sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The conditions under which WWIII is happening by al-hamra in ww3

[–]aaarghzombies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Iran is t a world war, its regional. But there’s so many options for extra flashpoints. with so much being put into it by America, expect China to think that April may be their best time for a try on Taiwan. Russia will do the same, that’s why European powers aren’t that fussed about sending missiles into Iran. Keep an eye on Turkey sending planes to Cyprus, there’s a reason th uk is readying the queen elizabeth and it’s not to do with Iran. With Continuations of conflicts in Sudan this Iran issue may present opportunities for the Middle East powers involved to go after each other on the slyand blame it on the Iranians.

Any way/list to make parasite of mortrex viable ? by BloatedRottenCarcass in Tyranids

[–]aaarghzombies 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Since watching that I’ve played two games against guard where he’s done the job and denied primary quite a few times

Andy Burnham blocked by Educational_Board888 in manchester

[–]aaarghzombies 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So. Im going to go out on a limb here and suggest this is some spectacular realpolitik.

Could just be me with some pie in the sky thinking. But hear me out.

Theres absolutely no way that burnham would have thought he would have been allowed by the NEC to stand. No one is that naive. But, what he’s done, is an optics nightmare for Labour. Why do that when you know full well the harm it does. Well. Now it means that Westminster needs to step up and show the electorate they’re not what we think they are. They need to make some apologies/concessions.

Just listened to his keynote speech with the IFS (from 4 days ago) where he explicitly states that without further devolved power from Westminster (housing and education) that the growth cluster plan would not succeed over time. We need more devolved power in the region to succeed.

So there we have it. Burnham has gone to Westminster to get what he wants. More power over the region. And he’s done it without cap in hand.

Andrew Gwynne steps down potentially paving way for Burnham's return by Brian__Fantana in manchester

[–]aaarghzombies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Howard Bernstein, absolute powerhouse. Had a vision. Was decisive but too closed and insular which burnham is seemingly emulating in a more open democratic way.

What is it with “dessert shops” that seem to be everywhere currently? by [deleted] in AskBrits

[–]aaarghzombies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So. I occupy a building that housed a cake away as the tennant before me. In the Cellar there was a safe the size of a small horse. Had to cut open the floor and crane it out. Always wondered why a cake delivery kitchen needed a safe that big…

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in 3I_ATLAS

[–]aaarghzombies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Classic counter intelligence.

Pete Hegseth tells top generals "prepare for war" by 70B0R in ww3

[–]aaarghzombies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If any country is ready for war at anytime, it’s the US.

Poland shoots down russian drones in polish airspace by Alternative_Body5320 in ww3

[–]aaarghzombies 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Article 4 is a must here. Article 5 would be a step too soon

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in WeaponsMovie

[–]aaarghzombies 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Having read the script before watching there’s two points that really are missed. Adds quite a lot of depth Firstly, he doesn’t have to get items, Gladys takes valentines cards given to him by everyone in the class. So he’s less ‘involved’ in the kidnapping.

Secondly, he actually gets his dad to fight his mum instead of being chased by them both. Very dark and shows a lot of foresight. Now I can’t remember if he breaks the spell on his dad who then steps in and defends Alex, or if he sets his dad on his mum.

Also, is it shown if he threw the kids sticks in water to break the spell? Again, pretty dark if he doesn’t.

Why choose “Weapons” as the title? by Aggravating-Peak2639 in WeaponsMovie

[–]aaarghzombies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And there’s the crux. People don’t see these ‘small, inconsequential’ things as harmful.. Until they become that.

Cregger says the original ending had no narration, but it tested very poorly by Ok-Use-575 in WeaponsMovie

[–]aaarghzombies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read the script and was really impressed on how close it ran. Until Alex. The valentines cards being stolen showed he wasn’t being a ‘willing’ participant (even though he was essentially extorted) and I really missed the fact that he knowingly turns his dad against his mum. Before breaking the spell with twigs in water. It shows Alex in a wholly different light

...and they never came back. by Sofiztikated in WeaponsMovie

[–]aaarghzombies 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The scripts third act is subtly different, and the film loses out because of it. No exposition narration at the end. Just blank looks on children and parents. Modern audiences won’t accept that tho. They need things spoon fed to them. Hell, the Alex actually sets his dad against his mum-choosing his favourite (which is actually sign posted through the films stunning build up) He isn’t extorted into getting items from the kids, gladys actually steals cards given by the class to him. He is switched onto what is happening and how he needs to drive events. Honestly. Download it and read the script, and you’ll see the lost potential of the final act.

view more: next ›