PDA

View Full Version : Deadliest Warrior: IRA vs. Taliban



Pógmothóin
31-May-2009, 06:00 PM
Don't forget to check this out on Spike tonight, and see the IRA dish out some pain on the ragheads.

krakenslayer
31-May-2009, 06:23 PM
No thanks. If I want to watch two gangs of thuggish religious bigots beat the shit out of each other I'll go to a Rangers/Celtic match.

3pidemiC
31-May-2009, 07:09 PM
Ragheads?

Wow.

Pógmothóin
31-May-2009, 07:13 PM
Ragheads?

Wow.

I meant it as a term of endearment, really. The way they stone their women and publicly execute them in soccer stadiums, and deprive their people of music and television and "secular" books is just so great.

We should all love the Taliban.

:rolleyes:

Tricky
31-May-2009, 08:31 PM
No thanks. If I want to watch two gangs of thuggish religious bigots beat the shit out of each other I'll go to a Rangers/Celtic match.

"if ye cannae do the bouncy your a tim!" :p

Anyway in response to the post,the taliban & IRA are both a bunch of cowardly "religious" fuckwits who enjoy blowing civilians up because they're too chickenshit to engage our forces in open combat,both groups can die of aids as far as im concerned

krakenslayer
31-May-2009, 09:36 PM
"if ye cannae do the bouncy your a tim!" :p

Anyway in response to the post,the taliban & IRA are both a bunch of cowardly "religious" fuckwits who enjoy blowing civilians up because they're too chickenshit to engage our forces in open combat,both groups can die of aids as far as im concerned

In fairness, the earliest incarnation of the IRA was a very different organisation to what we know today - it was a desperate, some would say heroic, reaction to the inexcusable ill-treatment of the Irish by Great Britain in the early part of the 20th century. However, they gradually turned into a bigoted, cowardly terrorist group, who sadly still engender support (particularly in America) based on out-of-touch people who have never had any contact with any of the violence and hate they spread latterly, who still associate them with fresh-faced freedom fighters of yore and not the gnarled hooligans of modern reality.

The same goes for all the Unionist groups as well.

axlish
31-May-2009, 10:32 PM
Deadliest Warrior is a fun show, btw. If you are into Mythbusters at all, this show takes the forensic dummy aspect, and then beast the tar out of it with weapons to gauge the potential damage. At the end of the show, they reveal which camp would beat the other. They are running out of good battles though. It wont be long before it'll be Han Solo vs. Boba Fett. I wish they'd do a tournament at the end of the season to find out who was the best/weakest. So far my vote for weakest would be Ninja, and strongest going to Spetsnaz.

MoonSylver
01-Jun-2009, 03:47 AM
Deadliest Warrior is a fun show, btw. If you are into Mythbusters at all, this show takes the forensic dummy aspect, and then beast the tar out of it with weapons to gauge the potential damage. At the end of the show, they reveal which camp would beat the other. They are running out of good battles though. It wont be long before it'll be Han Solo vs. Boba Fett. I wish they'd do a tournament at the end of the season to find out who was the best/weakest. So far my vote for weakest would be Ninja, and strongest going to Spetsnaz.

Yeah, I've been enjoying the show, but I'm with you #1, they're already starting to run thin on match ups it seems (especially judging by this latest one...:rolleyes:) & #2 I totally agree they should do it tournament style.

capncnut
01-Jun-2009, 12:13 PM
Don't forget to check this out on Spike tonight, and see the IRA dish out some pain on the ragheads.


Discriminating against someone because of their race, background, religion or other issues is not tolerated. Offending comments will be removed and the originator warned.
One more like that and this thread is toast.

AcesandEights
01-Jun-2009, 01:42 PM
Deadliest Warrior is a fun show, btw.

It definitely is and the Spetsnaz episode was great.

As far as using a racist term to disparage a terrorist group? Kind of a cunt-faced, backwards way of looking at it, but that's just my opinion. Guess I just love the Taliban :rolleyes:

EvilNed
01-Jun-2009, 03:57 PM
Viking beat by a samurai? Bah!

While it did seem like they actually took it somewhat seriously, I find it kinda hard to believe (at least in this instance) exactly what evidence they had that made the samurai "quicker" and more "agile". Apart from Hollywood movies, that is.

Are both not warrior classes? Are both not taught to fight from birth? Call me crazy, but given those circumstances, I think they'd both possess about equal amounts of "quickness" and "agility".

Pógmothóin
01-Jun-2009, 07:35 PM
As far as using a racist term to disparage a terrorist group? Kind of a cunt-faced, backwards way of looking at it, but that's just my opinion. Guess I just love the Taliban :rolleyes:

Yawn.

Wake me up after you get off your high horse.

AcesandEights
02-Jun-2009, 02:57 PM
I wasn't commenting on the moral aspects of your posts, so much as the asinine and ultimately retarded pretenses of what you had to say in them.

But by all means, yawn away.

blind2d
03-Jun-2009, 04:05 AM
I just watched the Shaolin episode. Damn, those are some crazy weapons! Not to diss the Maori or anything, but... damn. Samurai kick ass, by the way.
Ninja the weakest? Masters of Invisibility? I don't understand this logic. - Noodle
You know love, it's that whole "prancing about in black pajamas" that throws people off. Maybe if you actually watched the show... -Murdoc
Oi, stop posting on here! I'm the one who like zombie films, remember? -2D

axlish
03-Jun-2009, 11:58 AM
Ninja the weakest? Masters of Invisibility? I don't understand this logic. - Noodle


Have you seen the episode? Who do you see the Ninja taking down in a one on one fight?

Publius
03-Jun-2009, 04:04 PM
Who do you see the Ninja taking down in a one on one fight?

A pirate? ;)

axlish
03-Jun-2009, 10:16 PM
A pirate? ;)

I thought the Knight got hosed! That armor was suprisingly resiliant against a musket, and whatever that crude shotgun was as well.

Pógmothóin
03-Jun-2009, 10:41 PM
I thought the Knight got hosed! That armor was suprisingly resiliant against a musket, and whatever that crude shotgun was as well.

It's called a Blunderbuss.

The Pirate had better technology, and that Blunderbuss punctured his armor like a rifle penetrates a tin can. Good win for the pirate. Allbeit, a predictable win.

The ninja is who got hosed. Like he would have really fought nose to nose with a Spartan. But that's a discussion for another day.

axlish
03-Jun-2009, 11:54 PM
It's called a Blunderbuss.

The Pirate had better technology, and that Blunderbuss punctured his armor like a rifle penetrates a tin can. Good win for the pirate. Allbeit, a predictable win.

Nay, the blunderbuss only got one pellet through, and that was at close range. The test shot would have eventually become a death wound, but I say the Knight lives for well long enough to cut the Pirate down. Re-run that test 10 times and I bet it blocks em all a few times. Back the pirate up another ten feet and, well you know the rest.



The ninja is who got hosed. Like he would have really fought nose to nose with a Spartan. But that's a discussion for another day.

The show assumes a mano y mano, Mortal Kombat sytle format. Using this formula, the Ninja results were appropriate.

blind2d
04-Jun-2009, 02:49 AM
Yeah, just watched 300 again actually. Dudes are viscous. Noodle's just being all patriotic again.
Now if it were an assassin match, the Ninja would most definitely be the victor. - Noodle
Yeah, but who wants to watch that? - 2D

EvilNed
04-Jun-2009, 05:22 PM
Yeah, just watched 300 again actually. Dudes are viscous. Noodle's just being all patriotic again.
Now if it were an assassin match, the Ninja would most definitely be the victor. - Noodle
Yeah, but who wants to watch that? - 2D

Yeah, as if 300 is in anyway an accurate depiction of Spartans...

If it were an assassin's match, the better assassin would win.

SRP76
04-Jun-2009, 05:27 PM
Yeah, as if 300 is in anyway an accurate depiction of Spartans...



Many people do think it's precisely that. Not that the real scenario was all that it's made out to be, anyway. Gee, they fought a numerically superior army...in a narrow pass in which only a tiny fraction could be engaged at any one time. Which results in never actually being outnumbered at the point of attack.

They want to make it seem like they were surrounded and every man fought at least 500 guys at once, Bruce Lee style.

EvilNed
05-Jun-2009, 04:58 PM
Many people do think it's precisely that. Not that the real scenario was all that it's made out to be, anyway. Gee, they fought a numerically superior army...in a narrow pass in which only a tiny fraction could be engaged at any one time. Which results in never actually being outnumbered at the point of attack.

They want to make it seem like they were surrounded and every man fought at least 500 guys at once, Bruce Lee style.

Yeah. Bullshit. The numbers the movie presents are something along the lines of 300 vs. one million if I'm not wrong...

More like 14,000 vs. 100,000. Which yes, is still a feat, but remember, the persians never ever had 100,000 soldiers engaged at once. Infact, they probably never had more than 5,000 soldiers engaged at once, and the same goes for the greeks.

Publius
05-Jun-2009, 07:16 PM
More like 14,000 vs. 100,000.

The Greek army topped out at around 7,000, and all but about 1,500 retreated under the cover of the Spartan's "last stand." Herodotus said there were 2 million Persians but modern estimates are more like 200,000. That makes for better than 100 to 1 odds for the last stand on the third day of battle. True, the Persians couldn't ALL come at the Greeks at once, but you don't need to with those kind of odds, and the Greeks were attacked from two sides. The Persians weren't able to make any progress at all coming straight down the narrow pass, the last stand didn't occur until the Greeks knew the Persians had been tipped off about a way to outflank them. Nonetheless, the Persians probably lost as many as 20,000 men in taking the pass -- about three times the size of the original defending force. It's been exaggerated, true, but it was still a great feat.

mista_mo
05-Jun-2009, 10:15 PM
I thoroughly enjoyed the look of complete surprise on the weapons tester face when that katana was stopped dead by the chain mail Armour. Oh, and diamond hard steel, finest weapon ever made my ass. People like that just help perpetuate the myth that katanas could cut a tank in half, or deflect tank shells or what have you. That is all an over exaggeration obviously, but you get the point. Guy could shoot a bow though, man, could he ever aim with that thing.

Many things have actually surprised me about this series; bronze armor beign able to stop steel/iron weapons, flint lock pistols being stopped by knight plate armor, and just how deadly these weapons were. The roman Scissor was a nasty, nasty tool. I mean, it sliced through a side of beef like it was butter.

Very interesting show with some basis in science, but more basis in entertainment. I cannot wait to see the next season.

EvilNed
06-Jun-2009, 01:30 AM
The Greek army topped out at around 7,000...

7,000 hoplites, yes, and each with his own squire.

And as I said, yes, it was still a great feat. But remember, there were probably no more than 5,000 persians engaged at any time. As for the casualty number? It's pure guessing. There's no amount of evidence that could in anyway accurately pinpoint a number.

Yojimbo
06-Jun-2009, 02:12 AM
They are running out of good battles though. It wont be long before it'll be Han Solo vs. Boba Fett.
Funny thing is, my wife and I were talking about this the other night ago and we were saying that they should do matchups just like what you mentioned - you know: Kaiser Sose vs. Tarzan, etc. I mean, it's not really that far of a stretch from the recent matchups I have seen.

Personally, I would like to see Sun Tzu vs. Che Guevara or King Kong Vs. Godzilla- oops, guess that was already tried and done.

Don't mean to talk shit about the show, BTW, since - though stupid it may be - it is one of my Guilty Pleasures

Wyldwraith
06-Jun-2009, 03:54 AM
To interject about the Battle of Thermopylae,
Modern historians continue to argue about the casualty rate and initial size of the Persian forces. Different camps subscribe to wildly different figures, because all of them are forced to base their research on a variety of extremely suspect primary sources.

What I always find interesting is that the equally impressive naval victories of the Athenians have faded into relative obscurity, while the land battle stands out.