Talk:Patriot Games

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)

Jesus, the IRA sympathizers have invaded IMFDB

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)

lol "volunteers" are you serioius --AdAstra2009 03:11, 26 August 2009 (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. --Zurak 47 03:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional IRA (the one that most people just call "the IRA" today) did not have majority support, in either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. This only changed after they ended their armed campaign in the late-90s, when Sinn Fein became the largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland (and that's JUST the North, not the entirety of the island of Ireland, which is what the IRA claims to represent). Furthermore, Zurak, I am assuming that if you are pro-gun, you identify as either a conservative or a Libertarian? In which case, why on Earth do you sympathize with a "guerrilla" organization which is full of socialists and Marxists, and which was allied with many of America's enemies during the Cold War?

This may not be a place for political discussion, but I can say that I do not favor anyone editing pages to make them more sympathetic to designated terrorist organizations. This applies as much to the IRA as it does to Al-Qaeda, the PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas, FARC, the LTTE, etc. Anyone who does this will hear from me. -MT2008

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--Zurak 47 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

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"). -MT2008

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. --Zurak 47 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)