Talk:Patriot Games: Difference between revisions
Talk:Patriot Games: Difference between revisions - Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Talk:Patriot Games: Difference between revisions
Because in their twisted minds the IRA wasn't terrorizing Ireland by blowing up buildings and killing British troops, they were "freedom fighting" or some shit. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]] 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Because in their twisted minds the IRA wasn't terrorizing Ireland by blowing up buildings and killing British troops, they were "freedom fighting" or some shit. [[User:M14fanboy|M14fanboy]] 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
==Quick Question==
Does anyone know what handgun the "fake Red-head" used to shoot the guy in the bedroom with? I noticed that it wasn't mentioned in the list. I think it was a Walther P99 with a suppressor. --[[User:Camden Hennis|Camden Hennis]] 22:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem talking about the IRA is that thet befreinded the Irish population and fought for them, which would make the guerrilas, but they also attacked civilians, which would make some of them terrorists. In the film, the first attack is against royalty(government) so it's a guerilla attack. the battle at the end was supposed to be an attack on royalty, but the main badguy was only after civilians, so he was a terrorist, but not the rest of his team. The attack on ryans wife and child was a terrorist attack. Most countries, depending on what side of the conflict you're on, always call guerilla actions 'terrorist' in order to demonize the opponent. The whole Ireland/north Ireland debacle isn't really something that needs to be discussed on a site about guns though, so I say leave it up to whoever made the page. But I think some of the edits were more technically correct, I think they actually made mention of the difference about training camps and how hard it was to tell them apart in the film. --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 03:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, I now see the Makarov PM listing. --[[User:Camden Hennis|Camden Hennis]] 22:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Outside the Naval Academy, the Marine guards shot one of the assassins, but it's hard to see what they are armed with, can anyone ID their guns? (I'm guessing M1911s).--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
== Foot Guards ==
I don't neccisarily sympathize with them, I just look at it differently. A foreign military was not only occupying half the nation, but concidered their half to be a seperate country(part of england). It's not quite the Red Dawn senario, but image if something similar to ireland happened to the US. We'd be waving around AKs screaming wolverines, much like the provos did. It wasn't me who editedthe page BTW--[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Dunno why I made an identification of what regiment of Foot Guards that is when I'm not actually sure. [[User:The Wierd It|The Wierd It]] 13:57, 10 April 2012 (CDT)
:::Uh, the "foreign military" in Ireland wasn't "occupying" anyone. It was brought in, with the consent of the government in Northern Ireland, to help restore law and order. Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. because a majority of the population wants it to be. It was a solution that was created to satisfy both the Nationalist and Unionist camps on the island, and while the Unionists were admittedly discriminatory towards the Nationalists, that still doesn't mean that the Brits were "occupying" N.I.
== Second CZ image. ==
:::Also, comparing the IRA to the Wolverines is ridiculous. The Wolverines were fighting against Soviet/Cuban tyranny. The Provos trying to impose a Cuban-style socialist tyranny on Ireland (and don't take my word for it; read their political program Eire Nua, which says that they want to create a "32-County Democratic Socialist Republic of Ireland"). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]
The first image for the CZ 75, unless there's a gun in there I'm not seeing, does not show a CZ 75. I haven't seen the movie, but if it jump cuts in a fashion to make it seem like the same gun, then it's probably a continuity error. I'm not entirely sure what it is. Slide is rather large with tall serrations, the trigger guard is hooked... So, I'll put the image here, see if anyone knows it, ad I'll remove it from the page for now. --[[User:Clonehunter|Clonehunter]] ([[User talk:Clonehunter|talk]]) 22:18, 6 January 2018 (EST)
[[Image:PG-CZ75-3.jpg|thumb|none|601px|Kevin O'Donnell ([[Patrick Bergin]]) breaks Sean Miller out of police custody while holding his [blank].]]
I said it wasn't quite the same. But if the US government asked the UN to send troops here and set up roadbblock, search peoples homes and declare part of the contry belongs to them instead of the US, wed' probably react the same way. Aid relief during a disaster would be one thing, but permanent occupation would inflame alot of people(as it has always donethrough history). Also the wolverine were called "terrorists" in Red Dawn, but I doubt that page lists them as such. It's the hypocracy that I don't like. If someone we support does it, it's good and we call them freedom fighters, if were don't like them, it's bad and they're terrorists. Was the French resistance during WWII terrorists? I think we go back to using the word '''Partisan''', it was applied to all groups wether you supported them or not. --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
With no offense meant to any particular individual or organization, this is not a forum for debate as to the status of an organization such as the IRA. This is a DATABASE site that documents the presence of FIREARMS in MEDIA (ok, the M stands for MOVIES, but the site has content for television and other forms of visual entertainment.), this is a gun website, not a political commentary team. I believe it would be beneficial to visitors of this website if this topic of discussion would cease.
I think it should be discussed, atleast once, since there are alot of movies about terrorists/freedom fighters. So as to decide how to properly add descriptions. What are the gangsters from the roaring 20s? We don't call them terrorists, just gangsters. Some times it'll be appropriate, other times it won't. Some support the IRA, some don't, most couldn't care either way. Do we need to use the word terrorist, or just call them the IRA? --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 06:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Zurak, you keep comparing apples to oranges. I've really lost respect for you if you are prepared to make excuses for a bunch of sectarian thugs and Marxist-Leninist gunmen who used to put sugar in bombs that they used on Protestant civilians, all because they were eating in restaurants that were in supposedly "Loyalist" areas.
:::Anyway, this may not be a site for political discussion, but I will not tolerate people trying to legitimize terrorist groups on this site. This applies as much to the IRA as any other organization that most people would agree is a terrorist group (the State Department's FTO Designation list is a good place to start for this). -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]
I'm not trying to legetimize them, make excuses or any such. And I'm not trying to be political, I'm just saying terrorist is a fuzzy word(atleast that's what I've been trying to do, seems you misunderstood. My fault probably, I'm not the most well spoken person and often say things differently than I intend) My point was, If you're going to use it here, it should be used other places as well or vis versa. And how are gansters 'apples and oranges'? Bombings, assassination, mass killing(like Bloody Valentine), arson, gun smuggling, etc... They were a criminals engaged in what we would call terrorism today.
BTW, wasn't that Brad Pidd/Harrison Ford movie pro-IRA? And there was the IRA sniper played by richard gere(I forget the movies name, had sydney portieh in it)where he gets upset about being called a terrorist, because he wasn't a bomber. Just saying, there's already stuff like what your complaining about on the site. But whatever, I'll drop it. --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 14:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, the British army have killed more innocent people than the IRA could even dream of. The British army averages one war per decade, committing warcrimes on each expedition. Whether its machine-gunning hospital boats in WWII, warcrimes in the Falkands or illegally invading some oil or heroin-rich nation. Its quite laughable that limeys get upset over a minor force such as the IRA, on grounds of moral, when their own thugs are out shaking foreigners houses to their foundations with their cluster bombs. At least the IRA called in warnings, when they detonated bombs that were created as a result of provocation.
Personally the proceding propaganda is why those of us who live in reality hate those who follow the IRA and other such terrorist groups. My Grandmum was born outside of Dublin and frankly both the IRA and the UDF should have been hunted down and killed. The IRA is known to be a bunch of bank robbing, drug dealing terrorists. As for the British Military they are not as this person states Thugs. If he had any knowlege of what the british Military did in places like Oman then he would know that the British support their allies and have done more to win conflicts by healping the local people then they have by killing the enemy in very large numbers. [[User:Rockwolf66|Rockwolf66]] 16:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'll ignore the IRA-loving moron.
:Zurak, terrorist isn't a fuzzy word at all. It's somebody who uses violence to fulfill an extremist political agenda. The IRA is not the only group that we call "terrorists" on this site. I did a page for ''[[Baader Meinhof Complex, The (Der Baader Meinhof Komplex)|Der Baader Meinhof Komplex]]'' where I referred to the German Red Army Faction as "terrorists". Because that's what they were. Also, trying to avoid civilian casualties is far from the only thing that distinguishes terrorists from "guerrillas". The Weather Underground also avoided killing civilians and called in warnings before it bombed targets. Do you think they're not necessarily "terrorists" for this reason?
:As for the movies which have IRA members as heroes, so what? This is Hollywood. Hollywood loves terrorists if they're leftists or Islamists (Che Guevara being the most prominent example). What is your point? -[[User:MT2008|MT2008]]
'My grandmum was born outside London' - That doesn't a) Excuse your endorsing of the slaughtering of innocent Middle Easterners, or b) Make you in any way qualified to discuss Irish affairs. Secondly, to demonstrate your ignorance, who are they UDF? There is no such organisation here, never has been. There is, however, an organisation called the UVF. This organisation, was supplied arms by the British army and intelligence. It went around the streets of Belfast hunting innocent men and teenagers so that they could skin them alive, castrate them and behead them. At first, under the eye of the british terrorist army, they couldn't fully get the heads cut off, but then as they gained experienced, bodies started showing up without heads. This is but a few examples of british terrorism. All of this, under the watchful eye of the british military, who cleared the streets of their army and the air of their helicopters when the UVF 'Butchers' went looking for a victim to mutilate. Given this history, you people have the gaul to accuse others of being terrorists.
...
This whole thing has gotten far away from what I origially posted, which was that only one guy was 'by definition' a terrorist. The others talked about freedom for Ireland and were attacking the government in an effort to accomplish this goal, which would make the freedom fighters(IN THE MOVIE!). That's all I was saying. The rest of my posts were to show that the word 'terrorist' has become stupidized. Some people who commit the same kind of attacks aren't called terrorists(like gangsters). This is where it gets 'fuzzy'. You are either are a terrorist or you're not, you can't use the term for some and not others. And since the word terrorist is also used as a way to describe(demonize) freedom fighters, it becomes even more 'fuzzy'.
Is he a repulican? yes. Is he a killer? no. These are definative descriptions, noone argues. Is he a terrorist? well let me pull out my spreadsheet to see who we like/dislike... There is actually a definition, but everyone seems to ignores it and tries to turn it into some political nonsense. And it doesn't matter what the IRA did in the really real world, on this page it's what they did in the movie. And only one person was a terrorist, so labeling all of them as terrorist is incorrect. You're projecting personal feelings about the real world situation, which doesn't really have a place when talking about a movie. I don't want to talk about the real world, nor did I from the begining. I was solely wanting to talk about the desciptions for the characters in the film, which I feel is incorrect. How did this spark so much controversy?? I say delete the whole page, since apparently meaningless anyways --[[User:Zurak 47|Zurak 47]] 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest revision as of 03:18, 7 January 2018
Why does this book get a movie but Rainbow Six doesn't?-S&Wshooter 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Because Rainbow Six has been in development hell since forever. There have been countless disputes over directors and casting. Personally, though, I doubt the movie will be any good if/when it gets made. I know how much teenage boys love it, but I think Rainbow Six is by far the least substantive and the least interesting of Tom Clancy's books (not that his books are exactly great literature, but at least before Rainbow Six they usually had more of a political context based on real-world events). Rainbow Six makes for a far better FPS game than it does a movie, and I'd rather play ones of the games than see a movie based on it, which would almost surely suck no matter how many cool firearms were featured in it (and knowing Clancy, it's sure to have the latest H&K weaponry). -MT2008 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I just undid a whole bunch of edits by some moron IRA sympathizer who couldn't stand that I called his beloved ski mask-wearing psychos "terrorists", so he changed the page to call them "volunteers". I already had to do the same thing with my page for The Devil's Own. What is it with these people that they refuse to accept what is pretty much common sense to the rest of us? -MT2008
Because in their twisted minds the IRA wasn't terrorizing Ireland by blowing up buildings and killing British troops, they were "freedom fighting" or some shit. M14fanboy 02:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick Question
Does anyone know what handgun the "fake Red-head" used to shoot the guy in the bedroom with? I noticed that it wasn't mentioned in the list. I think it was a Walther P99 with a suppressor. --Camden Hennis 22:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, never mind, I now see the Makarov PM listing. --Camden Hennis 22:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Outside the Naval Academy, the Marine guards shot one of the assassins, but it's hard to see what they are armed with, can anyone ID their guns? (I'm guessing M1911s).--Wildcards 23:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Foot Guards
Dunno why I made an identification of what regiment of Foot Guards that is when I'm not actually sure. The Wierd It 13:57, 10 April 2012 (CDT)
Second CZ image.
The first image for the CZ 75, unless there's a gun in there I'm not seeing, does not show a CZ 75. I haven't seen the movie, but if it jump cuts in a fashion to make it seem like the same gun, then it's probably a continuity error. I'm not entirely sure what it is. Slide is rather large with tall serrations, the trigger guard is hooked... So, I'll put the image here, see if anyone knows it, ad I'll remove it from the page for now. --Clonehunter (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2018 (EST)
