered to be traitors? If there was none - I'd be impressed...
btw - afaik many of those guys who blow up themselves up in iraq are foreigners - most of those fighting with guns, attacking soldiers are however iraqis...

Oh - and no General in WWII did care wether Civillians were harmed during a bombing raid - sometimes exactly that was even the aim...

And another thing concerning K COSSACK's defintion of terrorists: At the end of the medieval the swiss peasants, who wanted to seperate from the holy roman empire (personal gain) used very unconventional warfare (pikemen) - would you consider them terrorists as well?

But this is way off-topic anyways...

Possibly, but the Federal government outlawed killing them in order to prevent a civil war.

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 21:36

Ower

05-12-2007, 21:39

Possibly, but the Federal government outlawed killing them in order to prevent a civil war.
Thats the point :juggle2:. MS: I was refering to the American ones, as was questioned, not the others. I am well aware of what hapend in France or Russia.

Ower

05-12-2007, 21:41

hm, well for starters id say you could look up the gnadenhutten massacre of 1782

well never heard of it, thanks. Always eager to realn something new:2thumbsup:

Boyar Son

05-12-2007, 22:22

Miles Sueborum

05-12-2007, 22:45

And what about that Juba Sniper guy? He (if it is really one man) kills only members of US military - because he (they) want to free their country from what he (they) see(s) as Western Imperialism...

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 22:47

The difference between a revalutionary and a terrorist.

A revalutionary wants to become independant from England

A Iraqi terrorist kills ormaims violently anyone to intimidate and become supreme.

Keep 'em comin'

uh, an iraqi "terrorist" is fighting to become independent from the American occupation force.

Redmeth

05-12-2007, 23:25

Excuse me if I'm mistaken but Zak, aren't you a member of the U.S. military ? But your sig tells me you don't agree with the American policy (Bush's administration anyway).
Aren't you torn between your job and your views?
I mean no disrespect of course.

Grey_Fox

05-12-2007, 23:32

His job is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. That doesn't mean he has to agree with invading another nation, nor does it mean he has to like his leader.

Zaknafien

05-12-2007, 23:34

yep, i happen to be an active duty soldier but it does not mean im ignorant about my country and its history. I love my country and its unique position to do good in the world, but in truth the united states is in danger of being hijacked permanently by radical religious imperialists like cheney and bush.

no worries about disrespect mate!

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 01:03

uh, an iraqi "terrorist" is fighting to become independent from the American occupation force.

They are fighting to establish their law, and to be supreme in that country. Be it Shite or sunni (other also if more are fighting).

Yes and @ the swiss terrorism thing- they are fighting for the good of the nation and not personal gain. So they're not terrorists.

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 01:05

Darn sry didnt mean to double post.

Zaknafien

05-13-2007, 01:25

They are fighting to establish their law, and to be supreme in that country. Be it Shite or sunni (other also if more are fighting).
.

So, how is this different from the American revolution then?

Afro Thunder

05-13-2007, 01:35

Can you bring up any accounts of soldiers from the Continental Army killing civilians in, say, the streets of Boston?

By the way, I could distinctly remember discussing a certain movie titled 300...

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 01:42

So, how is this different from the American revolution then?

Ok, they're fighting for their owns selfish gain (killing the people they're "trying" to help).

The colonists were fighting for the good of the country

Pelopidas

05-13-2007, 01:49

The only moment a "terrorist" became ( or not... ) a " freedomfighter" is when he has won...or lost.

All other thought is irrelevant, it's for our futur generation to decide.
We could just hope we gave them the " best path ".

Today, I see most of the violences in Irak as criminal terrorism, but I also know that there is not a single side in this conflict, but dozens...and, during war, usually, you take every help you can.
War is something very bad.

Most of Iraqis "rebels" have been the witness of a non-legitimate war on their country, after a cruel embargo ( who had absolutly no effect on the dictator who mercylessly ruled them, I don't forget this guy... ), and_most important fact_ have seen the absolute lack of professionalism of the US occupation government.
On top of this, they see the infernal cycle of violence that the occupation forces couldn't stop...and then, begin to ask themselves about the legitimacy and reason behind all this.

For me, on the mediatic front, the war was lost for the Coalition the day they choose to protect the Ministry of Oil, and let the crowd burn all the others.
How symbolic...

To answer about the question on the american guerilla's, I think that there is very few differences...even on the religious topic, they are very close.
Attacks on the civilian you claim you want to " free " is a constant of this kind of insurrectionnal war, sometimes it's even orchestrated by the occupation forces.

During our Révolution Française, we did also terrible things...as for the American War for Independance, it was other times.
But what I could be certain is that other times doesn't mean that Human rights are gone for the terrorists.
When you willingly violate such elemental rights in order to PROTECT THEM, you are absolutly wrong.
During the Algerian War for Independance, French forces used brutal and crual methods, even torture. For what effects ?
Algerian rebels were crushed, they suffered tremendous losses against a professionnal army, better trained and suited...but at the end, Algeria became independant nevertheless...
Torture is not a very effective way of getting information, especially when it's done to a large scale.

At Guantanamo, there was, and there is still, plenty of innocents.
The Pakistan use CIA detention programm as a tool to frighten it's democratic opponents, sending some journalists to what they call " A Big Mac tour " ( modern dictatures are so humorous... ).
In all the world you have innocents who have been rapted, and then tortured for months, only because someone denounce them...

So, no, I don't think there's any good in all this.

My apologies for this post, who is certainly out of the line...I just couldn't stay there and don't react.

About 300, well, I think I have already said this, but even if it was blatant propaganda, I enjoyed it.
I love popcorn violence for teenager, it's my vice.

russia almighty

05-13-2007, 01:52

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 01:58

The brits probably thought the same way of the American colonists .

Anyway history is written by the winners . If the Iraqi insurgency was crushed they would be looked upon as ingrates and such . And since how things are going it will be another example of how the U.S doesn't know how to wage modern warfare .

Nope we know how to wage modern warfare, just not Bush. Other countries also had dificulties in their time.

Besides by modern war you mean conventional then yes the U.S. are the best at it.

Ardu

05-13-2007, 03:17

I think *modern* warfare is almost by definition never conventional...

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 03:22

I think *modern* warfare is almost by definition never conventional...

Nah, its conventional alright. Everyones just seeing alot of unconventional war.

Zaknafien

05-13-2007, 04:48

Ok, they're fighting for their owns selfish gain (killing the people they're "trying" to help).

The colonists were fighting for the good of the country

the colonists were fighting for the good of a handful of wealthy land-owners who didnt want to pay taxes to the government.

the resistance in iraq for the most part (the homegrown, iraqi, majority of the insurgency) are fighting because they are angry at decades of repression of their country by the western corportacracy and murder of their people by the invaders. the foreign fighters (about 5%), are fighting because of their religious hatred of the american empire that has oppressed muslims across the world for the better part of a century. the shiite majority involved in sectarian violence are fighting because shia have been oppressed for centuries by the sunni and they are finally getting their chance to fight back.

geala

05-13-2007, 08:18

1.
I don't think the American "revolution" would have succeeded if it had been only the war of some rich plantation owners?

Could someone explain why there is no difference between, let's say an American "terrorist" of 1777 fighting the British forces, a French "terrorist" of 1944 fighting the German forces, a Yewish terrorist of 1947 fighting the British forces (and bombing a hotel) and the current "freedom fighters" of Irak fighting the Shiit or Sunnite or Kurdish population and sometimes the government and the US forces? I see some differences. One difference fe may be the fact that a peaceful change of power in the Irak would have been possible by election (with all the problems I know) and some of the different groups didn't want to accept it? Of course you could say elections are only a part of western thinking and so on...

The USA should have never started this war or should have had a concept for the time after the victory. But that is no reason to name the terrorists in Irak freedom fighters. They fight mostly for particular interests and for the suppression of the other religious or ethnic groups.

2.
As far as the "new" interpretation of the Greek and Persians war was discussed: some facts remain that it was a defensive action of some Greek poleis against a more or less unprovoked invasion; an invasion similar to the invasions the Persian empire had done before. Maybe the Ionian poleis had not the right to rebel against the Persian empire (why not, did they really invite the Persians to rule them?) and Athens and Eretria sent 25 ships to help that would not explain the gigantic endeavours made by the Persians to invade Greece. And the Persian recon expedition in the western mediteranean made shortly before 500 should not be dismissed totally. It was done before the rebellion. Persian ideology was imperialistic, about ruling the known world, so Greece was just another Lydia or Ionia. It was a bit like Rome in the later times I think. No reason to get upset in the one or other way.

And the results: of course the Greeks did not fight for "democracy" as an abstract concept. They fight for their freedom and different systems. But it is very doubtful that the part of the base principles of the western way which originate in the Greek-Roman world would have survived or developed if the Persians would have won the war. And it is not exactly clear to me what fundamental goodies of the world stem especially from the Persian culture as an adequate substitute.

Jesus_saves

05-13-2007, 08:37

:laugh4: thats got to be the best quote I've seen all week. Almost good enough to make into a sigline.

That's probably the best example of why most of the world hates Americans. And did you ever stop to think, there's actual reasons the islamic extremists don't like us?

You're wrong Zaknafien! This (http://movies.yahoo.com/summer-movies/Bratz/1809823937/trailers/41/354;_ylt=AhflbbwTaWssfHFitFsnEANfVXcA)is why most the world hates America.

Watchman

05-13-2007, 08:55

Aren't you guys forgetting for example the little detail the Iraqi insurgents alone consists of numerous groups which often have wildly different motivations ? You've got various breeds of native militants, then the inevitable opportunists that always appear in an anarchy, and then various breeds of foreign jihadists. Most of whom don't tolerate each other all that well, and have entirely different aims. Some differences in methods too, by what I've read of it.

They fight mostly for particular interests and for the suppression of the other religious or ethnic groups.Show me a "freedom fighter" that didn't fight for "particular interests" - that's sort of part of the job description.

As far as the "new" interpretation of the Greek and Persians war was discussed: some facts remain that it was a defensive action of some Greek polis against a more or less unprovoked invasion; an invasion similar to the invasions the Persian empire had done before. Maybe the Ionian poleis had not the right to rebel against the Persian empire (why not, did they really invite the Persians to rule them?) and Athens and Eretria sent 25 ships to help that would not explain the gigantic endeavours made by the Persians to invade Greece. And the Persian recon expedition in the western mediteranean made shortly before 500 should not be dismissed totally. It was done before the rebellion. Persian ideology was imperialistic, about ruling the known world, so Greece was just another Lydia or Ionia. It was a bit like Rome in the later times I think. No reason to get upset in the one or other way.From the Persian perpective the Greeks were a bunch of nasty border barbarians who'd been fomenting unrest and pillaging around in their border provinces. The universal imperial response to such (once the resources are available) is a punitive expedition, which sometimes end up as conquests (and a fair bit of territorial expansion indeed was just such police-action-become-permanent).

It's not like the Romans or Chinese or the much later European colonial powers ever regarded it as an option to tolerate such troublemaking on the part of fuzzy-wuzzies across the border either. Sort of a matter of prestige and credibility already; after all, what manner of empire lets some uppity savages get away with it without reprisals ?

And the results: of course the Greeks did not fight for "democracy" as an abstract concept. They fight for their freedom and different systems. But it is very doubtful that the part of the base principles of the western way which originate in the Greek-Roman world would have survived or developed if the Persians would have won the war. And it is not exactly clear to me what fundamental goodies of the world stem especially from the Persian culture as an adequate substitute.Meh. Athenian democracy is way overrated, doubly so as it was not really much more than an oligarchy anyway (the income levels under the hoplite class only got to vote because they were needed for the navy, and even this was widely enough resented). Look around the world of that time and you'll find no shortage of essentially similar, or indeed in some cases more sophisticated or properly democratic, systems. Carthage was essentially a comparable republic-type setup (mercantile city-states have always had a tendency towards that sort of thing). The Celts and Germans for the most part elected their kings and other authority-holders - a rather typical trait in "tribal" societies. Given the hands-off governance approach of the Achaemenids (and the patent limitations of the communications available), local governance in the Persian empire doubtless included a whole lot of similar structures already because much of the time it doesn't really pay to try to replace existing ones nevermind micromanage them. As long as the locals delivered their appointed dues the resident satrap would most likely have only been too happy if local town councils, village headmen and whatever could sort their issues out by themselves without requiring his attention.

In an empire that large and diverse (nevermind containing some fairly imposing natural barriers), you can't really not delegate a lot of stuff to the local level.

aecp

05-13-2007, 14:10

In the comic he is also easy to outrage - he kills the messenger with SPARTA on his lips...

I have to disagree with you there, I don't think that the he's shouting at the top of his lungs when he kicks the messanger down the well in the comic. In the comic Leonidas is cynical or sardonic, as you said, but this makes his emotional outburst when he throws his spear against Xerxes so much more intense. In the movie there's really no point to it, since Leonidas has been shouting all the time and showing emotion at every turn. So what we get is the narrator telling us that "It was a really awesome war cry, trust me!"

Concerning Gorgo - it doesn't mean that she has done a bad job, just because her character isn't sympathic - however I agree that the subplot was useless and I think the scene in teh Spartan council was the most embarassing of the whole movie...

My problem with the actress playing Gorgo was that she didn't really do anything to set her apart from any other female lead in a sword n' sandal movie. Besides that I thought Gorgo came off as aloof and contentious, and the part where she goes "You won't like this, this won't be over quickly" (I can't remeber the exact quote) brought back memories from Return of the Kings "I am no man!". Must a powerful, independant female character in a movie such as this always be a cliche?

But in the comic the Spartans also don't keep their phalanx

True enough, but in the comic the phalanx was the standard and breaking formation was the exception. In the movie I think it was the other way around, the Spartans broke formation in a matter of seconds and from that point on it was pretty much spinning in slow-mo for the rest of the movie, which got repetetive really fast.

Btw - I think there are very few scenes in the movie that lack special effects sicne almost everything was created with the PC. But I agree that some simply looked ridiculous - such as the flying head of the beheaded Persian general, though this was taken 1:1 from the comic...

Yeah, but my main problem with the way this movie was filmed is that they failed to give us a real battle. Most of the time it felt like there were about a dozen Spartans fighting a few Persians at a time.

First of all - I think that this movie hasn't all to mutch in common with the real battle at the termopylae - I wouldn't call it "depicting an ancient battle" but "loosely based on an ancient battle". It is fast action movie - not a monumental thing like lord of the rings. It's style is exaggeration and it uses lots of SFX. It doesn't tell an epic story - it focuses on combat...
What kind of music would you have prefered? These standart orchestral sounds during the complete movie? I think something harder (like nu-metal) fits better...

My main problem with it was that it felt out of place, perhaps not so much in the context of the movie but in the way it was used. Things would be pretty normal, Spartans watching the Persian fleet floundering in a storm and then BAM riffs out of nowhere. But I have to agree with you, it does kinda fit the movie, given it's execution and intentions.

Oh, and I see that everyone is discussing terrorism now. That's fantastic. I guess some people on this forum can't go five minutes without turning any given topic to their political bullshit of choice.

mucky305

05-13-2007, 14:13

I can't really agree with the idea of the Founding Fathers of the US being interested in personal gain. A quick study of geo politics and the mercantile system would soon reveal that the major reason for the Revolution, at least with the working classes was that New England (land of the Boston massacre, Boston Tea Party) is notoriously bad for farming which was the major way to make money if you're Joe Blow so they had to manufacture products which competed directly with Britain. Obviously, Britain didn't really like the competition, especially from one of its own colonies which are only supposed to provide food and raw materials, which the Southern and Mid Atlantic colonies at the time did quite well. The taxes stemmed from this (to prevent competition from New England Industry) and the cost of the French and Indian War (which Britain felt the colonists weren't bearing sufficiently). Men like Jefferson and Washington were already wealthy from selling agricultural goods domestically and abroad, mainly to Britain for what was at the time good money. If they revolted and lost they would be hanged, not recieve a 'stern' letter from the U.N. 17 times, no inspector at the door asking nicely to look for muskets and gunpowder, hanged. So the choice would be, not to pay taxes and possibly be executed (a good possibility at that) or pay taxes and continue in the same trade that had made them wealthy. Not for nothing, but which would you choose if you were interested only in personal gain. 300 is a movie.

Jesus_saves

05-13-2007, 14:21

Oh, and I see that everyone is discussing terrorism now. That's fantastic. I guess some people on this forum can't go five minutes without turning any given topic to their political bullshit of choice.
Explanation please? Maybe I'm just new but I don't see any one talking about stuff like this in anyother thread. :dizzy2:

Tiberius Nero

05-13-2007, 14:27

300 is a movie.

Can we stop reading such comments please? Nobody argued it is a donut, we are just analysing the movie (and the comic), for crying out loud. There is such a thing as literary analysis and it is applied to works of art where speech and imagery is prominent you know.

aecp

05-13-2007, 14:34

Explanation please? Maybe I'm just new but I don't see any one talking about stuff like this in anyother thread. :dizzy2:

Almost every 300 thread and quite a few others have at times been derailed into debates which have nothing to do with the original topic. Some people seem to want to feel persecuted and see conspiracies against themselves, their nation or heritage everywhere. Of course this thread might be an exception, since it's intent was discussion of the political ramifications of 300. But I still can't see what that has to do with terrorism.

mucky305

05-13-2007, 16:22

Well, I'd really like to do an 'analysis' of the movie too. Most of what I've seen however is 'the West is corrupt and imperialist' then 'no, the East is a bunch of terrorists'. The only 'critical analysis' I've seen is discussing the 'deep political ramifications' of a fictional movie based on a battle fought closed to 2500 years ago. I hate groupthink, I don't mind opinions but there seems to be alot of blanket statements made and I as a U.S. citizen, a U.S. Sailor, and a guy that happens to like a stupid movie, do not like being labeled as a drooling mongoloid just because I don't believe my country to be the 'Great Satan' that it seems so hip to characterize it as these days. So to all Europeans I say this, thank you for being the cradle of my culture. To Easterners including Iranians and Iraqis, thank you for being the cradle of civilization. To my fellow Americans, if you love this country, work to make her better (come up with a better plan because we can always improve). To those who simply disagree with the current or past situations, work to make her better (see previous). If you truly hate the U.S., then leave or just stay away. Don't murder our people, hack our databases, or consider it your sworn solemn duty to wipe us off the Earth because we really look down on that. Now, can everyone be friends? I personally liked 300 because it played on themes that I think are the nobler parts of the human spirit like courage honor and freedom (it's just a movie) the old good guy vs. bad guy theme. I know that the Persians were overdone on the bad and the Spartans overdone on the good, but I still liked it. Opposing thoughts?

Tiberius Nero

05-13-2007, 16:50

Personally I didn't pass judgement on the US, Iran or any country, neither do I care to; my comments are focused on showing why and how the movie is propagandistic, as some people obviously managed to miss it, no matter how in-your-face everything is shown in it.

Zaknafien

05-13-2007, 17:31

I'm not arguing either way myself, I simply like to point out historical facts and trends in American policy that many of our citizens are ignorant of. If people would learn history they would learn to question the politicians and corporate rulers who lead us into wars, not blindly follow. I love my country as much as anyone and have fought for her and will do so again, but we must not be ignorant of our evils as well as our good, and must beware as a great President once warned us, of the evil of the military-industrial complex which has permanently militarized our nation.

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 18:01

Watchman

05-13-2007, 19:50

I'm under the impression they started with hit-and-run guerilla stuff. The musket-fife-bayonet-and-drum bit was later when things had gone down to an open war - but you will also have to remember that guerilla warfare and "terrorism" (largely the same thing really IMO, just in different circumstances) is the strategy of the side that flatly cannot afford to fight openly due to disparity in military power. The rebellious colonials could, as they had the numbers and the supply base and the technology and the Brits by and large had to haul in much of everything from overseas, and this in the face of the French cheerfully sabotaging everything they could on general principles. Quite simply, the transportation and logistical machinery of the time alone made it near impossible to conduct an overseas war against a foe possessing parity in weapons and military method; that the Brits did as well as they did only speaks of how truly exceptional a maritime power for the time they were.

These days nobody in their right minds will try to fight any First World army openly, even their peers. It just ain't worth the pain, the World Wars and colonial breakaways taught everyone that much. Most insurgents sensibly avoid direct confrontation with far less formidable militaries as well, as getting reduced to a greasy smear at the bottom of a smoking crater is by itself a rather poor way to get anything done.

Which is why they go asymmetrical. A handful of guys on a shoelace budget can totally frustrate the most overbearing leviathan of an army if they simply refuse to obligingly line up to be shot to bits or give up.

Guerilla warfare is not so much about winning, but keeping the other side from winning and flatly outlasting him.

Zaknafien

05-13-2007, 20:19

insurgencies follow a cycle which goes from popular dissent through irregular warfare, on and on, where the later stages of an insurgency involve into a war of mobility and maneuver with semi-conventional or conventional forces.

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 20:56

Zaknafien

05-13-2007, 21:37

Hm, I suggest you read some American history there, Cossack. The revoultion was indeed an insurgency, even we in the military community refer to it as such in our studies of historical warfare. For example, look at this overview from West Point.

http://www.usma.edu/DMI/iw_presentations/The%20American%20Revolution.pdf

Watchman

05-13-2007, 21:45

Main Entry: in·sur·gent
Pronunciation: -j&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin insurgent-, insurgens, present participle of insurgere to rise up, from in- + surgere to rise -- more at SURGE
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
...is how Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) defines the term. Them colonials would seem to qualify well enough.

If you want to try splitting hairs, please at least try to make sure you know what they are. And stop wasting my time with nonsense.

Plus, what I've heard of the "minutemen" suggests definite guerilla/partisan-style hit-and-run tactics; these are very sensible for what are essentially irregulars who know the terrain, and whose original purpose was to deal with angry natives with an essentially similar approach to this stuff. Doubtless quite good at making the life of regular line infantry very unpleasant indeed in the right circumstances as well, and for denying the enemy an effective control of a region.

Not so good for actually ejecting the Brits from the Americas though. If nothing else because local defense militias tend to be rather reluctant to go too far from their home areas, and as these particular specimen were essentially irregular light infantry they would not have been offensively terribly useful by themselves for much beyond "keeping up the pressure" by harassement. Or dealing with the kinds of nasty casualties involved in contesting the ownership of fortified positions, especially as attackers.

Ergo, the need for regular "line" forces.

Also, you're so not going to convince me the partisan fighting between the "revolutionary" and "loyalist" colonists did not take any number of ghastly turns and involve acts of squalid atrocity little talked about afterwards. My country had a brief civil war ninety years ago, and ugly stuff still gets dug up.

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 22:40

Hmm, that guy should say that looks more like a battle plan...

If you call this an isurgency, than I gues the American civil war (rebels) the Roman civil war (of late period) and any other civil war was an insurgency too?

Nope, not an insurgency. Unless you count Mel Gibsons character and waht he did in the begining, thaT seemed insurgent to me.

@ Watcman- not convince you? why its the season for miracles!!

EDIT: sry for answering so late, I will try to keep up with this dicussion.

Watchman

05-13-2007, 22:48

Uh... you do know the difference between a civil war and an armed uprising against a (in any case perceived) foreign governement currently in possession of the region, right ? :inquisitive:

Please don't try to play funny word-games. They're neither amusing nor working.

Boyar Son

05-13-2007, 22:55

Watchman

05-13-2007, 22:58

No. :no:

Actually I can't comprehend how you could draw any such conclusion from what he's posted.

Boyar Son

05-14-2007, 00:20

Whats the Revelution? a rebelion

the American cicil war? a rebelion

Roman civil war (late period) a rebelion

Rebelion- an insurgecy to Zak.

Zaknafien

05-14-2007, 00:30

Whats the Revelution? a rebelion

the American cicil war? a rebelion

Roman civil war (late period) a rebelion

Rebelion- an insurgecy to Zak.

well uh thats not quite what i said.. insurgency is certainly a means by which rebellions can be fought though. I did say, that there are levels of insurgency, the last stage of which is a war of movement. not all rebellions are insurgencies but all insurgencies i suppose you could say are rebellions. look at the taliban insurgency for instance, the commanders there sometimes control platoon and company sized maneuver elements in traditional engagements, yet an overall insurgency is conducted by the populace at large in many areas.

Boyar Son

05-14-2007, 00:37

Hehe no you didnt say there was levels!

Not all rebelions are insurgencies

Zaknafien

05-14-2007, 00:47

Jesus_saves

05-14-2007, 01:15

Well If we're going by the international definition then it was an insurgency until Saratoga.

geala

05-14-2007, 10:04

From the Persian perpective the Greeks were a bunch of nasty border barbarians who'd been fomenting unrest and pillaging around in their border provinces. The universal imperial response to such (once the resources are available) is a punitive expedition, which sometimes end up as conquests (and a fair bit of territorial expansion indeed was just such police-action-become-permanent).

It's not like the Romans or Chinese or the much later European colonial powers ever regarded it as an option to tolerate such troublemaking on the part of fuzzy-wuzzies across the border either. Sort of a matter of prestige and credibility already; after all, what manner of empire lets some uppity savages get away with it without reprisals ?

You should not take the Persian perspective only, shouldn't you? Or will you imply that everything an empire is doing because of imperialistic imperatives is to be accepted?

Meh. Athenian democracy is way overrated, doubly so as it was not really much more than an oligarchy anyway (the income levels under the hoplite class only got to vote because they were needed for the navy, and even this was widely enough resented). Look around the world of that time and you'll find no shortage of essentially similar, or indeed in some cases more sophisticated or properly democratic, systems. Carthage was essentially a comparable republic-type setup (mercantile city-states have always had a tendency towards that sort of thing). The Celts and Germans for the most part elected their kings and other authority-holders - a rather typical trait in "tribal" societies. Given the hands-off governance approach of the Achaemenids (and the patent limitations of the communications available), local governance in the Persian empire doubtless included a whole lot of similar structures already because much of the time it doesn't really pay to try to replace existing ones nevermind micromanage them. As long as the locals delivered their appointed dues the resident satrap would most likely have only been too happy if local town councils, village headmen and whatever could sort their issues out by themselves without requiring his attention.

In an empire that large and diverse (nevermind containing some fairly imposing natural barriers), you can't really not delegate a lot of stuff to the local level.

It is not democracy first. You know, Herodot tells us about the Persians considering to invent democracy after the dead of Kambyses (ok, they did not, but...). Mardonios threw out all the little tyrants from the Ionian poleis in 492 and established democracies instead. And later hellenistic states differ not really from earlier eastern empires.

And it is not a discussion wether Greek culture was "better" than Persian culture. There are a lot sympathetic things to say about the Persian culture and a lot unappealing about Greek culture. Things like that happened in Melos would have not be done by Persian victors for example.

But the mixtum compositum of the Greek world, the chaotic freedom of thoughts, not encarcerated by something like Christendom or Islam or Zoroastrianism, the detection of individualism and the agonistic nature of the culture led to a progress in human thinking which would have not be seen if the culture had been part of a benevolent and providing empire. The deterioration of scientific thinking and the rise of mysticism and transcendental religious thinking from the late 2nd c. BC onwards in my opinion was (at least partly) related to the spread of the Roman empire.

Wether you like one or the other is personal opinion. Surely most people could live with every system humans had developed since 10000 BC.

Watchman

05-14-2007, 14:00

You should not take the Persian perspective only, shouldn't you? Or will you imply that everything an empire is doing because of imperialistic imperatives is to be accepted?Now where'd you get that from ? I don't ever recall claiming the Persian view was the only "right" one, any more than the Greek one was.

But the mixtum compositum of the Greek world, the chaotic freedom of thoughts, not encarcerated by something like Christendom or Islam or Zoroastrianism, the detection of individualism and the agonistic nature of the culture led to a progress in human thinking which would have not be seen if the culture had been part of a benevolent and providing empire. The deterioration of scientific thinking and the rise of mysticism and transcendental religious thinking from the late 2nd c. BC onwards in my opinion was (at least partly) related to the spread of the Roman empire.I'm somewhat sceptical as to how much exactly becoming a distant frontier satrapy (if even that) of Persia would actually have impacted the business-as-usual in Greece, save perhaps for less hoplite quarreling between the communities. Or how long the Achaemenids could have maintained their overlordship in the region for that matter - they had enough trouble keeping hold of areas much closer to their heartlands already, and by what I've read of it their footholds on the western coasts of the Black Sea and Aegean were at best somewhat tenuous and short-lived.

Distances, after all, are important enough; and Greece was far away indeed from Persepolis, and unlike with the equally Mediterranean Rome there was no ready sea connection.

RabbitDynamite

05-14-2007, 22:38

Two wrongs don't make a right children.

mucky305

05-14-2007, 22:47

that 300 movie sure was good!

aecp

05-14-2007, 23:28

that 300 movie sure was good!

I disagree! https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/aecp99/emot-haw.gif

Jesus_saves

05-14-2007, 23:33

that 300 movie sure was good!

You know If you said that in a crowded street you could start a riot.

You should do it.

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 01:05

Any word on Glory of Persepolis?

But I bet the action wont be as good as 300.

aecp

05-15-2007, 01:27

Any word on Glory of Persepolis?

But I bet the action wont be as good as 300.

http://www.gloryofpersepolis.com/

For all your Glory of Persepolis needs!

Still no video though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEI6YwE4VWU

I guess this will have to do in the meantime. Nutcases away! To the persecutionmobile!

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 01:38

Jesus_saves

05-15-2007, 01:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEI6YwE4VWU

I guess this will have to do in the meantime. Nutcases away! To the persecutionmobile!

Gotta love the Counter-propganda.:dizzy2:

Zaknafien

05-15-2007, 01:49

Man, those Persians really got something against the Greeks.

It really comes down to if modern day Greece is ok or nuetral to America, if not, then I will agree to look at the Greco-persian wars without bias.

Is that what you easterners want from me? the truth?

lol I'm hardly an easterner.. Greece isnt very friendly to America these days either by the way, but then again who in their right mind is?

Jesus_saves

05-15-2007, 01:58

lol I'm hardly an easterner.. Greece isnt very friendly to America these days either by the way, but then again who in their right mind is?

People who who are smart enough to realize that we can change leaders and that we hate our current adiminstration as much as they do ( some countries like, china and india like bush More than us).

Zaknafien

05-15-2007, 02:01

it doesnt matter who our leader is when we continue to oppress and exploit people across the world as national policy, not one party's policy.

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 02:39

I guess we need people like Zaknafien to counter the administrations power.

But when it comes to exploitation I bet ppl here would exploit others to benefit their countery.

Foot

05-15-2007, 02:43

But when it comes to exploitation I bet ppl here would exploit others to benefit their countery.

Exploitation denominates such a large number of things. Perhaps you could be more specific. Do you mean child labour? Do you mean putting trade restrictions on exports from developing countries, whilst you maintain free trade when exporting your own products to those self-same countries?

Foot

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 02:48

Exploitation denominates such a large number of things. Perhaps you could be more specific. Do you mean child labour? Do you mean putting trade restrictions on exports from developing countries, whilst you maintain free trade when exporting your own products to those self-same countries?

Foot

pff ya!:laugh4:

Zaknafien

05-15-2007, 03:43

if it was my country, sure. But not when its the handful of CEOs and coporate moguls who are really running the show for global empire.

artavazd

05-15-2007, 06:31

"Man, those Persians really got something against the Greeks.

It really comes down to if modern day Greece is ok or nuetral to America, if not, then I will agree to look at the Greco-persian wars without bias.

Is that what you easterners want from me? the truth?"

what the hell is an easterner?? where is that east west line drawn? Why is it that greek civ is called western civ? is that a way for northern europeans to feel "Ancient"? let me tell you guys something greece is not Norway or England or germany. Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

Why is it that in northern euro people try to divide the world using Greece as the dividing line? Greek culture is more like what you guys call "eastern" then it is "western" aka northern euro

Watchman

05-15-2007, 06:39

Syntax error. Does not compute.

In other words, "wut ?" :inquisitive:

artavazd

05-15-2007, 06:51

first part was a qoute by Cossack

Watchman

05-15-2007, 07:22

I am aware of that. It's the rest that leaves me puzzled.

artavazd

05-15-2007, 08:53

well Greek civilization is concidered western civilization right? I want to ask what qualifies it as western civilization, or what is "western"civilization? is it the democracy ( more like an oligarchy) of Ancient Athens? it is from this notion that people get the ideas of "eastern" and "western" If by eastern one thinks of Arabs, camels, desert then no Greek is not "eastern" nor is Persia. Greeks are culturaly closer to Persians, Armenians then they are say England.

Tiberius Nero

05-15-2007, 09:23

Re: West-East

The West-East juxtaposition is associated in modern perception, as I said in a previous post with a) Democracy vs Autocratic rule (more specifically by a divine king). The fact that Athens wasn't a parliamentary democracy with a all residents allowed to vote doesn't mean it was an oligarchy btw. b) Rationalism vs Mysticism, c) (less important) living on Europe vs living in Asia (which has been geographically defined like this from ancient times).

P.S. btw, the Greek government today is hardly hostile towards the U.S. The average Joe (or "Babis", the Greek equivalent of "Joe" :P) on the street is usually contemptuous of the U.S. of A. for many reasons, not worth enumerating here.

P.S.S. It is funny this is brought up here since it has been a matter of controversy in Greece in modern times, the question "Where do we belong (i.e. East or West)?" asked on both political and cultural grounds.

artavazd

05-15-2007, 09:38

well the military of anceint persia/parthia with empaphasis on heavy cav, and the feudalistic government is closer to medival northern and northwestern euro than the greek system isnt it?

Well in modern times Iran being an islamic country there is a big diffrence but in ancient times greeks and Persians were very similar especialy in phenotype.

Tiberius Nero

05-15-2007, 09:49

This whole thing is about perceptions, not elusive facts. The British for example have seriously considered Greece and Rome the basis of their cultural heritage (just look at the Albert Memorial monument in London) up to Victorian times at least. It is no wonder these attitudes persist.

aecp

05-15-2007, 10:38

what the hell is an easterner?? where is that east west line drawn? Why is it that greek civ is called western civ? is that a way for northern europeans to feel "Ancient"? let me tell you guys something greece is not Norway or England or germany. Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

Why is it that in northern euro people try to divide the world using Greece as the dividing line? Greek culture is more like what you guys call "eastern" then it is "western" aka northern euro

IMO that distinction existed long before "northern euro" had any chance of dividing much of anything. Perhaps not as much as "east vs. west" as Europe vs. Asia.

So far it was a matter of mere seizure on both sides. But after this (the Persians say), the Greeks were very much to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe./.../We of Asia did not deign to notice the seizure of our women; but the Greeks, for the sake of a Lacedaemonian woman, recruited a great armada, came to Asia, and destroyed the power of Priam. Ever since then we have regarded Greeks as our enemies.” For the Persians claim Asia for their own, and the foreign peoples that inhabit it; Europe and the Greek people they consider to be separate from them.

So unless Herodotos is completely off the mark, the Greeks considered themselves European and the Persians Asian.

Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

What?

well the military of anceint persia/parthia with empaphasis on heavy cav, and the feudalistic government is closer to medival northern and northwestern euro than the greek system isnt it?

Uh, I guess, if you don't mind using an utterly arbitrary example. But why? Is medieval times somehow more defining of "north euro" than any other? Instead, why not mention the Renaissance, which actually explains to a certain extent the feeling of kinship that western Europe perceives with ancient Greece? Or mabye the fact that focus on heavy infantry in close formation was prevalent in certain parts of Europe both before and after heavy cavalry became dominant.

Watchman

05-15-2007, 13:08

well the military of anceint persia/parthia with empaphasis on heavy cav, and the feudalistic government is closer to medival northern and northwestern euro than the greek system isnt it? What ? That's baloney. Emphasis on cavalry comes primarily from geographical and ecological factors, mainly if a region is suited for horse-breeding and cavalry warfare. Feudal structures conversely are a "quick and dirty" method of regional control and defense, usually centering around heavy cavalry drawn from the local landed aristocracy which owns or adminsters estates to support its military function and receives various benefits and privileges in return. This is mainly because heavy cavalry was the only troop type whose sheer expense in most contexts necessitated such complicated and often troublesome systems.

Europe north of the Med and west of around Poland and Hungary was never really good "horse country" - proof of the pudding being the utter inability of steppe nomads to make inroads therein without first settling down. The Medieval feudal system came into being as a response to the inability of the crumbling post-Carolingian central adminstrations to respond effectively to a slew of fast-moving "foreign" raiders (mainly the Moors, Vikings and Hungarians), and the staggering costs warhorses commanded and the ultimately somewhat ephemeral military dominance of the feudal chivalry tells certain things how much of an emergency measure that developement actually was.

Regions like Fennoscandia, sparsely populated, thickly forested and very poor country for both horse breeding and cavalry action, conversely never underwent the feudalization process to nearly the same degree as the comparatively open lands to the south; instead they relied chiefly on infantry levies not too much different from the old Viking fyrds, with the few knights often tending to act more as elite mounted infantry.

And it's hardly a coincidence that quite "direct democratic" political systems were the norm in the cold forests of the north, where horses were sparse, just as they weren't entirely unusual in the rugged Hellas - where conversely the political structures closest resembling Medieval feudalism not coincidentially were to be found in Thessaly and Macedonia, both pockets of "horse country"...

artavazd

05-15-2007, 19:31

Originally Posted by artavazd
Greece is (metaphoracly speaking) Persia ( about 30 percent of modern Iran) Serbia, Armenia, Southern Italy.

What?

Im talking about cultural similarities

What makes nations such as America, France, England, The Scandanavian naitons (Western Nations) "modern" is not democracy, but the bill of rights in the case of America, and its diffrent forms in western europe. Ancient Persia was a very tolerant empire which emphasized fundemental rights that people had. To Greeks every one else was a barbarian and should be Hellenized.

p.s. I am not Persian. Im Armenian. I feel no connections with modern Iran. In Armenia we also refer to "east" and "west" but the notion there has to do with islam. When we talk about eastern culture we generaly refer to Islam and arabic culture. I can see how in a way modern iran will be in that catagory, but ancient Iranians would certanily be catagorized in the "western" catagory

Watchman

05-15-2007, 19:58

I'm getting that sneaking suspicion that we're both talking, but it's not meeting in the middle.

I'm also getting that old "WTF?" feeling, mind you.

Tiberius Nero

05-15-2007, 20:01

To Greeks every one else was a barbarian and should be Hellenized.

Where did you get that from?:inquisitive:

And "barbarian" is not necessarily an insult, it is used to refer to someone who doesn't speak Greek, because foreign languages being unintelligible sounded like "barbarbarbar", i.e. gibberish. If one is not a Greek speaker, one is a barbarian (to a Greek) as a matter of fact, not opinion.

Watchman

05-15-2007, 21:14

What makes nations such as America, France, England, The Scandanavian naitons (Western Nations) "modern" is not democracy, but the bill of rights in the case of America, and its diffrent forms in western europe.What ?

Ancient Persia was a very tolerant empire which emphasized fundemental rights that people had.In the case you didn't know, not messing with the peculiar local practices of assorted diverse fuzzy-wuzzies you've ended up as the overlord of was the norm for all big multi-ethnic "old school" empires. Lasted until the appereance of nationalism in the 1800s; the amount of grief for example the Russian and Ottoman Empires created for themselves after having been bitten by the nationalist bug, and their eventual fates, tells volumes of why the "old school" approach had been so universally observed.

It should be noted, however, that "old school" empires usually didn't give a rat's ass about treating everyone equally. Quite the contrary; they tended to devise highly complicated sets of rules, laws and privileges for different groups, communities etc. whose main point was ensuring those could go on coexisting reasonably peacefully, didn't cause trouble, and could contribute to the benefit of the realm and its rulers.

To Greeks every one else was a barbarian and should be Hellenized.Bollocks. The Ptolemies and Seleucids and Bactrians and whoever wouldn't have lasted two months ruling over diverse, large, and often frighteningly self-confident and ancient populaces with "panhellenist" attitudes like that. The Seleucids brilliantly managed to saddle themselves with major revolts when they tried to pull that crap on the Jews in their twilight years - a classic case of grasping for straws in the form of "traditional values" in the face of endless crisis you can't cope with, I'd guess.

p.s. I am not Persian. Im Armenian. I feel no connections with modern Iran. In Armenia we also refer to "east" and "west" but the notion there has to do with islam. When we talk about eastern culture we generaly refer to Islam and arabic culture. I can see how in a way modern iran will be in that catagory, but ancient Iranians would certanily be catagorized in the "western" catagoryFascinating. Your point ?

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 22:46

An easterner is somebody from the mid east and asia.:2thumbsup:

Watchman

05-15-2007, 22:56

How do Russians count ?

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

05-15-2007, 22:57

I thought 'easterners' were from the United State's Atlantic sea board.

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 23:06

How do Russians count ?

* a BIG shrug

A european west of the Ural, an asian east of the Ural.

Watchman

05-15-2007, 23:09

Now however's that distinction tenable ? Both are citizens of the same state, go through the same education system etc. after all.

il-principe

05-15-2007, 23:11

How do Russians count ?

That's easy to answer. Russia was not yet invented in the classical era, so it's neither west nor east.:2thumbsup:

Watchman

05-15-2007, 23:13

I'm disappointed. That wording was totally asking for it, and nobody's done a tsukkomi yet... :shame:

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 23:35

I'm disappointed. That wording was totally asking for it, and nobody's done a tsukkomi yet... :shame:

What do you mean my qoute?

Comon race is by country? yeah right...:laugh4: :clown: :2thumbsup:

Watchman

05-15-2007, 23:44

Nah. "How do Russians count ?" That's just begging for smartass answers like "with their fingers"...

Race ? What race ? Chariots ?

Jesus_saves

05-15-2007, 23:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEI6YwE4VWU

I guess this will have to do in the meantime. Nutcases away! To the persecutionmobile!

Ah Ha ha ha! Did you look at the related Videos?

IRAN'S GOING TO CURE AIDS IN MAY 2007!

A word of Advice;When trying to make counter propaganda it's best not to come
up with lies more ridiculous than the Original :sweatdrop:

Boyar Son

05-15-2007, 23:52

Nah. "How do Russians count ?" That's just begging for smartass answers like "with their fingers"...

Race ? What race ? Chariots ?

Yeah lets make a race!
In the mean while (you know what I mean!) I cant bother you while you're trying to make "jokes"!!:clown: :clown: :laugh4:

Watchman

05-15-2007, 23:54

No, seriously. What's "race" got to do with anything here ? :inquisitive:

Tiberius Nero

05-16-2007, 00:01

Did everyone just start posting in Bartixian?

Boyar Son

05-16-2007, 00:02

No, seriously. What's "race" got to do with anything here ? :inquisitive:

Ok, ok. It aaaallll started when artavazd asked "What the hell is an easterner??"

Jesus_saves

05-16-2007, 00:10

Did everyone just start posting in Bartixian?

If that's the case than we have to destroy the thread before the infection spreads

Watchman

05-16-2007, 00:53

Ok, ok. It aaaallll started when artavazd asked "What the hell is an easterner??"The Hell does that have to do with "race" ?

Boyar Son

05-16-2007, 02:02

The Hell does that have to do with "race" ?

Plz Watchman read from where I pointed, to now. (except for your post mine had nothin to do with that)

Watchman

05-16-2007, 02:18

:book:
:book:
:inquisitive:
...the heck you talkin' about ?

Boyar Son

05-16-2007, 02:35

:book:
:book:
:inquisitive:
...the heck you talkin' about ?

U said wat about tha russians, I pointed out the mountains bla blah.

U said they're tha same country and I said their race doesnt matter (east asia west euro).

But dont change the subject, argue how they they are related (How russia has to be one race...)

Watchman

05-16-2007, 02:44

:shocked2:
...maybe it's just because I haven't slept a wink in the past 24 hours or so, but what the hell are you talking about ?

artavazd

05-16-2007, 07:13

watchman you have a hard time understaning what people are posting. You put down stupid sarcastic remarks such as huh? wat? Do I not speak English well? I think you need some sleep to get your senses back.

I qoute you watchman

"That's easy to answer. Russia was not yet invented in the classical era, so it's neither west nor east."

So I ask you what is Sweden? what is England What is Finland? What is Kazakhastan??? neither of these were "invented" in the classical era either.

You guys are missing my point. All I am saying is Greeks and Ancient Persians had more things in common than do Greeks with northern and northwestern europe. The bitter notion of east and west is created by western Europe. After the Arab invasion of the middle east and near east. Now Greeks and Arabs will not have much in common, but again im saying persians and greeks do. When one thinks of east and west today they think of arabs and muslims and deserts. People have to realize that the entire near east was inhabited by indo-european peoples before these demographic changes occured. The only remenents of the original indo-european peope will be the Armenians.

MiniMe

05-16-2007, 07:16

Did everyone just start posting in Bartixian?
The way I see it they've lost their minds trying to count Ze Russians.
And that missing Khelvan is also somehow involved, i suppose.

Please, don't lock this tread =).

artavazd

05-16-2007, 07:46

kak diela minime :shakehands:

MiniMe

05-16-2007, 07:54

kak diela minime :shakehands:
Дела в порядке, спасибо :2thumbsup:
Как твои?
Артаваз, ты не горячись, смысла нет =)

kambiz

05-16-2007, 09:09

In the case you didn't know, not messing with the peculiar local practices of assorted diverse fuzzy-wuzzies you've ended up as the overlord of was the norm for all big multi-ethnic "old school" empires. Lasted until the appereance of nationalism in the 1800s; the amount of grief for example the Russian and Ottoman Empires created for themselves after having been bitten by the nationalist bug, and their eventual fates, tells volumes of why the "old school" approach had been so universally observed.

It should be noted, however, that "old school" empires usually didn't give a rat's ass about treating everyone equally. Quite the contrary; they tended to devise highly complicated sets of rules, laws and privileges for different groups, communities etc. whose main point was ensuring those could go on coexisting reasonably peacefully, didn't cause trouble, and could contribute to the benefit of the realm and its rulers. He he You westerners do everything to make sure your beloved greece will remain superior over other ancient civilizations because as artavazd indicated ,Westerners consider greece as the origin of the western culture.
The only remenents of the original indo-european peope will be the Armenians.Oh artavazd ,You're wrong. Still majority of Iranians are Ayan as well. I don't suppose I am an arab !

MiniMe

05-16-2007, 09:41

Hehehe, it's always interesting to trace, find and define the thin red line between patriotism, nationalism and racism ;-)...

Tiberius Nero

05-16-2007, 09:41

At least now people are posting in Russian and I can get what the hell is going on. :P

MiniMe

05-16-2007, 09:50

At least now people are posting in Russian and I can get what the hell is going on. :P
Don't you dare say you didn't knew before that we, Ze Russians are the only true descendants of proud Bartixian civilization :P

Watchman

05-16-2007, 12:53

watchman you have a hard time understaning what people are posting. You put down stupid sarcastic remarks such as huh? wat? Do I not speak English well? I think you need some sleep to get your senses back.Now that I've slept on it, they still don't make an ounce of sense. And I'm used to deciphering pretty complex text. Either the messages are getting garbled by a language barrier, or they were nonsense to begin with. I'm inclined to believe the latter, personally.

I qoute you watchman

"That's easy to answer. Russia was not yet invented in the classical era, so it's neither west nor east."I didn't say that. That was il-principe.
:dizzy2:
Get your quotes right at least.

Afro Thunder

05-16-2007, 13:02

Don't you dare say you didn't knew before that we, Ze Russians are the only true descendants of proud Bartixian civilization :P

I don't know whether I should feel proud or insulted....

mucky305

05-16-2007, 13:36

If you want to get technical about it, there was no Persian Empire post-Alexander the Great. A good part of the known world became a Mediterranean-Macedon-Grecian hegemony not to mention the fact that the main influence was Macedonian, not Greek. Greeks and Macedonians are racially and culturally similar but they are not exactly alike. Call a Macedonian a Greek or vice versa and you're likely to get your nose pushed in. It's kind of like the similarities between Bisquick and Nesquick. They are both powder, both make something when mixed with milk but try to drink Bisquick and you'll likely wind up with a really nice stomach ache or try to cook Nesquick in a pan and you'll get a very weird looking brown/black lump. Further, the Persian Empire was not any more or less tolerant than any other ancient empire in that part of the world. If you want to call it anything, call it Mediterranean culture since the majority of the countries that have access to that body of water exhibit some sort of Greek, Macedonian, or Roman influence each of which contain aspects of each others culture as well. K-Cossack is right BTW, the main barrier to the spread of so-called 'dominant' cultures has always been geographic/topographic. Rivers, mountains, deserts all played major roles in how various races/cultures developed and spread so pointing out that the Ural mountains are a major east vs. west border is probably correct.

Tiberius Nero

05-16-2007, 15:20

Call a Macedonian a Greek or vice versa and you're likely to get your nose pushed in.

Not this again ffs. Macedonians of the "Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM) have nothing to do with Macedonians of Classical times and after, they are Slavic. If you say to a northern Greek (whom we call "Makedones" in Greece) that he is not Greek, he will punch you in the face, badly. Northern Greeks (Makedones) have a reputation for being the most nationalistic of Greeks in the modern Greek state.

mucky305

05-16-2007, 16:12

Not this again ffs. Macedonians of the "Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM) have nothing to do with Macedonians of Classical times and after, they are Slavic. If you say to a northern Greek (whom we call "Makedones" in Greece) that he is not Greek, he will punch you in the face, badly. Northern Greeks (Makedones) have a reputation for being the most nationalistic of Greeks in the modern Greek state.

No? Really? Modern Macedonians have no connection to their cultural past? I'd like to see you tell one of THEM that. That's interesting. I know ancient Greek and ancient Macedonian were similar (indo-european - greek dialects), not exactly alike mind you but similiar. The national language of modern Macedonia = Macedonian, an indo-european slavic dialect, official language of Greece= well, Greek (indo-european Greek duh? dialect). Modern Greek is spoken well, alot of places including Macedonia (just because there's a border doesn't mean culture doesn't cross). Latin is only an official language in Vatican City but I'd like to see you tell an Italian that they have no connection to ancient Rome. Now back to the original point. If the modern Greeks speak modern Greek (and live in Greece) and the modern Macedonians speak modern Macedonian (and live in Macedonia) then I could see how telling someone that lives in Greece and/or speaks Greek that he isn't a Greek might tick him off. I believe that the original statements that were being made alluded to the division between east and west. I said that you should call it Mediterranean because frankly, there has been so much mixing and mingling, wars, etc. that east and west really aren't very good descriptions. The Romans and Celts influenced each other but I certainly wouldn't consider them to be kindred. Were the phoenicians eastern or western? They came from areas that are now Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine and proliferated all along the Med coast. Archaemenids/Sassanids held that area later which I suppose are considered to be eastern empires. Hodge podge is an understatement if you ask me

Tiberius Nero

05-16-2007, 16:31

Whatever, thats irrelevant. Just do some research on the Slavic peoples and you will see the geographic and historical improbability of FYROM propaganda, which is at most a few decades old anyway, about any sort of connection to the ancient Macedonians.

It is impressive how people get carried away by names so easily. A national name is often derived by the place of the region you live in; if you live in the general region of Macedonia, you are a Macedonian, and that is what their name is about. It doesn't mean they have anything to do with the ancient inhabitants of the region. Northern Greeks are called Macedonians too.

The national language of modern Macedonia = Macedonian, an indo-european slavic dialect, official language of Greece= well, Greek (indo-european Greek duh? dialect).

Armenian and Sanskrit and Hittite are Indoeuropean dialects as well; your point? I am not waiting for you to lecture me on linguistics btw.

Do you have any knowledge of Slavic dialects? Do you know some of the handful of words given as Macedonian by ancient lexicographers? They are completely unrelated.

Anyway, I am the last person you could call a nationalist, and I despise nationalist propaganda by the Greek state with all my being, wherever I encounter it; this is the reason why I despise FYROM nationalist propaganda so much as well, because it couldn't be more idiotic and improbable, and still it is apparently working.

Say what you will on the subject, I wont pursue further, I don't care, ignorance is the mightiest force on earth at any rate, what is to be done?

Foot

05-16-2007, 16:33

Arent the slavic languages from a completely different group than the indo-europeans. They certainly have nothing in common with the greek languages, and are a much later addition to the baltic states.

Foot

Tiberius Nero

05-16-2007, 16:38

Slavic languages are Indoeuropean; it is theorised that they are close to the Baltic languages, but not certain whether this is due to geographic proximity (which leads to loaning), or common ancestry. From my experience they share a lot of vocabulary with Germanic languages as well.

Greek is considered "relatively isolate", like Armenian. It belongs to a larger group but has no close relatives.

Ardu

05-16-2007, 17:20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages

Maybe this helps...

Conradus

05-16-2007, 19:20

Greek is considered "relatively isolate", like Armenian. It belongs to a larger group but has no close relatives.

This didn't stop Greek from affecting most of the Western languages, mostly through Latin but still.

Watchman

05-16-2007, 20:22

Given that Latin was fairly closely related to the rather widespread Celtic languages...

mucky305

05-17-2007, 19:28

Whatever, thats irrelevant. Just do some research on the Slavic peoples and you will see the geographic and historical improbability of FYROM propaganda, which is at most a few decades old anyway, about any sort of connection to the ancient Macedonians.

It is impressive how people get carried away by names so easily. A national name is often derived by the place of the region you live in; if you live in the general region of Macedonia, you are a Macedonian, and that is what their name is about. It doesn't mean they have anything to do with the ancient inhabitants of the region. Northern Greeks are called Macedonians too.

Armenian and Sanskrit and Hittite are Indoeuropean dialects as well; your point? I am not waiting for you to lecture me on linguistics btw.

Do you have any knowledge of Slavic dialects? Do you know some of the handful of words given as Macedonian by ancient lexicographers? They are completely unrelated.

Anyway, I am the last person you could call a nationalist, and I despise nationalist propaganda by the Greek state with all my being, wherever I encounter it; this is the reason why I despise FYROM nationalist propaganda so much as well, because it couldn't be more idiotic and improbable, and still it is apparently working.

Say what you will on the subject, I wont pursue further, I don't care, ignorance is the mightiest force on earth at any rate, what is to be done?

So the inhabitants of Central and South America have no claim to the heritage of the Incas, Mayans, or Aztecs? By your argument, it sounds like they don't. It feels to me like your motivations are more political than factual. I'm not here stating that the leader of modern Macedonia is the reincarnation of Alexander the Great, just there is a connection (northern Greeks could also make a claim as well). The point is that Iran getting torqued over a movie made about a battle 2500 years ago is really well....weird.

Watchman

05-17-2007, 21:23

Given that the movie in question is all but made for the express purpose of pissing somebody off, not really.

Boyar Son

05-17-2007, 22:26

Now that I've slept on it, they still don't make an ounce of sense. And I'm used to deciphering pretty complex text. Either the messages are getting garbled by a language barrier, or they were nonsense to begin with. I'm inclined to believe the latter, personally.

Pff ya right, you understand. I won that argument now you refuse too accept anything else.

Why not just explain how russia can only be east or west? :idea2:

Watchman

05-17-2007, 22:37

Why not just explain how russia can only be east or west? :idea2:Where do you keep coming up with this stuff, I wonder ?
:dizzy2:
You are the one who had the brilliant idea of tying "easternism"/"westernism" to pure geographical locale, after all. Figure out yourself where it's flawed to Hell.

The Persian Cataphract

05-17-2007, 22:40

Out of all 300-related threads this one receives the award for giving me a genuine headache. Really, I got to hand it to Watchman for his energy (There must be something in the Koskenkorva), because other than him, and a few others (You know who you are), the rest of the content, the bulk of the 400 or so entries of this thread are either spam or purely off-the-topic garbage, irrelevant for all purposes.

As for the subject itself, I said in a previous 300-related thread that I hope that the Islamic usurper regime of Iran haven't perceived any of my sarcastic, and highly critical rantings as ideas; This is truly a worst case scenario, because in the midst of my rant on the Tu-Quoque mentality, it seems that they indeed found the "idea" of Persians as impervious knights armoured in plate far too appealing to dismiss (To my disgruntlement, naturally... But idiots do have that effect on me).

The case is also notorious in the fact that it is audacious; The Islamic usurper regime of Iran has no right to claim itself the heir of a great, glorious worldly power that has inspired my entire life, and to be honest, none of the 70 millions of yellow, cowardly dogs and sheep whom I mistakenly call my countrymen have the right to claim or entitle themselves descendants or heirs of ancient heroes and emperors. Not when they allow women to be mistreated, not when they treat religious and ethnic minorities like sub-human filth, not when they hire goons to vandalize heritage older than Islam, not when they spend millions upon millions of dollars for restoration projects of mosques in foreign countries and especially not when for barely 28 years ago some millions went out in the streets, readily inclined to hand over the power to an illiterate cleric who have written books on animal sex in accordance to the Islamic figh, and the same people endorse a simian beast who endorses and condones the destruction of Israel.

They have no right to anything of Iran's glorious past, when they beat themselves bloody to muslim massmurderers and womanizers and put their own children to this torture, while praising Arabs who have no place in Iranian culture. They have no right to any of this, when they still adhere to the creed that subjugated their forefathers, all the while cultural heritage and literati was extinguished, all the way from Ctesiphon to Chorasmia, in the name of Islam and that cursed lizard-eating barbarian Umar Ibn Al Khattab, "Righteous Caliph" and Companion of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, abandoned child of a whore, the Attila of Arabia.

Somehow, I knew this was going to happen. Being filthy hypocrites, they use Partho-Sassanian castles as garbage disposal sites, hire thugs to desecrate cultural heritage, cut funding for Iranologists and their institutions, and call non-muslims in particular Zoroastrians "As descended from beasts", arresting whomever protests against this cursed dhimmitude and subjecting them to torture, and now these shit-eating monsters have the audacity to make a movie, and now truly intent on bringing my country's truly remarkable history into shame. Didn't these monkeys attack and vandalize embassies due to a bunch of cartoons and only then bring their own stupid, infantile Tu-Quoque contest on caricaturizing the Holocaust? Dipshits, all of them, and especially the 70 millions of Iranians of whom less than ten percent could turn the tide of the entire country by just walking out the streets in protest.

Iranians can be some of the most racist people on this planet (Well, only the Tehrani). They bash Arabs and Turks, heck even ethnicities within Iranians, yet even Turks protest for retaining their secularism, by going out in millions, protesting Erdogan, Abdullah Gül and his pro-Islamic party, the AKP. Iranian men have lost their spine, even as their women, daughters and mothers are being apprehended by militia for "inappropriate dress-code". Bollocks. These cowards have no right to call themselves descendants of Cyrus, Darius, Ariobarzanes, Surena or even the mythical Rustam. These are the same dipshits who celebrate Nôwrûz, or Iranian (Screw "Persian") New Year, while reciting the Qur'an or some other garbage which has no place in Iranian culture. Now they want to make a Tu-Quoque movie on Iranians during their "Jahiliyyat"? That's the stuff of stand-up comedy. Alexander The Great is one of the most bashed historical figures within Iran, but God forbid one can criticize Islam for crimes more than ten times worse than Alexander's conduct in Tyre and Persepolis.

The whole is issue can be summed up as ridiculous and childish. Brought to you by the same clowns who started whining and causing ruckus over mere caricatures.

Boyar Son

05-17-2007, 22:46

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff, I wonder ?
:dizzy2:
You are the one who had the brilliant idea of tying "easternism"/"westernism" to pure geographical locale, after all. Figure out yourself where it's flawed to Hell.

You said that what are russians they're all the same.

COSSACK-"An easterner is somebody from the mid east and asia.:2thumbsup: "

Watchman-"How do Russians count ?"

COSSACK-"* a BIG shrug

A european west of the Ural, an asian east of the Ural."

Also Eastern-asian

Western-european

Watchman

05-17-2007, 22:52

So what happens when Boris the Engineer moves from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok with his wife ? And how does the kid they beget there count as ? How about his wife's lineage actually harks back to Siberia ?

Boyar Son

05-17-2007, 22:56

his leneage...nah

The kid, hes russian but he'll be Eastern or Western when it comes to geography.

Watchman

05-17-2007, 23:07

So what's the point anyway ?

Boyar Son

05-17-2007, 23:11

So what's the point anyway ?

All had to do with one question by Artavazd.

Watchman

05-17-2007, 23:25

Which was sort of pointless too.

The Celt

05-17-2007, 23:26

Out of all 300-related threads this one receives the award for giving me a genuine headache. Really, I got to hand it to Watchman for his energy (There must be something in the Koskenkorva), because other than him, and a few others (You know who you are), the rest of the content, the bulk of the 400 or so entries of this thread are either spam or purely off-the-topic garbage, irrelevant for all purposes.

As for the subject itself, I said in a previous 300-related thread that I hope that the Islamic usurper regime of Iran haven't gotten perceived any of my sarcastic, and highly critical rantings as ideas; This is truly a worst case scenario, because in the midst of my rant on the Tu-Quoque mentality, it seems that they indeed found the "idea" of Persians as impervious knights armoured in plate far too appealing to dismiss (To my disgruntlement, naturally... But idiots do have that effect on me).

The case is also notorious in the fact that it is audacious; The Islamic usurper regime of Iran has no right to claim itself the heir of a great, glorious worldly power that has inspired my entire life, and to be honest, none of the 70 millions of yellow, cowardly dogs and sheep whom I mistakenly call my countrymen have the right to claim or entitle themselves descendants or heirs of ancient heroes and emperors. Not when they allow women to be mistreated, not when they treat religious and ethnic minorities like sub-human filth, not when they hire goons to vandalize heritage older than Islam, not when they spend millions upon millions of dollars for restoration projects of mosques in foreign countries and especially not when for barely 28 years ago some millions went out in the streets, readily inclined to hand over the power to an illiterate cleric who have written books on animal sex in accordance to the Islamic figh, and the same people endorse a simian beast who endorses and condones the destruction of Israel.

They have no right to anything of Iran's glorious past, when they beat themselves bloody to muslim massmurderers and womanizers and put their own children to this torture, while praising Arabs who have no place in Iranian culture. They have no right to any of this, when they still adhere to the creed that subjugated their forefathers, all the while cultural heritage and literati was extinguished, all the way from Ctesiphon to Chorasmia, in the name of Islam and that cursed lizard-eating barbarian Umar Ibn Al Khattab, "Righteous Caliph" and Companion of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, abandoned child of a whore, the Attila of Arabia.

Somehow, I knew this was going to happen. Being filthy hypocrites, they use Partho-Sassanian castles as garbage disposal sites, hire thugs to desecrate cultural heritage, cut funding for Iranologists and their institutions, and call non-muslims in particular Zoroastrians "As descended from beasts", arresting whomever protests against this cursed dhimmitude and subjecting them to torture, and now these shit-eating monsters have the audacity to make a movie, and now truly intent on bringing my country's truly remarkable history into shame. Didn't these monkeys attack and vandalize embassies due to a bunch of cartoons and only then bring their own stupid, infantile Tu-Quoque contest on caricaturizing the Holocaust? Dipshits, all of them, and especially the 70 millions of Iranians of whom less than ten percent could turn the tide of the entire country by just walking out the streets in protest.

Iranians can be some of the most racist people on this planet (Well, only the Tehrani). They bash Arabs and Turks, heck even ethnicities within Iranians, yet even Turks protest for retaining their secularism, by going out in millions, protesting Erdogan, Abdullah Gül and his pro-Islamic party, the AKP. Iranian men have lost their spine, even as their women, daughters and mothers are being apprehended by militia for "inappropriate dress-code". Bollocks. These cowards have no right to call themselves descendants of Cyrus, Darius, Ariobarzanes, Surena or even the mythical Rustam. These are the same dipshits who celebrate Nôwrûz, or Iranian (Screw "Persian") New Year, while reciting the Qur'an or some other garbage which has no place in Iranian culture. Now they want to make a Tu-Quoque movie on Iranians during their "Jahiliyyat"? That's the stuff of stand-up comedy. Alexander The Great is one of the most bashed historical figures within Iran, but God forbid one can criticize Islam for crimes more than ten times worse than Alexander's conduct in Tyre and Persepolis.

The whole is issue can be summed up as ridiculous and childish. Brought to you by the same clowns who started whining and causing ruckus over mere caricatures.

Well its about F***ing time you showed up Persian Cataphract! I thought you were going to ignore this thread but I understand why you finally responded. You've pretty much summed up my feelings on this movie.(The Iranian one, not 300.)

I'm even beginning wondering how they'll depict the Arabs, bet yah instead of the Jews they'll have Cyrus free the "Once brave Arabs warriors who were wrongly captured by the idol-worshiping Babylon, and once freed, Cyrus brought to them the word of Allah, and they would go back to their homes and one day the Prophet will use this knowledge to bring peace blablabla."
I can see the nightmare now!

Like I said, I'll be surprised if the Mullahs let this one through, and I'll be even more surprised if they don't throw in a bunch of Pan-Islamic garbage to put a spear through the IRM once and for all!:thumbsdown:

Boyar Son

05-17-2007, 23:32

Which was sort of pointless too.

Know what else is pointless? your post.

Watchman

05-17-2007, 23:34

You're making progress, young padawan. :yes:

Boyar Son

05-17-2007, 23:48

You're making progress, young padawan. :yes:

When I met you I was but a learner, now I am the master.:knight:

Watchman

05-18-2007, 00:00

The true test of an adept's mettle, Grasshopper, is recognizing pointlessness whenever it first appears and not twelve posts later.

The Celt

05-18-2007, 00:28

Guys thats enough, I have a feeling this topic is going to be closed soon so please stop spamming.:help:

Boyar Son

05-18-2007, 00:33

The true test of an adept's mettle, Grasshopper, is recognizing pointlessness whenever it first appears and not twelve posts later.

Pointlessness comes from the source all pointess things Watchy "the babbler"

muzrub

05-18-2007, 00:47

Hi guys,

Just a quick note on the historical issues that surround 300.
The movie isnt supposed to be based on the true historical record but upon the Comic book which tells the basic and dramatic version of the historical battle.

The movie was never intended to be true to the original tale.

As such I dont see the point in condemning the film for historical aspects.
Simply the movie is based on the comic book version of real events.

:juggle2:

Jesus_saves

05-18-2007, 00:47

Guys thats enough, I have a feeling this topic is going to be closed soon so please stop spamming.:help:
You say that like it's a bad thing.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

05-18-2007, 03:06

I haven't followed this thread (or any thread that is huge) but from what I've seen recently, it may need to be closed...

Ardu

05-18-2007, 04:25

muzrub

05-18-2007, 09:22

Welcome to page 1 of this thread...

Welcome to what most likely will be the last page too.

kambiz

05-18-2007, 13:41

Ba Durood e besiar Savar'e Parsi and it's I see your post here (King returns):2thumbsup:

to be honest, none of the 70 millions of yellow, cowardly dogs and sheep whom I mistakenly call my countrymen have the right to claim or entitle themselves descendants or heirs of ancient heroes and emperors. I can't either agree with you or not. Besides that minority who are elements of the regime and those who get great advantages by cooperating it ,There are majority of people who are against it ,But they don't want to put themselves in trouble and they afraid of the regime:no: But to be fair ,This regime is not a simple dictatorship ,It is an idealogical system which its idealogy is Islam :skull: which means the most terrifuing system the world has ever seen ! because unlike for exmp Communism ,It has been tied up to heaven (Who knows what the hell is in the heaven). You know better that mullahs job is to controlling the people and they learn and get degree for it in Islamic schools like the one is in Qom. I for myself like many others at my age had to learn (And still have to in the university) how to read Quran and learn about Islamic shits. But interestingly ,The result was not in their favor and for example I couldn't imagine that one day in Qomcity There will be people who deny even the existence of God ! We have still heros in our country (We have many traitors as well :shame: ). Students ,women ,workers ,Now doctors and even teachers who are hand picked because they should educating the youth:2thumbsup:
Not when they allow women to be mistreated, not when they treat religious and ethnic minorities like sub-human filth, not when they hire goons to vandalize heritage older than Islam, not when they spend millions upon millions of dollars for restoration projects of mosques in foreign countries These are all the Islamic Republic ,Not the people themselves. People for example they don't want thier money being payed to Hezbullah in lebonan or insurgencies in Palestine.
not when for barely 28 years ago some millions went out in the streets, readily inclined to hand over the power to an illiterate cleric who have written books on animal sex in accordance to the Islamic figh, and the same people endorse a simian beast who endorses and condones the destruction of Israel. Correct ,But that revolution had reason ,Pure freedom. and we know how it went to nowhere. "Shah" suppressed all other parties but left the mosques and mullahs free. People had no alternative except the mosques. Shah even didn't let the media or encourage them to have free discussion about Islam (This 1400 years old misfortune) and let the know it better. Yes ,The former Regime did many mistakes:sad:
Didn't these monkeys attack and vandalize embassies due to a bunch of cartoons That denmarky cartoon story was fun ! When this news about that cartoon spreaded around the world ,Most of the Islamic countries (If not all) did protest against it at the first day or two. This regime which claim are islamic and wants to be the leader in the islamic world waited for 5 days and expected iranians to show their disapproval against this Caricature (And some others in other medias). But when it saw people have no care about it ,then ordered its elements to protest against denmark embassy to show at least the islamic countries that "our people are unpleasant because of those Caricatures" !(Foreigners may thought they were oridinary people ,But an Iranian can identify them at the first glance)
70 millions of Iranians of whom less than ten percent could turn the tide of the entire country by just walking out the streets in protest.I do agree. But people many of them say that we need a respected/Honest and trusted leader. They also don't know if the free world will support them.[There are more reasons though]
Iranians can be some of the most racist people on this planet (Well, only the Tehrani). True true ... Sadly:no:
Turks protest for retaining their secularism, by going out in millions, protesting Erdogan, Abdullah Gül and his pro-Islamic party, the AKP Although your comparison is a bit unjust because Turky's regime is far more better and democratice than Iran's one ,But still congrats to turkies because of their understand of how mutch precious is their democracy and secularism:2thumbsup:

Iranian men have lost their spine, even as their women, daughters and mothers are being apprehended by militia for "inappropriate dress-code". Bollocks. These cowards have no right to call themselves descendants of Cyrus, Darius, Ariobarzanes, Surena or even the mythical Rustam.Actually I should say ,Iranian women have balls instead of men. They are really brave who withstand against this regime for their rights and shame to us iranian men who sometimes stand and wathing:shame:
Alexander The Great is one of the most bashed historical figures within Iran, but God forbid one can criticize Islam for crimes more than ten times worse than Alexander's conduct in Tyre and Persepolis.Another undeniable fact :no:

Spepas'e besiar for this post Savar'e Psrsi ,Very good:2thumbsup:

please stop spamming.Thank you Celt man:yes:

Tiberius Nero

05-18-2007, 16:14

So the inhabitants of Central and South America have no claim to the heritage of the Incas, Mayans, or Aztecs? By your argument, it sounds like they don't.

I am not used to comparing apples and oranges, I leave that to others.

It feels to me like your motivations are more political than factual.

That is probably because you have no idea about the facts, while thinking that you do.

The point is that Iran getting torqued over a movie made about a battle 2500 years ago is really well....weird.

It happens with people of nations with more than 250 years of history to look back to, they get fussy over how their past is treated. Especially if their present situation is much inferior to their past one. I have noted this is a particularly difficult point for U.S. citizens (especially) to grasp, from many posts asking "why the hell does it matter how an ancient battle is depicted". Well apparently it does.

Obelics

05-18-2007, 17:04

@TPC and Kambitz

wow guys im amazed, these posts make me to feel better, that is cause here in my country italy (and i think in other countries, see europe and us) when you think to iran, the ordinary men (the man of the street), he tends, in my opinion, to think to iran as a sort of misterious think, very closed, immobilized, and as an whole block, closed in a sort of religious ideology... in few words, like somethink of dangerous...

you really make justice to the good sense.
I can say im not agree 100% to some of the sentences, but that's just a matter of opinions, I, personaly, tend to see islam, like other religions: somethink historical (there is a birth, there is an apogee, there is a decline, there are new needs, there is the birth of somethink new etc...) so i see nothink bad if iran in the past has completely took the islamic culture, i see it as an historical need, like the crhistianity in europe (if christianity had that huge success in europe, that was cause it completely fulfilled the needs of that Era), so in this view, for example if Giulianus was an idealist (and he has all my simpathy), Costantin on the other side was a realist (he has not my complete simpathy, but i have to admit he understood where the thinks were going). On the other side, i think islamic culture has took a lot of persian elements, same as crhistianity has absorbed and revitalized a lot of latin/greek valours in the past. The problem is that somethink that can be an huge success in an Era, and completely fulfill the needs of that era, in another Era, where the needs are changed, it can become a mortal burden...
So the valours that could have been so vital in the past, so prolific and renewing, with the birth of new needs, and new valours upcoming, they can become mummified and sklerotic. And we all know what does it happen when they become sklerotic and exclusivists... expecially for some religions (see christian/islam/ebraic) who are already exclusivists from their birth... (while for example the oriental religions like buddism etc. are not exclusivists but sincretists.)

So i completely share the spirit of your posts. And i think the man of the street, should read it to understand there are people of good sense in every part of the worlds...

Vivat the Iran, his culture and his huge heritage!

PS kambits, have care of yourself, i think to have understood you live there, while tpc not. So i think it can be dangerous sometimes to overexpose yourself and your ideas.
Salute!

kambiz

05-20-2007, 22:18

Thanks Obelics for the kind words :)
Hopefully it would be the last post to the last thread about 300.

Obelics ,What happened to your "Waste land" AAR? It was really cool ,Amazing and entertaining. if you finish it ,then hopefully Holywood would make a movie with it ,and I'm sure it would beat 300 ;)

140

05-21-2007, 15:02

I bought the hype and spent some bucks to watch 300 last week.

Gotta say it was crap.

Can't blame people got upset.

CrownOfSwords

05-23-2007, 00:03

I do not think the movie 300 was crap at all, and trust me if you ask my friends im the first one to jump out and say thats bull and not historically correct, not just for 300 but any film. I read the book Gates of Fire even wrote a term paper about Leonidas and Thermopylae. Yet I think everyone is over analyzing the movie, it is meant to be entertainment not a history lesson, though it does anger many people such as myself and many others on this board because many ignorant people take it as a history lesson. I don't really care about Iran and their movie they will probably have the same bias as 300, and if they don't good for them. Yet I dont know why Iran who claim to be the ancestors of the Persian would want to put such a spotlight on such a huge defeat for them. Not a story id like to talk about if I was from Iran... lol.

Watchman

05-23-2007, 00:52

Uh... in the case you forgot the Persians won Thermopylai. And already owned half Greece by that point...

CrownOfSwords

05-23-2007, 03:27

You might want to think about what you just said. In military terms yes it was a victory, but in morale terms in was a huge loss. And they controlled the northern half of Greece, not the southern more prosperous area which was considered Greece at that point the northern edges weren't considered Greek by Greeks until Alexander's era. Thermopylae was to the Greeks what the Alamo was to Texas, a loss, but a morale victory and a victory that in turn led to the defeat of the opposition. Sorry if I was Iranian I wouldn't like talking about Thermopylae.

Sarcasm

05-23-2007, 03:39

Actually, by making a stand at Thermopylae instead of successfully holding the pass at Tempe, they effectively left Thessaly out to dry, which was always a part of Greece proper instead of Makedonia (though it naturally gravitated towards it at a later date, at around the fall of the Athenian colonies in the Chaldician peninsula).

CrownOfSwords

05-23-2007, 04:02

Well they couldn't muster a force large enough to successfully hold Tempe if I remember correctly. Yet 300 (lol) + around 1700 troops were enough to hold Thermopylae. Im pretty sure as well even if Thessaly was considered Greek they were looked down upon by southern Greeks as being some sort of barbarian. Still lets not forget the point of my previous point, the second invasion of Greece by Persia was yet again a failure. And yet again at Platea it only took some 20-30k Greeks (Yes there was many times that present but only Sparta and Athens committed to battle) to rout some 100-200k Persians. Greece proved their superiority at every battle fought between Persians and Greeks. Now don't think im some sort of Greek lover because I am of Norweigen decent and my people have not had any relation to either except the Varagian Guard :viking:

140

05-23-2007, 04:18

I do not think the movie 300 was crap at all, and trust me if you ask my friends im the first one to jump out and say thats bull and not historically correct,

Forget about history as a pure film it was crap.

Are any of the Persians look remotely like humans ? Is Ephialtes human ? Does he remind you of someone ? It's just a cheap rip off of lord of the rings who itself aien't very good.

"we'll fight in the shades", fair enough. Then when the persian arrows pours down, the guy literally said again "remember I said we'll fight in the shades, haha" yeah HAHA funny, please stop insulting my intelligence.

Crap like that just too numerous to name. A persian general gets his head cut off (yet again !!!) and his head flys in the sky. WTF the purpose does that serve ? Other than an extreme low class retarded eye-candy ? I don't want to talk about all these crap any more.

As a historical film it's just 10 times more rubbish. Free Greeks, Freedom Fighters, Kind Spartans, Cruel Persians, oh my god please stop.

And I bet nobody's going to spent big bucks to make a film about this same event in 10 years. That's why you don't make absolute crap, it kills the chance for people who actually have a clue to make the same thing.

CrownOfSwords

05-23-2007, 06:05

Yea I was pretty pissed off to hear they were making 300 instead of Gates of Fire. No most of the Persians you see are robed and their faces covered. Sorry to hear you didn't appreciate the movie at all, I generally liked it. Though it wouldve been 10x if the Spartans simply wore breastplates!! I mean c'mon now thats just pure stupidity. Also I think if all the deformities were cut out it wouldve been alot better that was just nonsense. Whatever if you didn't like it go pick up a copy of Gates of Fire if you havent read it already. I promise you will love the book.

The Persian Cataphract

05-23-2007, 13:44

Greece proved their superiority at every battle fought between Persians and Greeks

Completely rubbish statement. Darius The Great won each and every battle against the Greeks through Artaphernes, until the battle of Marathon. Prior to Darius, Cambyses had defeated Saitic Egypt who mustered a respectable force of Greek mercenaries, and prior to that, Cyrus The Great had defeated the Lydians. Even prior to the coming of the Persian Empire, the Medeans and Lydians fought each other to the degree of a stalemate which culminated at the battle of Halys. No one here claims that Greeks were poor warriors, on the contrary, they were some of the best infantry money could buy, but to presume that they were automatically superior to anything the Persians mustered is to look at things in a very Vanilla'esque manner.The Persian army, considering her merits, was built for versatility.

The reason why Miltiades won at Marathon was not just because he ordered the Athenian hoplites to run towards the Persian column to diminish the effect of archery, but he also striked at the right moment, when the Persians had disembarked on a bog and were largely disabled from disembarking cavalry.

The Celt

05-23-2007, 16:51

Forget about history as a pure film it was crap.

Are any of the Persians look remotely like humans ? Is Ephialtes human ? Does he remind you of someone ? It's just a cheap rip off of lord of the rings who itself aien't very good.

"we'll fight in the shades", fair enough. Then when the persian arrows pours down, the guy literally said again "remember I said we'll fight in the shades, haha" yeah HAHA funny, please stop insulting my intelligence.

Crap like that just too numerous to name. A persian general gets his head cut off (yet again !!!) and his head flys in the sky. WTF the purpose does that serve ? Other than an extreme low class retarded eye-candy ? I don't want to talk about all these crap any more.

As a historical film it's just 10 times more rubbish. Free Greeks, Freedom Fighters, Kind Spartans, Cruel Persians, oh my god please stop.

And I bet nobody's going to spent big bucks to make a film about this same event in 10 years. That's why you don't make absolute crap, it kills the chance for people who actually have a clue to make the same thing.
Finally someone who understands how god-awful the movie was even by itself. Like I said, a movie with a script this bad:The men in the back said "FOOOOOOOWAAAAARRRRDDDDDd!!!!111!!!OMGZLOLZSLAVERY!!!!!" Whilst them men in front said "OOOOFFFFAAHHGOOSHSHSHHSPURTZILLA!!!!!!!!!ROFLROXXORSOPRESSION!!!11" shouldn't be considered for its historical or political aspects only. Its got guys in loincloths walking in slow-mo to rock music for Christ sake! It would've been crap historically setting or not!