Excellent movie! Brad Pitt proved once again to be a great actor, capable of permorming all sorts of roles. I haven’t read The Ilyias yet (but I intend to), however I think Homer would be pleased if he knew his story would still be popular 2700 years later.

I’ve to laugh with the fact that people say the movie is historically incorrect. True, it’s a 21th century translation of Homer’s original story, but during the Baroque-era myths from ancient Greek civilisations were also used as propaganda (Louis XIV comparing himself to Alexander the Great), so in fact, the movie itself is probably even more important than the story behind it.

Yeah, and ABBA is not queer or what? 😀

Well, good question. I used to shave it off, when I was a tree hugger. However it’s true, now it’s about 5 cm and draws more female attention. In Belgium, everyone seems to walk around with a spikey haircut. After a while, it’s also getting boring. If I put gell in it, I look a bit like those furby-dolls :D.
Wax is better though, makes you look a bit :confused: confused, indeed!! 😀 😎

But shoulder-long hair, Kabir, that supprises me. It wouldn’t fit me I think, nor would my mother like it. She’s already complaining about my side-burns which I am going to shave off, mother!

However, these days there are many haircuts I really have to laugh with: dreadlocks to start with. I’m rather conservative dealing with haircuts. Girls having their hair shaved back or cut very shortly … yuk. No, just give me the Jennifer Aniston-looks.

And yeah, I’m waiting for a beer so no time to look back.

In my opinion, “God” merely represents an imaginary entity created and promoted by individuals who were adherent to the products of their own fantasy and creativity. “He” is a mentally materialized source of hope, comfort, aid, guidance etc., both on a collective and an individual human basis. The so-called problem of evil; the lack of incidents related to “divine” intervention against elements which defy the Christian ideology, substantiates the fact that there is no divine power.

The medieval crusades were offensive campaigns aimed at the retrieval of historic Christian sites described in the Bible (?), implicating bloodshed in the name of religion (please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not exactly up to date when it comes to this issue). Today’s CMs are weapon platforms employed for both tactical and strategic purposes during armed conflicts. They don’t carry crosses.

By the way, Geforce, your final statement reminds me of a certain analogy used by some factions to describe i.e. coalition operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The rational reason for the Crusades were not to reconquer Jerusalem. Most people who joined the crusades were farmers, poor people, even children who had nothing to lose and hoped for a better future. “God” was only the official reason, but even the pope knew by then, there were more economic motives to start these campaigns.

However, it was not my intention to compare medieval and today’s warfare. They are completelly different, and looking at the war in Iraq, so are the motives. Even if I accept the fact for example that the US is fighting for democracy, and I’m sure many people in DC were so naive they thought they would even succeed in it, there’s still the problem of the immoral warfare. A CM may have replaced the axe and the musket, the intentions are still the same. War is always between people, religion is just a motive. And here’s my conclusion, today’s motives are the “justified” war, which is fought with a minimum loss of civilian casualties. The “moral” war is a religion itself.

rat, (yes that’s your new name for me 🙂 )

If, perhaps you’re referring to the treatment of the Native Americans, then I can perhaps see a sort of parallel, and while what the colonists and later early American (United States that is) citizens did to the Native Americans was wrong you can’t single one country out for things of that nature happening as they have happened all over the world at different times.

PII, this is perhaps the most intelligent thing you’ve said in your entire life, and I mean it. Neither Israel, nor the Arabs can claim the land just because of historic reasons, it’s the situation today that counts.

Sure, here :

Seahawk is saying Jews don’t deserve a state in Palestine, their ancestral homeland. Now, as land is not a commodity available on the market and Jews can stake no claim to any other, by the same standards in effect Jews don’t deserve a state anywhere. There is no theoretical right to self-determination without the right to exercise it. If you think my interpretation is wrong, feel free to explain where.

Do ‘Jews’ deserve a state of their own? Short answer: no! Do people who live in Israel and are Jewish have the right to live in a nation state: yes. In the 21th century a state can not be solely based on historic or religious origins. The definition of a “state” is that it’s a rational contract between individuals and a gov’t which looks after the individual rights, for example religion. (Hobbes/Locke/US Constitution). A state is opposed to a tribe, which is based upon all kinds of unrational elements. If Israel wants to be recognised as a state, it should accept the fact that a state can not be based upon religion solely, which Skythe already pointed out.

However, this is just theoretical BS. Unfortunatelly, the trouble in the middle east can not be solved through philosophical details like this. After all “muslim-states” like Iran and Saudi-Arabia have the same problems, and even bigger, of excluding other religions.

It doesn’t bother me, at least not as much as those pop-up ads.

@ Snowman,

OK I understand what you mean. But here in Belgium people are complaining they can’t bring their kids to the pub because it’s full of smoke. Kids?! They should be in bed by then. When I’m in a pub, I know it’s better for my lungs if I stayed out; but, hence the reason why I don’t LIVE in the pub. If you go twice a week to café, drink some beers and smoke some cigarettes, that’s gonna shorten your life anyway. So let the pubs be pubs, there are other things the gov’t should worry about. If people want to open a smoke-free pub, that’s fine for me, but that’s not up to the gov’t to decide. What’s next, won’t you be allowed to be drunk?