A genocidal state.
Calling this genocide is like crying wolf, it merely provides cover for actual genocides by diluting the term until it's meaningless. Israel could certainly suffer fewer casualties if they were to fire bomb or nuke Gaza, but they won't because they're not fucking genocidal.
It's Michael Keaton for me
Can't beat that Burton Batmobile and Elfman theme
I mean, Patterson was good but bail is iconic. The dark knight trilogy were so big, it made most movies gritty.
Unpopular opinion: Bale happened to be the Batman of the best Batman movie, his Batman is kinda meh. And I wish Afflect was in better Batman movies.
Now that you call it out, I agree! Bale gets a lot of praise for his ability to morph his body for different roles, but is otherwise only alright as an actor. But he happens to be in many great movies with other iconic figures which really elevates his cachet.
Affleck is pretty good. I also really liked Pattenson's emo sad-Bruce version quite a bit more than I expected to. For me, nothing will ever be as nostalgic and iconic as the Tim/Conroy animated portrayal.
Shame they aren't still using him. He makes a good, grizzled Batman that just doesn't play around anymore.
Batfleck definitely has the look and is more comic “accurate”. I’m sure he would’ve killed it in a better film and not directed by Snyder.
Kevin Conroy was the best Batman
/thread
Adam West was the best! And it even rhymes.
And he was also the best mayor.
The end line was so unexpected that I had a good laugh. That a truth was snuck in unexpectedly was excellent.
Hi, I see in the modlog that [email protected] 's post was removed for "violating rule 1," which is, "be civil and nice."
Israel is discriminating non-citizens like every other state while e. g. Arabic citizens have full civil rights. As much as you might hate Israel, this is not Apartheit.
What isn't nice or civil about this post? They shared their opinion, one I consider reasonable, in a way that was inoffensive. Can the mods please elaborate on your mod policy here, are only anti-Israel opinions allowed?
(original comments still visible on kbin, though site is unstable atm)
WTH?! Israel is by all metrics an apartheid state. Whether you accept it or not.
That comment is so idiotic and/or bad faith that I totally get removing it. Better to remove it than clog up the comments with a dozen people trying to explain why they're wrong and the OP likely sea lioning them all.
Israel was born in Nazism, molded by it. Palestinians merely adopted being oppressed.
Michael Keaton will always be my Batman
Ben's version of batman was best batman. Not much who was playing him, but how batman acted and handled himself.
i side mostly with mental outlaw
Disregarding acting ability, I don't think Pattinson had the physicality for it; he didn't look big enough to me to be believable. You could really tell the Batman costume had a lot of padding when you saw him as Bruce Wayne. I think he's just too lithe, for the lack of a better descriptor, for the character, you know?
I've heard that the Batman was supposed to show a younger, less-experienced Batman. So maybe he'll bulk up more for the next one, idk
For me it's Alfredo Casero, and i will die on that hill
How have I never heard of the first one.
Let's make one thing clear: This "country" that proclaims itself as Israel is not the same Israel as described in Bible but a Zionist State where its ideological pillars were forged, in a Europe still at the time submerged in colonialist ideology. This is just to say the basics
What is your point?
Like why I care about whether or not it is the one in the bible?
What are you trying to get at?
It seems a bit "fun fact that is kinda related to the post but not really at the same time". I mean obviously Israel is a Zionist state. It is literally the movement that made the state. How does it relate to apartheid? Now colonistic idealogy has a link to apartheid. But then again, Jews didn't had the best experience with colonism within Europe which is what Hilter did. So you could easily argue against the sentiment, while I personally won't argue either way as I don't believe that I know or understand enough.
In short, I might agree with you if I would understand what you want to tell us. But I don't, care to help me?
Deep down we know that doing terrorism will not solve any problems.
And yet the Israelis keep at it.
Why stop when there's no consequences
You think they will still be at it if they are given every hamas member?
Fun History Fact:
The Black Hands terrorist organization, the ones that killed Archduke Ferdinand, hoped that by doing so they would start a civil war that would result in a victory for Serbia, specifically creating a "Greater Serbia" from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire where they had dominance over their regional neighbors.
Obviously, that didn't happen.
Instead WW1 happened.
Which ended in the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation of Yugoslavia, a constitutional monarchy with a Serbian royal family, capital in Serbia.
(And then they made everyone hate them because they were assholes both as a monarchy and a communist state)
Second, Bonus Fun History Fact:
Terroristic tactics have left Afghanistan as the only nation to have defeated occupations by the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and America, the three most powerful states since the collapse of the Mongol Empire.
What you propose:
"Terrorists might've done something good actually. In some foreseeable future we might see changes in the world that would actually benefit them in the result, making their terrorism not useless"
What I propose:
"No human can see the future. But hamas could perfectly see what would happen if they launched such a violent attack - invasion with the purpose of removing hamas as an entity. If I can't blame them for not surrendering by now, I will blame them for not making anything to defend their citizens."
Viet Cong's success in reuniting Vietnam says otherwise.
Attacking villages, taking hostages, and using guerilla tactics (like both Viet Cong did and Hamas are doing) are just the most effective ways of driving out an occupying force, and they wouldn’t be necessary if the oppressors weren’t there in the first place.
So you're telling that hamas didn't do anything wrong and they will succeed?
It's interesting how some people blame Israel for being oppressors while others blame it for establishing hamas.
It's also interesting how some people say terrorism is not useless because there is "some" history, but others are upset by how Israel is doing it too, apparently.
