Turkish Rambo

ricky ..are you saying the redcoats didnt burn the us capitol in 1812,or that no brit troops ever torched any colonial houses in the revolutionary war? or both...lol?

 

Neither.

I am saying that the British did not burn Washington in the Revolutionary War (which is when 'The Patriot' is set), and that there is no substantiated claim for war crimes as depicted in 'The Patriot' from the Revolutionary War.

 

Not exactly a clearly substantiated case of war crimes by the Brits during the American Revolution, but "Tarleton's Quarter" did become a synonom for treachery and murder to the Americans.

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

 

yes ricky ,but i think there were plenty of what we would call war crimes,commited by red coats and us troops as well...tens of thousands of troops fighting over many thousands of sq miles for 4years..with or without the consent of their officers...one case ,iirc ....a teenage farmboy who was foolish enough to watch a british collum march by near his home, was bayonetted to death. why?..brits thought he might be a spy or mabey next year he would be carrieing a musket in the rebel army ...both assumtions were probebly right....still ,its a war crime...

 

IIRC The majority of atrocities committed during the American War for Independance were done by the Continental Army... Not the British although they had their fair share

 

I don't doubt that. However that was not the point being made.

 

really smeg?...what might those attrocities be?

 

As in raping towsfolk and killing surrendering soldiers and such... the usual wartime celebrations... Hardly unexpected when you consider that the Continentals weren't quite as drilled and disciplined as the British though it must've worked for them as they won the war (with some help from ze French of course!) I guess the continentals could count upon a large support base from the colonial population regardless of what they did.

 

Plus such charming activities as tarring & feathering British sympathisers.

 

Actually - the whole issue of the American Revolution is subject to a great deal of US propaganda. Even the title War Of Independence has a definite spin on it. The war is mostly painted as simply a war between hard done to Americans and the oppressive British when in fact it was a civil war between British colonials wanting independence on one side and the British Crown and loyal British colonials on the other. There were great divisions between colonists themselves - very many were for the British - not just a few treacherous collaborators as we are generally led to believe. Whole areas, virtually, were loyal to the British and many households were even divided against each other by their loyalties. New York was liberated by the British from rebel forces who were holding it largely against the will of its people - British forces were cheered through the streets by huge crowds after the action. How much of this kind of thing ever finds its way into Hollywood movies ?

Mind you - there is a line in the Hollywood movie Dazed And Confused which breaks the mould a bit - "Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes".

And if it was all done for freedom - Canada never fought a war with Britain - how many Canadians (or Brits for that matter) believe they are less free than Americans ?

 

OH YEA????.................................................well uh,,.... king george had a fat arse.....so there!

 

Good to see that meaningful and informed debate is still alive and well... :-? :-?

Have to say I agree with much of what Lone Wolf says -- check out "United Empire Loyalists" for the details, but basically some 70,000 people left the 13 colonies/states to stay under the British Crown.

Re Atrocities, this link gives one view of Hollywoods version of "1776 and all that" I'm sure other sources exist, but it would be interesting to find how much actual evidence there is for British war crimes during that period.

Tom

 

back to the turkish rambo issue...it seems that wether tarlton killed pows or civillian and torched building is subject to debate...are there any other hollywood productions that grossly misrepresent the misdeeds of any military force ,enemy or otherwise?...

 

I thought the issue was propaganda in mainstream cinema in general and not simply misrepresented massacres ?

Anyway - how about nearly all the American Indian movies made before about 1975 ?

Also - there's a clue in the title of this thread (not R1 but certainly R2) ...

:smok:

 

well ,wolf , many seemed to implie that the turkish blockbuster ,lines arround the block movie, was no different than hollywoods version of war...the turkish movie is vile biggoted lie ,say i and is the 2nd or 3rd one along these lines,what troubles me is that it seems to be garnering accolades and veiwers as if it was sweeping the oscars like shindlers list or the english patient .at least in the muslim world...btw i agree with you on hollywoods depictions of indian troubles at least thru the 30s to mid 60s..of course most westerns were written and produced for the bubble gum set in those days..in the late sixties and thru the 70s the us army was often the villain in many if not most westerns...

 

I don't get you poeple.
It's a war movie with so much historic accuracy as 99,9% of Hollywood war movies. So US army are the bad guys, so what? Get over it. It's not the first time and it's shure as hell not the last time.

Right now most of the poeple in the world (and Asia particularly) USA are seen as the bad guys of the world (Iraq being pretty much the reason for this). So such films are hardly surprising.

So Turkish film is "vile and bigoted lie" but movies like the Beast, Patriot, are not? Wake up please.

 

Majorwoody

Hi

Believe it or not (bearing in mind I haven't seen the picture) I think that it probably is a vile bigoted lie and a totally contemptable movie. The point I'm making is that a fair amount of what the American film industry have put out over the years is also VBL. You can't have it both ways. You can't go round making VBL about everyone else and then kick off the first time someone does it about you - perhaps "shouldn't" would be a better word than "can't" because clearly you can and do. There is a definite ivory tower thing going on here. As a general rule of thumb, if you chuck shi# over your neighbour's fence you shouldn't be too distressed when some comes back.

 

Um no. In most cases the the Americans were the defending army, and it was their own homes and families. One of the myths to the American revolution is that the population was split into thirds: 1/3 revolutionaries; 1/3 loyalists; 1/3 undecided. In fact it was pretty much a majority in support of the revolution. After the British Army moved through an area, the entire populace was pretty much in favor of the revolution, die to 18th century pratices of pacification. Gross oversimplification of course, there were atrocities by American troops, some areas were staunchly British, in most cases British troops were completely professional. But in the end the Continental Army was usually on home turf, and acted that way.

 

Hmmm, ok... Let me rephrase... In a numerical context, who comitted more ""atrocities""? I am aware that the conteinentals enjoyed the majority of popular support, my point is that they were not the professional standing army that the British were and as such were more prone to disorderly behaviour in certain circumstances.

 

iirc..the turk movie has us troops acting on roe. attacks murderers or captures muslim women and children to sell to a zionist dr ..so he can cut out their livers........please tiso ,wolf ...an example of a us made movies that is a vbl of this magnitude? ok ,..a lesser magnitude? ,anything at all.....? ...if " patriot " is your best shot ,you guys need to start eating some crow...