OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

[video=youtube;xMszeQ9u3Y8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMszeQ9u3Y8[/video]

 

Always happy to accept praise, but it is not warranted here; there has been no change in modding policy. This thread has been a wonderful and calm discussion of various topics loaded with many quality posts and has not got anywhere near breaching any of our forum's regulations. The one potential flash point was handled very maturely by those involved. My only regret is that I don't know enough about any of the subjects discussed to have joined in.

That said Nines and I are a quality pair of blokes, no argument there

 

Christ Three cross dressers together x

 

This sort of stuff, Col:
- The reverend was not a drunk apparently and his daughter was a fabrication
- the character of Hooky was a good soldier and not the insubordinate man he was made out to be
- It has never been certain that the Boer chap whose name escapes me stayed to fight or left before the Zulus arrived
- The final scene in which the Zulus praise the British (mainly Welsh) as fellow warriors and retreat rather than wipe them out never happened. It is thought they retreated because of the impending arrival of a relief column.
- Apparently the Redcoats executed some of the Zulu survivors, a fact 'overlooked' by the filmmakers

What remains true, however, is that just over 150 troops successfully repelled a Zulu army thought to be around 4,000 strong.

It reminds me of a wartime story my grandfather told me as a ten-year old. "There we were", he said,"ten against ten thousand!"

"What happened, Grandpa?" I asked, wide-eyed and thrilled.

"We won, son", he replied,"but they were the toughest ten we ever fought!"

 

But why would the attack on the Pentagon be faked and the others real?

 

I've since googled it and I found the same details......other than the Zulu not acknowledging the British (mainly Welsh) soldiers. I thought that was true!! Also, in my search, the daughter did exist.
Most of these I would accept as poetic licence, although I suppose relatives of those involved would be pissed off that their relations were wrongly depicted.
The overall theme of the film is true to history though and I still love it!!

 

You often post this bloke Dave.

I find him to be a complete twat!

 

I agree.

 

No idea Col mate ... I just get stuck with the bloody hole ... Think about just that how big is plane why aren't the window caved in etc ... just got completely stuck on this and never understood it ... The official story claims vaporisation and that to me is rubbish as not possible with the materials given it needed to be a much higher burning explosive than kerosene it only burns at a maximum of 20% required to melt steel never mind vapourise it

There are given factors here we know the fuel from the official statements it was Kerosene

 

I learn a lot from him and agree with a lot he says but not all ... opinions?. He has dedicated his life and career to do good if you knew him ... Th egoat legs etc are just to keep up the fact that they can't ban him (they have tried) as he is an Artist

 

This is where the bias comes into play. Its the same when its our Club over another.

Lets just say that if you think Zulu was an accurate portrayal of that story then you must also accept that Braveheart was equally accurate. Or you could say that they were both Hollywood inventions designed for a gullible audience. But I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

And it was all going swimmingly with you up to this point!

 

I concede that the Pentagon attack is the one that does throw up some questions. I just can't work out why this one would be fabricated.
I wonder if it's simply the fact that the US security services were badly caught out by the attack and they had to do a lot of covering up to save their arses?
The other side of the Pentagon argument is that there are a lot of eye witnesses who say they saw a 747 hit the building.

It is an odd one, I'll give you that.

 

I don't think it's fair to compare the outrageous inaccuracies of Braveheart with those of Zulu, Trav. Gibson's fantasy, whilst an entertaining story, was no more an accurate historical account as the Flinstones.

 

Mmm..................I suppose one person's "artist" is another person's....................













Twat!

 

Well that is a big disappointment I must say. I thought that that thread started by RRRs was it? had gotten somewhere.

Clearly not.

Obviously I have to withdraw those comments considering they were actually based on nothing.

Disappointed doesn't even cover it.

 

Complete rubbish swords.
If you know your history, then Braveheart is unbridled nonesense, where as Zulu is factually much more correct than not.

 

Well Japan just went up massively in my estimation.

If only the UK had the same balls.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/10/27/1215211/japan-refused-to-help-nsa-tap-asias-internet

 

Please could you take the resurrection of this issue someplace else, Swordsie ol' boy? This thread is going OK; it's interesting, engaging and I'm being educated (in parts). I'd hate to see it hijacked for something that's already been discussed elsewhere. Thanks, mate.

 

Strange coincidence that you believe the blonde haired, blue eyed infallibility of Zulu over the Sweaty savage flick........

I wonder, what possibly could be the common denominator there?

 

Again no idea mate why? but its a question ... its very strange and when you look at the evidence of the engine parts it gets even more weird ... I am sure that a plane could even be flown at those speeds and heights ... nor does my mate who flies for BA ... he said he couldn't do it knowing the area around the Pentagon very well ... he claims it would be impossible to fly flat out without getting upwards ground turbulence ... how a lad who (could not even fly a little plane very well official ) do this is beyond him as he has taken years to train. all in all very strange