One of my favorite movie lines/scenes of the last decade.Ol_Ag_02 said:Apache said:
Comanches were enemies of the Apache, so you know who I'm pulling for.
Prey (Predators vs. Comanche)
26,793 Views |
244 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by jbanda
He is useless without a horse. About 4'10" - 5 ft nothing with sub 80 IQ's, but absolute legends on horseback...even the youth.utah, get me two said:
I'll take a Comanche warrior anyday
They were also really skilled at tying up infants to backs of horses and running them through briar patches as their mothers watched in horror. They'd also rape your wife and daughter and then light them on fire while they made you watch the whole thing. Great group of people.
100% chance aTm was rooting for the humans in Avatar.
This is a wild thread. Thank you for the entertainment everyone.
So how far into the movie does the Predator lose his tech? 10 mins?
So how far into the movie does the Predator lose his tech? 10 mins?
In a cheesy way, it's a pretty interesting hypothetical.
Which warrior culture from the past would have stood the best chance against a predator? If you assume the use of technology, it's got to be one of the modern day special forces groups. If you remove the technology, and just rely on tracking skills, situational awareness, primitive weapons etc, that changes things drastically. Comanches were bad dudes in groups and with horses, but as a one on one fighter there's nothing very impressive about their physical prowess or weaponry. Mongols kind of fit in the same category. Vikings? Their size and strength are probably going to help but the predator is still stronger.
Kind of a fun little mind game.
Which warrior culture from the past would have stood the best chance against a predator? If you assume the use of technology, it's got to be one of the modern day special forces groups. If you remove the technology, and just rely on tracking skills, situational awareness, primitive weapons etc, that changes things drastically. Comanches were bad dudes in groups and with horses, but as a one on one fighter there's nothing very impressive about their physical prowess or weaponry. Mongols kind of fit in the same category. Vikings? Their size and strength are probably going to help but the predator is still stronger.
Kind of a fun little mind game.
Spartans?
Without technology, I would say the samurai.Stive said:
In a cheesy way, it's a pretty interesting hypothetical.
Which warrior culture from the past would have stood the best chance against a predator? If you assume the use of technology, it's got to be one of the modern day special forces groups. If you remove the technology, and just rely on tracking skills, situational awareness, primitive weapons etc, that changes things drastically. Comanches were bad dudes in groups and with horses, but as a one on one fighter there's nothing very impressive about their physical prowess or weaponry. Mongols kind of fit in the same category. Vikings? Their size and strength are probably going to help but the predator is still stronger.
Kind of a fun little mind game.
I mean, a Yakuza with kenjutsu training literally killed a Predator in hand to hand combat in Predators.
They were way more badass and advanced, LOL, it's not even close. Over half a millennia before the Comanche were introduced to the horse, when their ancestors were probably diddling with their doo doo, finger painting on cave walls, and eating lice out of each others hair, the vikings were building ships, creating maps, forging steel, navigating and sailing seas and engaging in commerce and even arts and literature.utah, get me two said:
I bet OP thinks Vikings are badass though even though their tactics were just as bad if not worse than Indians
Once they were introduced to the horse, the Comanche became great and ruthless plains fighters who covered impressive distance and were good at flanking and terrorizing small, weaker parties, but they would have been no match for the Vikings.
This needs some more parameters. Does the predator have his tech? If not, does he get some time to practice not having it? Is it like a hunger games scenario where both parties are trying to kill the other one or is the predators job just to survive?
I wonder if the whole bit of this movie is that this predator is going to lose his tech and realize he's really not a very good fighter without it, but he learns from watching the comanche or something.
I wonder if the whole bit of this movie is that this predator is going to lose his tech and realize he's really not a very good fighter without it, but he learns from watching the comanche or something.
I can hear this gifgigemags-99 said:
I was rooting for the movie to be over.Brian Earl Spilner said:
100% chance aTm was rooting for the humans in Avatar.
And if the blue dudes were 1/2 as bad as the comanches, then everybody would have been rooting for the humans.
Who wins?
Started out as an entertainment thread, then a history thread, and now we're devolving into a Forum 16 thread.
Just dropping knowledge/facts and trying to educate people on the current realities of the world. It is what it is. Only a politically obsessed or biased person would even attempt to argue. We all have eyes and brain. Zero of us have ever seen conservatives take to the streets en masse and loot burn and kill because they didn't get their way. Maybe a couch or two here and there in Appalachia after winning or losing a football game, but if you ever see conservatives riot, it basically means the end is nigh.Apache said:
Started out as an entertainment thread, then a history thread, and now we're devolving into a Forum 16 thread.
Devolving? If anything it is a promotion.Apache said:
Started out as an entertainment thread, then a history thread, and now we're devolving into a Forum 16 thread.
What in the **** does any of this have to do with a movie about Aliens and Comanches trying to murder eachother?
I don't know but I feel we are growing near the application of Godwin's Law to this thread.
Live shot of TCTTS squaring off to Forum 16 regulars coming onto the E board:
Me with this thread every 30 minutes.
So where would the Predators fall on the political spectrum, that's the real question?
bobinator said:
So where would the Predators fall on the political spectrum, that's the real question?
Libertarian clearly
Green Partybobinator said:
So where would the Predators fall on the political spectrum, that's the real question?
Don't we want the Comanche to win? None of the so-called Conservatives want to get into the mud.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
GET TO DA CHOPPA!!!Apache said:
Started out as an entertainment thread, then a history thread, and now we're devolving into a Forum 16 thread.
aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
Predator. Comanches. This?
That was regarding a TCTTS comment that was above somewhere. It must have been deleted.Chipotlemonger said:aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
Predator. Comanches. This?
aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
"Full of crap" because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards. Not because you've presented any evidence/data to the contrary. Got it.
It would help if they presented evidence or even just a list first. Only then would we have something to work with. What I saw from the NYT the other day, which was very similar to what you cited, did no such thing. It just made the statement you made. With ZERO evidence.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
"Full of crap" because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards. Not because you've presented any evidence/data to the contrary. Got it.
If white supremacy terror attacks/murders were so prevalent, it would be all over the news non stop and we would be able to rattle 5-10 recent incidents off our heads. And there wouldn't need to be so many damn fake/hoax hate crimes.
Just the other day when asked about white supremacist terror attacks, the Secretary of Homeland Security couldn't name one. After hyping it up as the greatest threat we face. It is ALL political...they know they are losing the Hispanic vote in certain areas of the country and are desperate to race bait and continue scaring black people (and their "white saviors") into voting for them.
It's not arbitrary. Any study that doesn't provide source data is full of crap. That's how one is supposed to check their work. Can't be peer reviewed without data.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
"Full of crap" because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards. Not because you've presented any evidence/data to the contrary. Got it.
And CSIS has been famous for providing conclusions that it thinks clients want to hear. For example, defense contractors are big donors. Sure enough, the CSIS always claims "parity" or even the US being behind in some weapons technology. Despite us spending more than all our enemies combined. Whatever it takes to make the money happy.
And, BTW, this is pretty much true with every "think tank".
Was it not the (far left) ADL who was involved?aTmAg said:It's not arbitrary. Any study that doesn't provide source data is full of crap. That's how one is supposed to check their work. Can't be peer reviewed without data.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
"Full of crap" because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards. Not because you've presented any evidence/data to the contrary. Got it.
And CSIS has been famous for providing conclusions that it thinks clients want to hear. For example, defense contractors are big donors. Sure enough, the CSIS always claims "parity" or even the US being behind in some weapons technology. Despite us spending more than all our enemies combined. Whatever it takes to make the money happy.
And, BTW, this is pretty much true with every "think tank".
I couldn't get to his NYT article. I'm not going to pay them anything. But NYT loves to quote CSIS so I assume it was them. And CSIS had a recent 2020 study. It could have been the Anti-defamation League but I doubt it. Other studies like the one from New America Foundation (NAF) and the Center of Investigative Reporting (CIR) are others. Those did provide source data, but that is how they got exposed as being full of crap. By picking and choosing anything and everything and calling it a "terrorist threat". My guess that is why CSIS didn't provide source.Boo Weekley said:Was it not the (far left) ADL who was involved?aTmAg said:It's not arbitrary. Any study that doesn't provide source data is full of crap. That's how one is supposed to check their work. Can't be peer reviewed without data.TCTTS said:aTmAg said:
Heads up: The CSIS "study" that claims right wing terrorism is rampant is full of crap. They don't even provide a list of "terrorist" incidents they used in their study.
"Full of crap" because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards. Not because you've presented any evidence/data to the contrary. Got it.
And CSIS has been famous for providing conclusions that it thinks clients want to hear. For example, defense contractors are big donors. Sure enough, the CSIS always claims "parity" or even the US being behind in some weapons technology. Despite us spending more than all our enemies combined. Whatever it takes to make the money happy.
And, BTW, this is pretty much true with every "think tank".
Yeah, the NYT article was written about a recent ADL report (first citation in the article) which you can access in full here (click the section you'd like to read in the top menu or download the full report). And yes, they list all the events in their data section of the report.
https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2021#executive-summary
https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2021#executive-summary
Over 300 killings in the last 10 years OMG! In a nation of 350MM!jeffk said:
Yeah, the NYT article was written about a recent ADL report (first citation in the article) which you can access in full here (click the section you'd like to read in the top menu or download the full report). And yes, they list all the events in their data section of the report.
https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2021#executive-summary
By far the biggest thing we should be worrying about...especially black males and Jewish peeps! LOL
I still do not even trust their data...would be shocked if they weren't omitting incidents in their favor and fluffing up those from the right. Just read their verbiage...clearly supremely biased...they don't even try to hide it at all.
The report itself...
https://www.adl.org/media/17498/download
... where, yeah, they provide a ton of their data/research.
New day, same story. aTmAg claims something without actually looking it up himself, and then when data is provided, just as so many F16ers do, bends over backwards to say that the source is unreliable, fake news, etc, simply because the conclusion doesn't meet their worldview.
https://www.adl.org/media/17498/download
... where, yeah, they provide a ton of their data/research.
New day, same story. aTmAg claims something without actually looking it up himself, and then when data is provided, just as so many F16ers do, bends over backwards to say that the source is unreliable, fake news, etc, simply because the conclusion doesn't meet their worldview.
Featured Stories
See All
20:40
2h ago
1.7k
Five A&M recruiting storylines to following this spring
by Ryan Brauninger
14:07
2h ago
959
Ross Stripling assesses A&M's 15-1 start ahead of league play
by Richard Zane
28:53
2h ago
706
Reed Report: Champ Week sees Bucky Ball battle at Bridgestone
by Luke Evangelist
9:36
16h ago
6.1k