Lord of the Rings: a.k.a How I humped the book by Peter Jackson…

This is something that I wanted to write for quite long time. This is to show how much I hate Lord of the Rings movies… All three of them…

I`m a good reader, and I know book films and film books are not that good. However there is something really different in LOTR. With all the media coverage and bullshit reviews of the movies, Peter Jackson become a super human, and he`s obviously much more famous that J.R.R.Tolkien. And this pisses me off…

I read the book in two languages. First in Turkish, then in english. And I must admit, the english version of my book has a scene from the movie on the cover. I also do not consider myself as someone who dedicated his life to LOTR. But I loved the book, I loved the story and especially the characters in the book. I cannot say the same thing for the movie! Let the ranting start…

Frodo: He`s gay. I`m sorry to say but his weak, cry-a-lot, girly character made my life a living hell during the couple of hours I spent in the movie theater. I certainly didn`t imagine him like while reading the book. The small person can achieve big things image is completely raped by P. Jackson. He made Frodo so “small” that he became a whiny shitty character. Enough said…

Gimli: Give me a break! He`s the taşakoğlanı in the movie. (This is a turkish saying meaning testicle boy…) Everybody makes fun of him, he`s goofy, low IQ and so so warrior. Hey Peter, WTF man? Have ever read the book? Gimli is a great warrior, blunt and definitely not a source of comic relief! Why would anybody waste such a good charater, is beyond my imagination!

Sam: Gay number 2. They are a duo of whiny puppies. In the name of making Sam naive, the movie depicts him as gay. Period!

Actually I`m super bored of this entry I`m gonna stop. This makes me upset! I`ll continue one day… Especially on Saruman, Gandalf Mortal Combat scene… ARGH!

Dick Cheney talking about Iraq Invasion in 1994.

Vice President Dick Cheney talks about invasion of Iraq in 1994. He`s pretty confident too!!!! (I saw this in infowars.com)


Here is the transcript:

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

Because if we`d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There
wouldn`t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S.
occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight
with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein`s
government, then what are you going to put in its place? That`s a very
volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government
of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off:
part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it —
eastern Iraq — the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it
for eight years. In the north you`ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds
spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the
territorial integrity of Turkey.

It`s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we
were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the
146 Americans killed in action, and for their families — it wasn`t a
cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or
not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to
get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.