Slashdot Mirror
A Gaming War Between Islam and the West?
The Washington Post has up an article looking at a burgeoning venue for political expression: gaming. Between 'The Quest for Bush', Counter-Strike mods, and more serious titles with a political slant, the political arena is quickly claiming gamers for their own. It's not just politics either; there are some excellent titles being released that attempt some truly insightful social commentary. From the article: "'UnderAsh,' released by Afkar Media in 2002, views the first intifada from the eyes of Ahmad, a Palestinian teenager resisting the Israeli occupation. Last year a sequel was released. A teaser to 'UnderSiege,' which tells the stories of five Palestinian families during the second intifada, shows a Palestinian teenager being shot on the street; an Israeli soldier appears to pound him with a concrete block seconds later. 'Our games are not propaganda,' Kasmiya says. 'Our games are a reflection of our history -- past or present. The fact is, most movies, most TV shows, most video games put Muslims in a bad light, so we have to try to tell our side of the story.'" Commentary from GamePolitics is also available.
We'd totally pwn them on their Commodore-64's.
" 'Our games are not propaganda,' Kasmiya says. 'Our games are a reflection of our history -- past or present."
This coming from the guys whose history includes the "fact" that the Holocaust did not happen.
Where were you when the voynix came?
The fact is, most movies, most TV shows, most video games put Muslims in a bad light, so we have to try to tell our side of the story.
Someone needs to explain to these people (and Fox News, while you're at it) that trying to cancel out a raving lunatic by adding a raving lunatic from the "other side" does not "balance out", you just have two raving lunatics.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Just in case the article writer (and the media) hadn't noticed, there are plenty of Muslims in the west too. Come to that most of the East is full of Chinese people, who on the whole are about as Muslim as a a beer flavour sausage wrapped in bacon.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
While they're guilty of holocaust denial, we're constantly guilty of "them swarthy people"ism.
Recognizing the Palestinians' side of things is not the same as hating Israel.
I cheered for Israel when they went to get their kidnapped soldiers back, but I also feel Palestine should have their own territory, and be treated under the same rules of conduct as every other country.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Insightful and humourous.
"'Our games are a reflection of our history -- past or present. The fact is, most movies, most TV shows, most video games put Muslims in a bad light, so we have to try to tell our side of the story.'"
Here is one example of how they do this: "Armed with a rifle, a shotgun or a grenade launcher, players navigate various missions that include "Jihad Growing Up," "Americans' Hell" and "Bush Hunted Like a Rat." In the final stage, you fight Bush.". So tell me, does this defy stereotypes at all? How is it a "good light" to make games in which Muslims are presented as violent commandos... the only difference being that they are the "first person" in the shooter and not the armed enemies for once? Or the other game in which "The goal is to kill"?
The game creators seem to think that it is a positive portrayal of Muslims to change them from being terrorists who are shot at to terrorists who are shooting.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Our games are not propaganda"
Right up there with the other great lies.
"I am not a crook!"
"I did not have sex with that woman."
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
If ya have to say "Our games are not propaganda" odds are it IS propaganda. From the description it certainly sounds like a recruiting tool for the terrorists.
Yes, ye unwashed hordes of pro PLO slashdot kids, the terrorists. Islamic terrorists. Doesn't make s damned bit of difference if they are 'Palestinian' Islamic terrorists from either Fatah or Hamas, Lebanese Hezbolah Islamic terrorists, straight up Iranian Islamic terrorists, AlQaeda Islamic terrorists, etc. Those who use terror against civilian populations must be hunted down and exterminated, period full stop. And since the end of IRA[1] terrorism, just about all terrorism these days is Islamic terrorism.
[1] Which ended with a few years of the end of the Cold War. But those who said most of it was Soviet agitataion to destabilise the West were tinfoil hat types seeing a Red under every bed. And of course we should also forget who originally taught Arafat his trade in death and who he served.
And back on topic, we of course know a pro terrorist game would never be banned. Nay, it will probably be widely available. "Kill all the eeevil joooos!" is free speech and any attempt to censor it would just not be permitted. Now imagine the politically correct howls if a 'kill all the diaper heads' game were created. Seems some censorship is more permissable than others.
Democrat delenda est
"Is it a Halal beef sausage wrapped in Turkey Bacon?"
I'm not sure it is Turkey Bacon. However, chances are it is less than 6 degrees removed from Turkey Bacon in the recipe book (using connections of common ingredients).
Where were you when the voynix came?
"If you're concerned with the way you're portrayed how about you stop blowing us up?"
More to the videogame topic, I don't think these games where they choose to portray themselves specifically blowing us up are really going to help the portrayal problem.
Where were you when the voynix came?
This is a great idea! I've seen way too many Russian-accented actors out on the street because all the terrorist roles are full.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
"This is a great idea! I've seen way too many Russian-accented actors out on the street because all the terrorist roles are full."
Those are really just actors? I had one come up to me once and demand to know where they kept the "nuclear wessels". I got kind of scared.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"or the blue-crested spotted warbler crane"
The blue crest makes a pretty good target, however it takes a LOT of bullets from the chain-gun to kill it shooting at the crest compared to aiming for the center of its breast.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It is impossible to prove weather or not any description of a historical event is accurate. The best we can do is conjecture based on the information available, and we are unable to prevent any conjecture from being influenced by personal and cultural bias.
looks like you've already got that whole in the head.
As a vegetarian, I insist that all references to 'Halal beef' must be replaced with 'Ethically Killed Tofurkey'
Please! If the Islamic Fundamentalist Terroists hadn't existed, Hollywood would have invented them.
Just keep thinking, you'll get it.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
I don't see how those points, valid as they are sometimes, have anything to do with me pointing out that stereotypes concerning violent Muslims are not helped by the games described in the message you responded to. Perhaps you meant to hit "Reply" to the top level news item instead?
Where were you when the voynix came?
That's a great list of, to put very lightly, embarassments of US involvement in Iraq. What's it got to do with the current discussion? The point was that a positive portrayal of Muslims in media doesn't start with Bush as an end-boss. I missed the game from the West where you're challenged to build the highest "butt pyramid".
Having said that... your other off-topic points...
Good idea. However, very Western. Such behavior would simply fan the flames of the fundimentalists who would see this kind of thing as further proof of Western ideals eroding their culture. Which in turn becomes part of the reason to fight the west. And the next piece of recruitment propoganda.
Agreed. Even if we're not required to follow the Geneva Convention in these cases... it would be the right thing to do. A pity that proper behavior is overshadowed by cases of savagery. We might as well hand over propoganda to the fundimentalists.
Again - the right thing to do. Whether it really gets the US any milage or not would be debatable. The US is involved with a lot of humanitarian efforts. Yet it constantly gets shot at. Kind deeds only go so far.
The USSR crumbled not because of propoganda but because of economics. Yeah - I agree that freedom is a good thing. We should try to convince that part of the world this. But this is too easily wrapped up in the "West destroys our culture" meme.
That would be very cool. I would completely agree with this. And... in this day and age where survival may be linked to oil... one could justify the expense of removing ourselves from oil dependancy.
Ugh... you don't get it man. Alright yes yes, you're angry at the US. You hate Bush, the administration, possibly government. Right right. We hear you, we get you, that is to say we understand what you're saying. Maybe I hate them too, maybe not, thats not what we're talking about here.
What the Johnny's post before you was trying to point out was that the game makers response was "The fact is, most movies, most TV shows, most video games put Muslims in a bad light, so we have to try to tell our side of the story." Then went on to create a game where you what, I dunno I didn't read the article, but kill Israelis, destory Bush, yada yada, basically acting violently. The poster was just trying to point out that how is that not a bad light as well?
Now, keep in mind America has what basically the same kind of games right? Lets go kill Nazis. Lets I dunno, stop the terrorists, whatever those kids are playing nowadays. AND if some American game manufactuer came out and said "Everyone thinks Americans are so violent, so we wanted a chance to tell our side," while promoting a game about, what did you say, raping Iraqi women, and dragging people out, don't you think that'd be pretty idiotic of that gaming company?
You never know they might stop being quite so pissed off at you...
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
>> A Manhattan project-sized push for alternative energy in the West
Are you saying that if we don't need any oil, Iran wont have a market? I guess this extends to removing Iran 'legitimate' reason for needing nuclear power, cos now they've got all this spare oil hanging around to run their power stations.
"Yeah, and niggers are good at basketball, Jews carry a bag of gold around their neck everywhere they go, and all Germans are Nazis."
Thanks, Dr. Godwin. The last one brings us back on topic, to a nation where a majority of the people insist as an important goal the extermination of another nation. By coincidence, the reason for the wanted extermination is because the targettted people happen to be Jewish.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Oh no, they do it _before_ shooting at them.
That's what then Defense minister Ytzak Rabin publicly asked them to do to try to repell the 1st intifada.
It wasn't even a rogue soldier, it was a public call from the Defense minister.
Considering that Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, which hasn't touched Iran btw, I don't quite agree with you. As for the US, they've been blowing us up since the 70s. Sometimes the US would let it go and they blew us up more. Sometimes the US would blow them up, and then they'd blew us up more. I'm not sure from a political point of view how you could reason they would ever stop blowing us up, keeping in mind that whatever we tried in the past the result was them blowing us up more.
"In the final stage, you fight Bush."
Until you're dead. Everybody knows Bush has godmode.
My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..
I agree with your points, but it's a videogame, chief. The Muslim world has enough propaganda outlets as it is. A few games are just a drop in the ocean.
I hope you realize that Hezbollah operatives kidnapped those men hoping to trade them for several Lebanese citizens who had been kidnapped before them. That side of the story is ostensibly missing from most of the U.S. news coverage on the events that led up to Israel's attack against Lebanon. It was if the entire narrative of violence, attack, and counterattack in the Middle East had somehow started with the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers--never mind anything that Israel had done to precipitate it.
You know, prisoner for prisoner exchanges are not uncommon. The Lebanese (perhaps over-optimistically) believed that since their own people had been wrongfully kidnapped, they could in turn abduct the Israelis and swap them out--no harm, no foul. It's happened before. What Israel did instead was unconscionable. They killed thousands of innocent Lebanese people and turned the infrastructure of Beirut to rubble.
Why do you think Israel agreed to a ceasefire, even though the Israeli soldiers were not returned? It's because the soldiers didn't matter worth a spit--they just served as a convenient pretext to destroy most of Lebanon. It was a disgusting and disgraceful thing to do. While the pro-Israeli American news outlets tell you half the story, the rest of the world is aware of the other half. The United Nations censored Israel for its unprovoked attack on Lebanon. Kofi Anan himself was visibly angry when two U.N. observers were killed by the Israelis under very suspicious circumstances.
Why you Americans remain so willfully ignorant of the circumstances surrounding international conflicts is beyond me.
"oh and all this whining about "israel shouldn't exist"
So we should accept a demand for genocide against an entire nation? I need to learn to not respond to antisemitic AC's.
Where were you when the voynix came?
He can walk through walls, too! OMG
No can do, I'm getting married soon.
Really, is it just me, or does this sound like a Leisure Suit Larry title?
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
The problem is that the Palestinians don't accept that.
Do you have sources for this? It's a rhetorical question, of course, because how could you have reliable sources for something you just made up? The fact is, Palestinians (regardless of their party) have always wanted back that which was taken from them. It's neither an unreasonable nor extreme request.
There is a saying that goes "to the victor go the spoils." And that is exactly what happened in Palestine after WWII. The Jews transformed American and British sympathy after the Holocaust into a greedy land grab. They didn't ask for part of the land that is holy to three different major religions. They didn't ask for sanctuary in a land that is holy to three different major religions. No, they took it all and displaced the native people who had been living there.
No matter how hard you try, you can't unmake history and injustice with rhetoric. In case the history of the last century escapes you, there once was a sovereign nation called Palestine. Then the U.N. passed a resolution, and Palestine was magically turned into Israel. And all the people who once lived there were herded up and sent to slums and refugee camps, where they have remained for three generations and counting--their land, their homes, and their property all stolen from them, their situation grim.
And you have the balls to label these people "extremists"?
Funny, I thought those two things had huge amounts of overlap.
You haven't played Where In The World Is Rachel Corrie?
Learn about other cultures, solve mysteries, burn flags, and end up flat under a bulldozer.
It's coming to XBOX soon I heard.
"In case the history of the last century escapes you, there once was a sovereign nation called Palestine" Earth to BeeBeard, there never was a nation called palestine. The was the transjordan and palestine area which was part of the ottoman empire.
How is it a "good light" to make games in which Muslims are presented as violent commandos... the only difference being that they are the "first person" in the shooter and not the armed enemies for once?
I think you missed the (unintentional) irony. The fact that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that Night of Bush's Capturing is not an original game. It's a mod for an US game, 'Quest for Saddam', where players playing US marines (with oddly Bush-like skins) mow down muslim soldiers and bin-laden lookalikes and drink coke in an attack on Iraq, culminating in fighting Saddam on the final map. The Islamist version of the game does not even change the levels - the game is completely the same with only the skins changed, e.g. swapping the player character's skin with the generic enemy terrorist skin.
http://www.gameology.org/node/1269
The game, while not rather culturally edifying, is in fact the very definition of a mirrored viewpoint.
I agree, that's a very admirable thing to do. However, there have been many 'ceasefires' in the Mid-east and one side or the other has always been attacked to end it somehow.
I see this sentiment a lot here on Slashdot and elsewhere in the media, and while it always strikes me as a great thing to think, I often wonder... What happens when Israel does that and then still gets attacked again (as has happened before)? (And yes, yes, yes. Israel has done its fair share of starting shit. There, we've gotten that one out of the way, now let's try and make an attempt to stay on-topic.)
Should Israel ignore it? Should they strike back, defending themselves (assuming, to preempt the trolls again, that that's all they did: simply retaliated and took out the ones behind the hypothetical attack)? What about Palestine, if Israel attacks them? Should they retaliate? Or turn the other cheek, under this policy of "not engaging in ethnic pedjudice"? What if Israel completely gives up the West Bank, then is the victim of another attack?
I don't have any answers. But I'm getting a little annoyed of people who think that the solution to everybody's problems is holding hands and singing Kumbyah.
Palestinian Arabs started the organized murder of Jews in the area not long after WWI. Remember the 1929 Hebron massacre? In WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem worked with Hitler, exhorting Muslims to aid in the extermination of the Jews, help Nazi Germany with their "problem." And of course the Jews dared to accept the UN mandate for their country, resulting in the immediate murder of Jewish civilians, and an invasion a year later by Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq.
Yes, the Palestinians are completely innocent victims. We're all seeing this wrong.
That doesn't include barbaric assholes who aren't part of a military, don't wear arms openly, don't wear uniforms, and take hostages and behead them for fun while making snuff films of it so the muslims in the other parts of "The Ummah" and "Dar Al-Harb" can jerk off to watching the infidel get beheaded.
Correct. Those people are called "criminals" - specifically "terrorists" and "murderers". They should be brought before the courts, tried for their crimes with due process, and, if found guilty by a jury of their peers, given an appropriate sentence (i.e. death, in most cases), in accordance with the basic principles of law on which freedom and democracy are founded.
Putting them in a concentration camp and trying to give them show trials in which they don't even get to find out the evidence against them is not the right way to go about things. Even the Nazis at Nuremburg got due process and fair trials.
Why is Bush so reluctant to permit these terrorists the justice that was granted even to evil Nazis who had committed acts of genocide far beyond Osama bin Laden's wildest dreams?
That's a pretty reductive way of looking at the situation. Consider this for a moment. The displaced, post-Holocaust Jews could have found safe haven in most of Europe, the United States...the Bahamas...hell, anywhere they wanted to go. Instead, they asked the U.N. to un-make an entire, separate nation and to settle there. This was done knowing full well that it would destabilize the Middle East, and that it would invite the ire of no less than 13 other nations in the region that were different from the Jews culturally, religiously, and ethnically. This was made possible only through U.S. military support. (note: To this day, the Israelis kill Palestinian refugees throwing rocks at their U.S.-made tanks by using their tanks--just because you didn't see it on CNN doesn't mean it doesn't happen).
It may seem a little cynical to claim that perpetuating violence in the Middle East was the goal of the U.N. in creating the artificial nation of Israel decades ago. No, there was a legitimate hope that the millions of displaced Palestinians would be "absorbed" by neighboring nations (the talks that took place prior to the formation of Israel provide ample evidence of this). They really did believe and hope that these people who once had a nation of their own would just take the U.N.'s emergency aid and eventually just move away to Jordan or Syria or Egypt to die--that over the years, the situation would settle down and that these people would just fold and accept their fate.
Every time another bomb goes off in Israel it's a testament to how well that plan has worked. Let me pose this hypothetical question: If somebody stole everything you had from you--your way of life, your property, even your nation--how would you respond? Personally, the very least I would do is grab an AK-47 and start making some demands. How about you?
Oh come now, arguing that it was "just a territory" is to argue semantics in lieu of the point.
These people organized themselves into a loose governmental structure long before the British got involved. They had names for their towns, for their roads. They thrived--please don't try to morally justify expelling them based on their lack of flag.
You can point to how the area has been passed around like a hooker at the Republican National Convention, but that doesn't extinguish the right the Palestinians had to the land, and more importantly to their culture and way of life--both of which have been dramatically changed now that the last three generations of Palestinians have grown up in refugee camps in Israel, Lebanon, and other places. In the camps, they are afforded no political rights (can't become citizens, can't own land, etc.) and very few human rights. It's an untenable situation, and one that the U.N., the U.S., and Israel must answer for.
According to this, Palestine existed as a nation governed by the British for decades.
Also? Fuck the Native Americans in the U.S. They didn't live in a "real" country, so Americans were perfectly justified to take their land.
I don't see how your reply is in any way informative, insightful, funny, or any other adjective that a mod could use to describe it. It's just an empty, typo-ridden one-off statement that does nothing to advance any discussion about what's to become of these people. Here is my reply to someone else who made the same vapid observation, presumably hoping that it would undermine anything I have to say:
link
I fully expect to be modded down myself, what with my voicing a dissenting opinion and all. Plus, you're not even factually right about this, for god's sake. I checked the Wikipedia article that AC posted.
Me: "These people were unjustly displaced and sent to slums and refugee camps."
You: "Earth to you! Earth to you! They didn't live in a country."
Bravo.
Are you kidding? Your situation has nothing in common with that of a Palestinian refugee's. You have the freedom to have your own life in your own town. You have citizenship and political rights, as well as many human rights that refugees don't have either. Imagine if you weren't allowed to be a U.S. citizen because of your grandfather's affiliations. Imagine you were not allowed to own property, vote, or have anything but the most menial of jobs (nations such as Lebanon maintain long lists of different jobs such as doctor, lawyer, etc. that Palestinians are forbidden to have). Imagine that the grandchildren of other confederate sympathizers were murdered and terrorized wherever they went.
I'm no defender of violent Palestinian attacks, only someone who actually has a clue as to why they happen. You have a lot of gall to suggest that you're in the same boat as a Palestinian and adopt the "Why can't they just get along?" cop-out. Your situations are not even remotely the same.
No. Rather, they don't want to be the minority race/religion in their country.
I'm a real-life Jew myself (and a lawyer no less, yeah I know..insert joke here), and I would be lying if said that I felt comfortable voicing my opinions on this subject in anything but the most anonymous of ways.
I like the way you argue. If you astutely noticed that I've omitted a few key details that would weaken my position and then also emphasized those details that would strengthen it, then, yeah...welcome to the world of rhetoric ;
To answer you more qualitatively, sure, most of the Middle East was arbitrarily created by European powers. Boundary lines were drawn often with little respect for cultural and ethnic similarities. But you're forgetting your time line: Most of those nations did exist before the creation of the Israeli nation-state. It's just a moot point, anyway. Even if you don't already consider the powers in the region religiously or ethnically unified rather than disparate, their universal hatred of Israel has provided the common enemy that they need to feel as brothers, at least with respect to this one issue.
I also don't think you're giving religious minorities their due here. For example, the minority Maronite Christians in Lebanon (a made-up nation created by the French, if you're keeping score...) were and still are key players in Lebanese politics for years, having much of the money and therefore influence in what was a young and untested political environment. Even after the Lebanese Civil War, it could be claimed that the Maronites still had a stranglehold on Lebanese politics.
I would like to think that I would have been one of the Jews going "You know, this just sounds like a bad idea..." when Israel was created. But alas, I wasn't alive then, and besides, I probably would have been on board with the idea at first anyway. As I pointed out earlier, genuine malice wasn't the goal in the creation of Israel. Of course it wasn't. Everyone thought that the Middle East situation would smooth out over time and that the Palestinians would find a place among the people with whom they shared a faith. Of course, that hasn't happened. I guess we could still be hopeful.
You mean this isn't based on the best movie to ever be put out by the worst Hollywood martial arts "actor" ever seen?
(The best of a well-fought (early on), well-actioned (early on again), horribly-acted (all of them) bunch...)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
"Palestine should have their own territory, and be treated under the same rules of conduct as every other country."
"The problem is that the Palestinians don't accept that."
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
"most video games put Muslims in a bad light,"
Hell, I'd love the chance to portay radical Muslims in a good light.
How many candlepower are there in a megaton?
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
You should have added a link to the Middle East Media Research Institute so people could watch the videos or read the transcripts of the fine material broadcast in various Middle Eastern countries, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc.:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
It seems rather biased to me to say that we can have America's Army and (the original) Counter-Strike but they can't make their own games that put them in a good light instead of us. If you don't like what they're "saying" in the game, don't play it.
Besides, I'd rather them kill American soldiers and presidents in a video game than in real life.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
... when the main social ill of Palestinian youth is their predilection for virtual violence.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Right, the fact that Israel has publicly admitted to STARTING THE WAR apparently makes absolutely no sense to you.
I've had a wonderful time, but this wasn't it -- Groucho Marx
The sad thing is nothing one says in arguments like changes the "kill 'em all" attitude of people on either side - not even what some slashdot readers think about the situation. Yeah I know people get angry when someone they love, or genrally care about in some way, gets killed by someone from the other side who is proclaiming he is doing his side proud by being a cowardly pig. The problem comes when people from the supposedly "civilized" parts of the world start propagating the doctorine of 'kill if anyone raises the flag we hate, blow up the building that has the poster we hate, bomb the city/village in the country we hate, nuke the bastards who worship the same religion as the morons we hate'
How different are YOU actually from the people you say are the worst scum of the society ?
Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
Hollywood, the US games industry and unfortunately, even your head of state, have been using the "raghead==evil" formula for years now and suddenly when the positions are reversed, you feel agrieved? Give me a break. You do EXACTLY the same things. Utter hypocracy.
"Al-Awadhi specifically suggested a game in which the player "slaughters the Jews and liberates the Al-Aqsa Mosque." "
Perhaps they could team up with Borat and create "Throw The Jew Down The Well: The Game"?
blah lbah labh lahb
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I don't care about people being jews, catholics, muslims, white, brown, green or anything.
In fact, I am an atheist, and I don't care about people religion, or color of their skin, where they live, or anything.
I understand that the jewish people had awful things happen to them.
I have a problem with the superlativism they try to impose to stuff that happened to them. The problem is that talking about the "Holocaust", with a capital "H", has the secondary effect of negating everything bad that is happening right now with people. Some times, I see jewish people arguing about the size and importance of that, and they actually talk like it was the only genocide that happened.
Of course, it was awful, and there's no denying it, but many times you can hear _some_ jews actually talking like somehow what happened to them is superlative, and above everything else, even taking into account the issue of the quantity of people involved.
Some of that times they come up as feeling like their disgrace is somehow more important than what happens to others, and should be regarded as more important by others. That view seems to me, insensitive to the rest of the humanity.
I don't agree with that, I can see right now countries going against specific religions, and specific ethnicities, and I feel it's really bad, and no group that suffers that kind of thing is somehow more important than the other.
About "the jews control the media", I don't think the jews control the media, but it can't be denied that they have a lot more presence and influence in western media, than arab people, or any asian group, for instance. That is because, jews are a part of the US community, and the US is important in forming opinion in other countries.
I don't think it's part of a jew conspiracy, though. It's just how it should be, you are part of a community, your views are more important to them than the views of people outside your community.
But it is kind of poor to say that it's "antisemitic" to say that jews have no media influence.
You should learn that it is ok to think bad things against some jewish people, and it's ok to be against mostly everything that Israel does, and that doesn't have anything to do with people hating jews for being jews. People don't do everything out of hatred, some times they have their own opinions aside from what the other person is.
I really think that Israel is wrong in most of the things they do with Palestinian people, and them invading Lebanon. But I came up with that, just seeing what happens, and not out of hatred for the jews. It would be very arrogant to say that you can't disagree with Israel if not out of hatred.
That's history.
In any case, what the grandparent poster probably meant was that there is a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem known as the "two state solution". That solution is accepted by more or less all of the western world, Israel, and the moderate parts of the Palestinian society. Unfortunately, the Palestinian people elected a party that rejects this idea (they can't allow Israel to exist), thus plunging the Palestinian nation into a state of eternal war.
Btw, did you ever try to think of why the Jews needed Israel in the first place? Did you ever think of why Zionism became so popular after the holocaust? Oh, what am I saying, of course you didn't. All you can see is a "greedy land grab".
"Ridiculous bias" indeed.
The main "crime" for which they are condemned is existing.
Yes. It is indeed a crime for Israel to exist. It is definitely an illegal state.
Much of the others have to do with condemning Israel for fighting back when attacked and condemning Israel for legally occupying countries after these countries attack it and refuse to call off the attacks. The characterization of the UN being "antisemitic" is accurate. That is the root of these "resolutions". Why does Syria invade Lebanon and do far worse, but it's Israel that gets the resolutions against it? The resolutions reflect hypocritical hatred of a nation and its people. Also, when several of the worst antisemitic resolutions passed, an actual card-carrying Nazi (Kurt Waldheim) ran the UN. This is no mere Godwin invocation: Waldheim belonged to Hitler's actual organization.
Yes yes. Everyone who doesn't like Israel must be anti-semitic. That blanket statement is completely brand new. Might as well call people a communist, nazi, terrorist, anti-American, why don't you? Tell that to Jews Against the Occupation. But who cares that the UN condems Israel for even existing, the US keeps sending Israel missiles, nuclear weapons, munnitions, and money there? I really don't know how Israel has the US by the balls like that but it is obvious to everyone in the world that the US and Israel do not care about peace or laws. Even in Mexico, where I'm from, it is mostly taught that zionism and Israel are not particularly good ideas. Are Mexicans anti-semitic, too? Maybe. Probably, according to anyone who tries to defend Israel. Fact is that England gave land away that wasn't theirs. Whether or not it was unpopulated, unused, or just plain ugly, is irrelevant. Israel occupation is illegal.
You claim not to be antisemitic, but you nicely bring up the "media influence" (codeword for "Jews control the media"). Further on you say "people are generally as likeable as anyone else and often a bit smarter" as if this attempt at positive racism (one ethnic group more intelligent than the other???) is any good. Actually, it fits in with well-troden stereotypes of the cunningly intelligent, evil, conniving Jew.
Wake up and smell the burning crosses, OK? EVERYONE is prejudiced to a degree. I don't care if you tell me that you're color blind or blind altogether. Everyone has prejudices about every race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, region, state, city, street, etc. Now, just like there are anti-semitic people who see everything any Jewish person does as evil, there's the opposite nuts who think that Israel or any Jewish person cannot do wrong.
We do know that there's an over representation of Jewish people in, at least, the American and Mexican media. Does that mean that they 'control' the media? I wouldn't go that far, but does it mean that they can influence information to give it a slant to their point of view? Sure. Most normal people will try to protect anyone they see as their 'kind' even, sometimes, in unreasonable circustances. If you'll condem racism and prejudice like you seem to imply you will, don't blindly defend illegal and unreasonable acts simply because they're being committed by people who have suffered a great tragedy like most of the peoples in the worlds.
"That holocast (which did happen of course, but was much smaller in scope than is advertised)" There is a very strong correlation between those who lie about the Holocaust and claim it did not occur or was much less than it actually was (as you just did) with people who are antisemitic. This, along with your claim that Jews caused the Holocaust that you falsely claim was small, is indeed "HATEFUL TO JEWISH PEOPLE" So here we have false claims about Israel in order to bash Jews, and false claims about the Holocaust in order to bash Jews. I don't "call you antisemitic". You identify yourself as such with the irrational Jew-bashing and smearing Jews with hatred. Not surprisin
"Yes. It is indeed a crime for Israel to exist. It is definitely an illegal state."
How can a nation be "illegal"? By what standard? Your own law? The largest "school of thought" that the very existence of the Israelis is "illegal" comes from Islamic law.
"Yes yes. Everyone who doesn't like Israel must be anti-semitic."
Depends on how the "dislike" is. Do you not like it because of the climate and the food? Or does your "dislike" mean that you think it is "illegal", want it wiped out, or any other of the euphemisms used for the usual demand for genocide?
"EVERYONE is prejudiced to a degree"
Just like everyone drinks coffee? Speak for yourself.
"Tell that to Jews Against the Occupation"
I am aware of this and other groups of self-hating Jews.
"Even in Mexico, where I'm from, it is mostly taught that zionism and Israel are not particularly good ideas. "
Your schools teach racial hatred? Do you go to a version of a "madras"??? At least that might explain some of your views: you are poorly educated about the matters and your school taught you to hate.
"We do know that there's an over representation of Jewish people in, at least, the American and Mexican media"
That is an extremely antisemitic, racist and untrue statement. But it just proves the point that people who hate the Israelis and think that they are "illegal" are doing so out of a general pattern of antisemitism.
"So, to try to stigmatize and rebuke any dissention from the prevailing history of the holocaust by labeling people as anti-semitic only serves as proof of blind prejudice in your part."
Using the word "antisemitic" to correctly summarize knee-jerk hypocritical (and quite false) Jew-bashing is an example of using nouns properly. It is not an attempt to rebuke any dissent. If you don't like the word "antisemitic", then don't make antisemitic statements. You can start with the nutty Jewish media conspiracy claim you made.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Why is it OK then for Lebanon to invade Israel, but not for Israel to fight back? That is what happened here. I'm glad to see you have backed away from the claim that the holocaust was smaller than it actually was and that Jews created and ran it.
First of all, I am a different poster than the one you were responding to, that's why I forked the discussion.
About Lebanon, and Israel, I just said that I am against it, I'm not trying to change you into thinking what I think, I was just making a point, and this wasn't it.
"About Zionist agendas in WWII and other weird stuff: http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html [ku.edu] http://christianparty.net/hitlerfounderisrael.htm [christianparty.net] http://christianparty.net/nazi.htm [christianparty.net]"
You are most helpful. I really did want to know what the KKK had to say about it.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Excuse me
n g-based-on-some-dieties-word)
A) A person can be anti-isreal (or dare I say, anti-zionist) without being anti-semitic (i happen to be anti-any-movement-that-claims-the-right-to-anythi
B) Even for a jew hater, anti-semetic is the wrong term as alot of jews arn't semitic anymore, and on top of that, arabs and armenians are indeed semitic (yes, I know this is a semantics argument)
C) Believing a different story of events does not equal hating a people. Reasonable people can disagree on detail and usually both sides of most arguments tend to be wrong in some sense. I have no doubt that both the holocaust rememberers inflate the figures to make it seem worst (or selectivly ignore the other groups who were victems) just as frequently as the deniers conflate the figures to make it seem less bad.
If you really want to help your cause, maybe you should try answering points with facts and trying to engage in useful debate, rather than just attaching a slur (yes anti-semite is as much a slur as kike) to a person and berating them for it.
Just a thought.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Of course. It is "prejudiced" to defend the rights of people to live. Any fair and unbiased person would agree that the Israelis should be wiped out.
Where were you when the voynix came?
#2 is merely a matter of ignorance. Check any dictionary for the definition of antisemitic. The word itself is not a slur, but is accurately used when someone engages in slurs against Jews.
" have no doubt that both the holocaust rememberers inflate the figures to make it seem worst"
So, are you really joining those who are saying that the actual numbers (around 6 million) are not real? That fits on with how you ignore facts when you don't like them. If you really want to help your case, you should learn what really happened and what words really mean.
Where were you when the voynix came?
They fired the first shot by drawing cartoons, you know.
Where were you when the voynix came?
How can a nation be "illegal"? By what standard? Your own law? The largest "school of thought" that the very existence of the Israelis is "illegal" comes from Islamic law.
So, you're saying that occupation of the land Israel presently occupies is legal and was taken in accord with international and local laws?
Depends on how the "dislike" is. Do you not like it because of the climate and the food? Or does your "dislike" mean that you think it is "illegal", want it wiped out, or any other of the euphemisms used for the usual demand for genocide?
I do believe that Israel should be disbanded. I never used any 'euphemisms' for genoice. You're putting words in my mouth to make me seem like the mean ol' anti-semitic nazi when in reality all I am against is Israel not the Jewish people. I do hope you know the difference between being a racist and believing a nation should be disbanded.
Just like everyone drinks coffee? Speak for yourself.
You can lie to yourself and me all you want.
I am aware of this and other groups of self-hating Jews.
Again, you equate someone thinking that Israel is an illegal state with racism. I think the Mexican government is corrupt and should be overthrown and, if possible, Mexico should be annexed to the US. I don't hate Mexicans, my race, my ethnicity, my culture, and my family. I hate the government. I don't hate the Jewish people trying to make a living in Israel, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel shouldn't be there in the first place.
Your schools teach racial hatred? Do you go to a version of a "madras"??? At least that might explain some of your views: you are poorly educated about the matters and your school taught you to hate.
It seems in your mind Israel and zionists represent all Jewish people.
That is an extremely antisemitic, racist and untrue statement. But it just proves the point that people who hate the Israelis and think that they are "illegal" are doing so out of a general pattern of antisemitism.
In America, 1.5% of the population are of semite ethinicity. Need I go into the details of just one person such as Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein) shareholder of 76% of the Viacom shares among many others?
Using the word "antisemitic" to correctly summarize knee-jerk hypocritical (and quite false) Jew-bashing is an example of using nouns properly. It is not an attempt to rebuke any dissent. If you don't like the word "antisemitic", then don't make antisemitic statements. You can start with the nutty Jewish media conspiracy claim you made.
Your knee-jerk reaction of calling me a racist as answer to all my points makes the irony of your statement nearly mind numbing. I won't try to defend myself against your racist and prejudiced remarks.
There's not a whole lot I can do to make a racist's open his eyes.
I think today's quote is particularly insightful for this argument.
The very ink with which all history is written is merely fluid prejudice. -- Mark Twain
Just because someone doesn't fully believe everything in history books because of contradictory accounts and other facts, doesn't mean he hates Jewish people.
How about addressing the points people are making and stop accusing them of antisemitism?
This happens EVERY SINGLE time anyone says anything against Israel or anyone questions the validity of the current holocaust account.
"This happens EVERY SINGLE time anyone says anything against Israel or anyone questions the validity of the current holocaust account."
1) It doesn't happen every time. Only when someone expresses extreme hatred for the country and its people, as shown in your statement that it was "indeed a crime" for them to even exist.
2) The facts about the Holocaust and its numbers are well-documented history. Extremely well documented, in fact. There's also a high correlation between those who lie and claim the numbers were lower (as you did) and those who express blatantly antisemitic views (such as your "Jews are overrepresented in media" code-word claim. This makes Holocaust liars into a worse breed than someone like, lets, say, a flat-earther (who similarly lies about well-known facts).
Where were you when the voynix came?
"In America, 1.5% of the population are of semite ethinicity. Need I go into the details of just one person such as Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein) shareholder of 76% of the Viacom shares among many others?"
What does it mean? Nothing. You are digging yet another hole, attempting to "prove a point" about the evil Jews by digging for supposedly Jewish surnames. (I wish I could count how many times a Jew-basher made a "punchline" of merely typing a name that is supposedly Jewish!). How many did you find there ending in "berg" or "stein"? How many "Rosenblatts" is too much for an industry? Is there a certain trigger to cause "overrepresentation?".
Where were you when the voynix came?
I am done with you Krell. I've had enough of feeding your self delusion and beating your straw men while you wallow in your obvious zealotry for illegal Israel.
>>The game creators seem to think that it is a positive portrayal of Muslims to change them from being terrorists who are shot at to terrorists who are shooting.
Lets look at how things are viewed from this side of the sea shall we ? (and i mean north america)
When is the last time a media has made the muslims look good ?
Movies, books, News, video games.
As far as I can recall, the last time must have been somewhere during 30s where muslims were more depicted as rich individuals and being envied by us for being allowed to have more than one wife.
It was not any better before but especially since 09-2001 we no longer look at Asian people or russian people to be the iconic bad guy (Rambo/Rocky anyone ?). Now any kind of war movie HAS to be somewhere in the desert with some american trying to fix this things up.
I'm not saying muslims are perfect, they have their bad apples just as much as we do but you know, they also got a bunch of good apples in the tree.
Seriously, think about it, how would the average american feel if suddenly all foreign medias would start using the U.S. "fabled" marines as the bad guys - corrupted by money and power, hungered for domination. and not only in movies, *everywhere*. Before long that idea would get stuck in the europeans head, and asian, muslims, russians..well... anyone not in N. America.
You need to look with both eyes opened, they have terrorist and so do we. they have nice people and so do we. It not because the Bush administration chooses to show only the muslims as bad people that suddenly they are actually all bad.
When the original author talks about "their side of the story" he means the story of the average muslims that is not a terrorist. He talks about that mom who lost a son due to collateral damage. He talks about that son who lost his parents because they were suspected of terrorist activity (almost like catholic inquisition...), he talks about the average muslims being frustrated because suddenly some US president decided it was ok to track Ben laden by all means necessary (which he hasnt caught yet btw) and that in the mean time would be a good time to switch hussein with his own dictator to facilitate oil control.
I mean, I'm just rambling here but I think the muslims have got all the rights to be angry, not that it justifies all the violence over there but i certainly understand what he means when he says "our side of the story".
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
Doom Marine? I don't recall the soldier from Doom carrying any obvious political or other message. Unless you're talking about a mod, in which case, I assure you that I paid no attention to those at all.
I'm an adult, and, while I do like my entertainment to be at least moderately intelligent, I really do draw a line between games which are fun to play on their own merits, and games for which the primary merit appears to be the message I'm supposed to take away from it. I don't *want* to take a message away from a first person shooter, except maybe that ragdoll physics are neat and my teammates are probably homonculi made out of spam. To be honest, a moderate amount of speechifying is forgivable: if it's a game set in a dystopian, cyberpunk-ish future, I *expect* to be told (mostly through the setting) that, hey, corporations are bad and individualism is, like, good. I don't expect to actually *believe* it, but it's kind of a convention with the setting.
A freebie flash game mocking a political scandal is really quite different from an multiple-hour FPS that seems to be engaged in near-libel of an entire people, especially as it's the sort of libel that tends to get people cacked in certain parts of the world. Ironically, it sounds a lot like a (better-executed) mirror-version of a game from a few years ago that had the player tracking down and killing/capturing terrorists, with OBL as the final target. Reportedly, it was pretty bad. I didn't play that, either: it was a poor game, for which the primary value was some GWoT-related wish-fulfillment. Maybe the Palestinians-conquer-the-world version is better, but it sounds like it's still just a vehicle for an asinine fantasy. Since it's also one I find offensively misinformed, I don't imagine I'll bother with this one, either.
I don't particularly care if a game is serious. I care if a game is entertaining and fun to play, and if I find the gameplay, setting, or intellectual underpinnings offensive or not. It's not like there aren't porn games, and I don't play (or approve of) those, either.
Canthros
Thanks. There used to be a bunch of links to similar stuff here but I couldn't find it.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
It's interesting you say that because most of them are in Lebanon. Does that count?
Did you not get the part about how making abortion illegal doesn't effect how many abortions occur. As such, the "babies" are already dead. WE CAN'T STOP ABORTIONS FROM HAPPENING. It's as simple as that. Only when you accept people the way they are can you sensibly make policy concerning them. The abortions won't stop, ever. All we really can do is prevent the pregnancies from occuring in the first. As heartless as it sounds, there's no bringing the dead fetuses back to life. Making abortion illegal won't help. We can, however, ensure that the mothers don't die as well, something that can't be done when abortion is illegal. Being anti-abortion is like be anti-drug; you're on the losing side of a battle that can only end when you shut up.
Truthfully, I hate abortion as much as you do, but I recognize a losing battle when I see one, and I refuse to bury my head in the sand. Ethically, you're right; abortion is wrong, but outlawing abortion is not a solution. Being against abortion, whilst keeping it both safe and rare is.
Anti-abortionists kind of remind me of PETA. Ethically, they're right. Killing is animals when not absolutely necessary is wrong. But they're on the losing side of a battle that will only end when they shut up. People who eat animals will never go away, even if we were to outlaw it. The only way the battle will ever end, is when PETA gives up. Alternatively, they could come to a compromise. While, ethically, eating any animal is wrong, isn't free-range farming a better alternative to high-volume (what a euphamism)? Obviously, the killing of animals will never stop, but at least we can take measures to ensure that the animals are safe and live a torture-free life. To me, that sounds like a good compromise, but to PETA that's no better than before. There is no compromise. The Palestinians feel the same about Isreal.
And about no one forcing mothers to get back-alley abortions: That position is grossy misinformed. You probably also think that welfare recipients should get off their asses and get a job.
Did you even see that movie? It certainly wasn't pro-war. It was a rather interesting and provocative movie, unlike its pro-war, much dumbed down sequel movie which gave us "Rambo the pop culture and political icon".
Where were you when the voynix came?
"obvious zealotry for illegal Israel."
I accept the right to exist of all peoples. If you were demanding that Thailand be "cleansed" from the map instead of Israel, I'd be just as "zealous" in depending the rights of the Thai's to exist. Good bye; having fun declaring nations "illegal" just because you do not like the ethnicity of many of the people in the country.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Btw.... going to wikipedia (sorry for the late response, took me a while ti have the time to come back to this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite
I note that, as I said, Armenians and Arabs are both listed as semitic peoples.
> So, are you really joining those who are saying that the actual numbers (around 6 million) are not real? That fits on > with how you ignore facts when you don't like them. If you really want to help your case, you should learn what really > happened and what words really mean.
don't remember if I answered this seprately. No. I am not saying the numbers arn't real, just that I tend to be skeptical of everybody and I firmly believe in the law of fives and that people tend to bias their facts from their own viewpoint.
I would love to believe that there is a group of people thats always objective and honest. I don't believe any group, not even jews, is that perfect. Sorry.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"