Hollywood to make 30 anti-Iranian movies

Sofa_King Good

meglome wrote: »

Ok SKG if there are so many anti-Irani accean movies you should be able to list them. If you can't I'll have to assume you're just making the whole thing up.

If you will accept anti-arabic movies here is a short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_N4BcaIPY

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If you will accept anti-arabic movies here is a short video.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_N4BcaIPY

A) He clearly asked for this list of "upcoming" anti Iranian films, you still haven't named.

No we don't your thread is explicitly about anti Iranian films.

oceanclub

Diogenes wrote: »

A) He clearly asked for this list of "upcoming" anti Iranian films, you still haven't named.

No we don't your thread is explicitly about anti Iranian films.

To Sofa_King_Good:

I'd say we'd be happy to hear the titles of a mere 10 of these alleged movies.

And Iranians aren't Arabs; I'm amazed at that ignorance.

Put up or shut up.

P.

King Mob

Hang on how is 300 anti Iranian?

It's a film that's based on a comic that's based on a film that's based on the legend that's based on a historical battle. Plus in the context of the story the plot is being related by a character who is biased against the Persians.

The Persians in the film are as representative of Iran as the movie Gladiator is representative of Italy.

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If you will accept anti-arabic movies here is a short video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko_N4BcaIPY

Okay... if I've got this right... You're quoting a government minister, that can't actually name these movies, from a mainstream & state controlled media organisation, in a country that is well known for it's very very anti American stance, that regularly calls for death to America.

Now... You can't actually find any reference to these movies existing and the only example you've given is about Arabs which as has been pointed out the Iranians aren't.

So... If I get this right you believe this utter unsubstantiated rubbish, that you can't find a shred of evidence for and we're expected to take you seriously? Really you don't see anything off about believing something fully before you can in any way, shape or form show it to be true?

Sofa_King Good

oceanclub wrote: »

To Sofa_King_Good:

I'd say we'd be happy to hear the titles of a mere 10 of these alleged movies..

Dear P.

There are 12 in here I think http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/Aug98/Media/index.html

Gonna add 300 and the wrestler from recent memory.

oceanclub wrote: »

And Iranians aren't Arabs; I'm amazed at that ignorance..

Yes I am aware thank you, actually of aryan decent as far as i am aware. Still, I have amazed you and made you happy in the space of 24 hours so i must be doing something right.

oceanclub wrote: »

Put up or shut up.

P.

There is apparently always an option C P. If not i'll take put up.

In any case I thnk I've been either misrepresented or misunderstood.

I was talkin about the future tense i.e hasn't happened yet.

If you or anyone else choose to dismiss out of hand an Iranian ministers words that also is a seperate subject.

thecommander

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

...and the wrestler from recent memory.

How is The Wrestler part of this?

oceanclub

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Dear P.

There are 12 in here I think http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/Aug98/Media/index.html

Gonna add 300 and the wrestler from recent memory.

Um that list isn't a list of current movies. The article itself is dated August 11, 1998!

Even them, it appears to be a list of movies that include an Iranian character who isn't held up in a positive light. The list includes such anti-Iranian propoganda as, ummm, Down and Out in Beverly Hills.

So we've gone from "Hollywood to make 30 anti-Iranian movies" to "In the past 30 years, there have been 10 Hollywood movies which, sometimes incredibly tangentially, have had non-positive Iranian characters". I'm quite willing to agree with you on that last statement, but you could say the same thing about most countries in the world.

P.

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

In any case I thnk I've been either misrepresented or misunderstood.

I was talkin about the future tense i.e hasn't happened yet.

How so? You're talking about stuff that doesn't exist, simple as. Movies are usually planned years in advance and there's no sign of these anti-Iranian movies. I'd suggest you're talking about something that might have happened in a dream perhaps?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If you or anyone else choose to dismiss out of hand an Iranian ministers words that also is a seperate subject.

Well either this Iranian government minister has insider knowledge that no one else has or he's making it up to suit his agenda. And let's be straight here he has an agenda. What I find laughable is you would assume out of hand the US government were lying but you believe the Iranian government. A government who have no problem telling porkies either and who often make outlandish accusations against America without any proof. You appear to only believe whatever fits your preconceived notions even if these notions are shown to be incorrect. So I ask you, are you a paid poster? I mean you tick all the boxes for me.

King Mob

The Wrestler has an Iranian in it?

Veni Vedi Vici

If only the OP had said 'anti-eastern' they might have been less ethnic slurs. (i.e. Arabic Iranians :rolleyes:)

Diogenes

King Mob wrote: »

The Wrestler has an Iranian in it?

No, the wrestler has a Wrestler in it that used to play the bad guy "The Ayatollah", back in the 80s. Mickey Rourke reschedules a rematch, and this is the finale of the movie.

Now, leaving aside that back in the 80s and 90s in the WWF there were regularly "bad guys" with dubious names like "The Shiek" or dubious russian bad guys, so this little bit of the film is utterly accurate.

Also lets leave aside "The Ayatollah" is an incredibly minor character who only appears in the last few minutes, has very few lines, but has an amicable friendly banter with Mickey Rourke, seems genuinely concerned about his well being. Not to mention his name is "Bob".

Lets look at SKG, point that the Wrestler is an intentionally Anti Iranian
movie.

SC. INT. Hollywood office day.

Movie Exe 1. "Our Zionist masters have asked us to make more anti Iranian movies, because the pentagon needs them to start a war or something."

Movie Exe 2. "Okay, lets see, anti Iranian movies. Well Oliver Stone been banging on about making his Iran Contra Affair. Tom Cruise will play Ollie North.

Movie Exe 1. "Nah, anything else?"

Movie Exe 2. "Tony Scott wants to make '52' the Hostage crisis movie, he sees it as kinda a black hawk down meets Die Hard slash the Wild Geese".

Movie Exe 2. "It's been done."

Movie Exe 1. "Okkaaayyy, Dude I'm Iman Paris Hilton swaps bodies with a Iranian spiritual leader, and sexes everything up!"

Movie Exe 2. "Bit OTT".

Movie Exe 1. "Okay, the Wrestler"

Movie Exe 2. "Thats the one that is the portrait of a washed up 80s wrestler living in a trailer park, struggling to makes ends me, trying to rebuild shattered relationships, and finding a sliver of redemption"

Movie Exe 1. "And thats Anti Iranian how?"

Movie Exe 2. "Well theres an incredibly minor character, who used to play a pantomime villian type wrestler in the 80s, who was Rourke's "nemesis". However when they do meet we discover that they share a good natured sporting rivalling, are genuinely concerned about each other physical well being, and we show him to be a genial used car salesman called Bob".

Movie Exe 1. "Yes that will stoke the fury of the American people, and bring us closer to the war our Jew masters want".

---

SKG this is one of the most inane claims you've ever made.

So can the Iranian Minister give us the names of any of these forthcoming movies, who stars, who's directing, the plots?

And if this is what they consider an "Anti Iranian" film, christ.

Sofa_King Good

If i could interject on this smug smart arsery and ask people to actually read my .posts correctly. I've edited down into easily digestable chunks and bolded and underlined the parts that seem to be ignored or have been missed.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

According to the Iranian foriegn Ministry there are 30 anti-Iranian/Persian/Islamic movies in the offing.

In light of the spate of Hollywood holocaust movies around the time of the most recent slaughter in Gaza could this be a precursor for an assault on Iran?

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

ok, assuming its true you explain it then.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

2. Iranian minister claims there are 30 movies to be released that he considers anti-Iranian.

oceanclub

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If i could interject on this smug smart arsery and ask people to actually read my .posts correctly. I've edited down into easily digestable chunks and bolded and underlined the parts that seem to be ignored or have been missed.

So now you're admitting you post rubbish you don't believe is true, presumably just to stir up ****.

In the killfile you go.

P.

mysterious

Ah Movies,

I've already and a few others have ****ed up the media. Now 80percent of Americans NOW don't believe in them.

So it's hollywood.

Does anyone see the simplicity here?
In my mind, it's actually the powers of be are becoming sheeple.
Reaction is the key word to losing power.


Thats all think about what I said.

Sofa_King Good

oceanclub wrote: »

So now you're admitting you post rubbish you don't believe is true, presumably just to stir up ****.

In the killfile you go.

P.

P,

eh no, I missed thar part actually. Again, I was posing a question off the back of a statement of a government official.

just my opinion but if anyone was stirring I would say it was the posters who immediately try to derail the thread through transferance and misrepresentation.

oceanclub

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

P,

eh no, I missed thar part actually. Again, I was posing a question off the back of a statement of a government official.

Do you normally pose follow-up questions based on statements you don't actually believe?

Well, if it keeps you off the streets...

P.

Sofa_King Good

P.

Going to ignore that and politely direct you to post 44. If it bothers you so much why react to it?

meglome

I claimed today I was king of the world, people didn't believe me. I don't get it. :rolleyes:

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If i could interject on this smug smart arsery and ask people to actually read my .posts correctly.

Hang you specifically added The Wrestler and 300 to this list.

Why exactly do you consider the Wrestler to be Anti Iranian?

I've edited down into easily digestable chunks and bolded and underlined the parts that seem to be ignored or have been missed.

A) The minister and yourself cannot name a single one of these movies.

You're asking us to assume Hollywood is doing something without a shred of evidence to support it.

C) As we've seen a Adam Sandler comedy is seen as "Anti Iranian" as is down in out in beverly hills, so why should we give any credit to Iran's claims when they're demonstrably incredibly thin skinned.

mysterious wrote:

Ah Movies,

I've already and a few others have ****ed up the media. Now 80percent of Americans NOW don't believe in them.

So it's hollywood.

Does anyone see the simplicity here?
In my mind, it's actually the powers of be are becoming sheeple.
Reaction is the key word to losing power.


Thats all think about what I said.

Firstly where's you link to the 80% claim. Secondly what the effing hell are you on about?!?

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Firstly where's you link to the 80% claim. Secondly what the effing hell are you on about?!?

Various polls I have seen.
Polls made on popular American daytime shows
I seen a poll carried out on Rosie's blog yesterday, It was 86 percent out of 10,000people that voted.
Also look at ATS.

Why don't you find out?

You see unlike you, I actually LOOK AROUND me, and I go and find out these things. Are we going to constantly get on ths bandwagon where I have to find out everything for you and tell you reality again here. So you can sit here and let me spell everything out for you, this is wjhats happened before. To be frank I'm not doing it anymore. Youi do your research and I'll do mine

Have you ever sat and watched the bull**** that goes on the Mainstream American news. The Media have agendas. You might want to register this.

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Various polls I have seen.
Polls made on popular American daytime shows
I seen a poll carried out on Rosie's blog yesterday, It was 86 percent out of 10,000people that voted.
Also look at ATS.

That'd be a 'No' then.

Have you ever sat and watched the bull**** that goes on the Mainstream American news. The Media have agendas. You might want to register this.

I've worked for Mainstream American news. Your point is caller?

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

That'd be a 'No' then.

Just cus you say so:D

lol:rolleyes:
Moving on now...
Well I think, 99% of Americans were fooled by the war on terror bull that the media sprouted since 2000.

Seriously DO YOUR RESEARCH, before you make certain judgments.

Go to Abovetopsecret.com. There are many threads on this matter, of how the media works in America. There are thousands of Americans on that. They are able to tell me.

This is how you become intellegent, by finding OUT.

You just say no. This proves how ignorant you really are.

I've worked for Mainstream American news. Your point is caller?

Really what did you do? read scripts?

Diogenes

mysterious wrote: »

Just cus you say so:D

lol:rolleyes:
Moving on now...
Well I think, 99% of Americans were fooled by the war on terror bull that the media sprouted since 2000.

Seriously DO YOUR RESEARCH, before you make certain judgments.

Go to Abovetopsecret.com. There are many threads on this matter, of how the media works in America. There are thousands of Americans on that. They are able to tell me.

Abovetopsecret. Think of the bottom of the barrel of the interweb. Turn that barrel over, thats where abovetopsecret is.

Seriously you're rating a website with anonymous posters as a credible source.

Really what did you do? read scripts?

Lizard CGI.

6th

Tone it down folks.

Mysterious & SKG if you come on here making claims then expect to be asked to back them up. If you're reply is to say "go find out for yourself" then what you say wont be taken seriously.

For the record I've come out with some of the craziest stuff on this site so I'm not beating up the "believers"

mysterious

Diogenes wrote: »

Abovetopsecret. Think of the bottom of the barrel of the interweb. Turn that barrel over, thats where abovetopsecret is.

Seriously you're rating a website with anonymous posters as a credible source.

This proves your ignorance Unbeliveable.

Do you realise that its the biggest site of alternative and conspiracies on the NET. It can have at least 3,000 people on it at any given time. People from all over the planet visit it. There is litearlly thousands of people registered with it. BTW not everyone is anymonous on it, what's your point with that. Does it make a difference if you know a person peronally when getting research. Like do you have to know a newscastor personally when watching the news. Cus this is what your trying to knock on ATS about.

This site is so vast that hundreds of people post the most up to date articles and news on the dot. It has such an impact and touches a wide range of subjects, that almost everything new bases or out there is on it.

There are some unbeleivably intellegent people on that site

There are high ranking people on that site too.

That site gets commented on COAST TO COAST a popular radio station.

I could go on all day. The amount of factual stuff on that site is unbelievable. Diogenes I don't know why your so ignorant of these facts, can I ask why.

I have spoken to many intellegent people on it.
So again where is your back up to your statements. To be honest your post is downright insulting.

6th

Mysterious, could you address the following please:

Hang you specifically added The Wrestler and 300 to this list.

Why exactly do you consider the Wrestler to be Anti Iranian?

6th

I'm getting sick of the word ignorant being thrown around.

Sofa_King Good

6th wrote: »

Mysterious, could you address the following please:

I assume that was meant for me. It is quite simple, Rourke tears up an Iranian flag. A flag is representative of a country and the people who have fought for it, which is a lot in the current Iranian population.

It is all very well making accusations of hyper-sensitivity, however if me and my brethren had my opium producing neighbours on one side and my oil prodicing neighbours on the other th had their societies ravaged by an occupying force and an inevitabilty that I was next I reason that they have grounds to be touchy.

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I assume that was meant for me. It is quite simple, Rourke tears up an Iranian flag. A flag is representative of a country and the people who have fought for it, which is a lot in the current Iranian population.

It is all very well making accusations of hyper-sensitivity, however if me and my brethren had my opium producing neighbours on one side and my oil prodicing neighbours on the other th had their societies ravaged by an occupying force and an inevitabilty that I was next I reason that they have grounds to be touchy.

Not that I care but the Iranians burn a lot of American flags.


Looking... let imagine two enemies, lets call them Country U and Country I. Country U makes claims that Country I is in the Axis of evil and supports terrorism. There may be some truth in this support of terrorism but trying to demonise Country I is not a helpful. Not to mention Country U has supported many despicable people and regimes over the years. Now Country I suggests that Country U is very Anti Country I and it certainly appears that Country I is very Anti Country U.

So we take these two enemies with their own divergent agendas and we take everything Country U says as a lie. But we take a ridiculous claim by Country I as truth even though we can't find any proof for it whatsoever. That make any sense to you SKG? How many times do we have to be told by CT's that we cannot trust governments but whenever it suits the CT's it's perfectly acceptable.

I ask you SKG is this a fantasy forum or a conspiracy theory one?