Slashdot Mirror
Are Game Industry Pros Failing To Fight for Freedom?
Gamasutra's most recent Question of the Week feature deals with the extremely quotable final speech given by Doug Lowenstein at D.I.C.E.. The article queries individuals within the games industry for their opinions on the 'freedom' that the industry allows itself, and its convictions on fighting for that freedom. The article prompted numerous, polarized comments. Many of them followed the gist of this Anonymous submission: "With regards to censorship the biggest worry for me is developers and publishers self-censoring and avoiding any kind of contentious issue or subject matter in case they offend anyone. Video games for me are a powerful medium capable of equaling the emotive and informative weight of cinema if used correctly, but they rarely are. If we refuse to tackle issues and remain purely a thing of fluff and fizz then interactive entertainment will never have the gravitas of its cousins."
Note that this is almost the opposite of what Lowenstein said, which is that if you're going to stir up controversy you should be willing to stand up for yourself in public.
I build a network.
You tell me how I must run it.
I produce a song.
You tell me how I can deliver it.
I wish to speak using electromagnetic radiation.
You tell me I need permission.
"Freedom" is an empty slogan.
Is $RANDOM-NON-GUERILLA-GROUP failing to fight for freedom? Maybe they are, but so what?
Just look at Bush. Whatever else the war on Iraq did, it created freedom for the Iraqi people. As much freedom as there is to be had in the islamic middle east, at least.
And yet he is constantly blasted for it. So is Blair, and to a lesser degree Australian politicians. Yet political and religious mass-muderers like khatami of Iran, are constantly glorified as the voice of reason.
I am amazed at how people here who never fail to blast any attempt at safeguarding freedom, can complain about this. You never fail to point out the least violation of freedom that a muslim suicide terrorist CLAIMS to have experienced (and as we all know they're very reliable people, *cough*) and you act surprised when people don't stand up for freedom ?
If you glorify people who fight and murder innocent people, just to take away freedom, like all the people in guantanamo do, this is what you'll get : censorship, and worse. Like it exists in their countries. Anyone who even talks about a woman gets beheaded in public. That's what these muslims are fighting for. That's what they're murdering innocent people for.
I believe the game industry could show more backbone when it comes to censorship, but the fact of the matter is, the market for video games is extremely turbulent. Game houses, unfortunately, cannot afford to have their titles banned from retailers such as Walmart, so they cater their content according to the retailers' wishes. This is why I find companies like Walmart insidious. But it's really our own faults. We want to save 10 cents on a 2 liter bottle of soda, we want to grocery shop while buying new underwear and DVDs, we're lazy and want everything right now. We continue to support companies that will grow so large (and already have) that they then dictate the quality of the very things they sell. Retailers defining products is a dangerous, dangerous thing indeed.
As I see it, games self-censor when they want to get a particular rating from the ESRB. But the same is true of films. Crazy Man Lucas will not make his films R-rated because he doesn't want them to be. Though, that's not so much self-censorship as it is ... self-restraint I guess.
Otherwise, I don't really see much self-censoring at the expense of the final product. Gears of War has its share of bloody violence and vulgar language. Same goes for F.E.A.R. Games that want it in there, put it in there.
Well, maybe Oblivion would've put in bare breasts (aka b3wbz) if it would've retained a Teen (or whatever) rating. So I can see some self-censoring there. But the game doesn't really suffer from it.
Really, saying that games fall short of film when it comes to being emotionally powerful, etc. because they self-censor is IMO rubbish. Good writing, good music, good directing -- these are sufficient. They're arguably necessary.
Anyway, the article is more about *controversial* games and defending those. Well, I agree about having to stand up for one's creative decisions. I also wish less things were considered "controversial" to begin with. If Uwe Boll can defend his "creative" decisions by beating idiots up in a boxing ring, no video game designer needs to defend anything IMO.
I like basketball!!1!
"Video games for me are a powerful medium capable of equaling the emotive and informative weight of cinema if used correctly, but they rarely are."
Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance. More movie than game, with a convoluted story.
If you glorify people who fight and murder innocent people, just to take away freedom, like all the people in guantanamo do
Of course, that's only a true statement if, you know, they do. But there's no evidence; it's just the prisoners' statements versus the President's.
When I'm having to decide whether to believe the President or some random Arabic guy, I know I'm in a bad place because I don't trust either of them. You choose to trust the President, but I cannot fathom why.
Sure, this may mean for a given project, they fight censorship. But it is far from certain that fighting pays in general. It costs, and what revenue does it bring in?
Freedom always has to be defended by the people. Their proxies cannot do it for them. At least, not well or thoroughly. It's a question of who benefits.
His point is not that the people he's referring to have the power to take away his freedom. They simply pay lip service to the idea of freedom* by telling him what to do, or not to do irrespective of his wishes.
*With the slashdefinition of freedom being "being able to do whatever I want". Anything less is an affront.
We need a game on abortion, where you can choose to either be a pro-life activist blowing up clinics or a pro-choice activist force aborting fetuses!!
Seriously, people play video games to get away from all the horseshit of real life. No one is censoring controvertial issue from video games, they were never put there to begin with. People plays games to have fun, not digest a hyperbole laden message.
About the closest video games ever get to addressing real world issues is by metaphor and allegory. The Gulliver's Travel's model works well in the game setting, but again the primary purpose of games is to play them, not get a poor mans plot along the way. Developers should stick to addressing real world issues by subsituting aliens and fantasy realms for real world events. The moment some explicit moral message begins flashing on screen to a dramatic score, is the moment I regret the hours of play I've put in.
There is one exception to this. If your game is really, really, really good, and you can integrate the concept without fundamentally altering the setting, then you can start to preach. Just not too much thanks. A game that did this rather well was the original Metal Gear Solid, which had a very clear anti-nuclear proliferation message that fitted smoothly into the entire game.
The real issue of censorship in video games is not the messages they convey, but the actions they still consider taboo. The greatest addition that could be made to a game like GTA would be to put children in as pedestrians, because we've all felt that urge to strangle some screaming brat at least once in our lives. This will never happen because if it did, exaggerated public outrage would quickly follow from people who've never even seen the game.
Let's face it. Taboos still exist in our society and moreover we still do not have the freedom to challenge them. We've let our fear and other people's outrage, continue to keep the status quo.
May the Maths Be with you!
After all, media is all about publicity. They aren't going to build up their competitors.
No shit, bubba. I get so tired of these a**hole lefties complaining about double speak government when it is they who are doing it all the time. When Iran is GOOD and Israel is BAD, something is wrong with the thinking process.
I remember the early days of home computing, before all this prudery in game development was the norm. As a young man, I spent many blissful hours playing Vagina Shaver Gold on my Commodore 64. That game taught me so much, not just about shaving vaginas, but about life.
I look at kids today who are stuck playing "Mario Worlds" and all these cookie-cutter shooting and racing games, and I just shake my head. They don't even know what they're missing.
You must be new here. You may only slam Bush, you may not point out that he's right.
"If you glorify people who fight and murder innocent people, just to take away freedom, like all the people in guantanamo do"
Oh, give up on that bullshit already.
The people in Guantanamo are prisoners who have not been given trials. Yeah, that's right, while you're spouting your police-state propaganda, pretending to support "freedom," you're explicitly supporting jail terms for people who have not even seen the back of a judge's head.
Hundreds of people have been held for over 5 years without a chance to protest their innocence. FIVE YEARS. Can you imagine? It doesn't matter to you whether they're guilty or innocent; if it did, you'd call for trials. All that matters to you is that someone whom you can blame for your hysterical post-911 fear is punished.
Did you even know that the US was accepting bounties for the capture of people now held in Guantanamo? It's highly likely -- almost certain -- that a fair number have been imprisoned by Afghan warlords or simply neighbors who disliked them, so that they could collect the bounty. But you, the righteous asshole you are, will not even give them trials.
Tell me this: if you're so certain they're guilty, why are you afraid to prove it?
Here's the answer: you're not certain. You have no fucking clue. You're just living out your racist vengeance fantasies, celebrating the arbitrary, trial-free punishment of hundreds of people you've never met and never will, secure in the knowledge that they're guilty just because some random person in a third-world nation claimed a bounty for denouncing them.
This is a specious argument, and if you believe it... well, let's just say you're not playing with a full deck.
Bush is not being blasted for bringing freedom to the people of Iraq, which is also a highly suspect argument; until we have left it is unclear if they really have achieved freedom or not. Especially while we're involved in keeping them nonfree by our occupation of their country.
Bush is being blasted for his lies and for the deaths of thousands.
Finally, any freedom brought to Iraq is utterly incidental. The goals of this war were entirely financial in nature.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because this is what the other guy is fighting for :
m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2966790.st
Killing people because that is "God's will".
Let's contrast your "full deck" with mine, shall we ?
a m_Hussein's_Iraq
This is what the muslim god demands :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sadd
Let's quote some highlights, shall we ?
"The report spoke of public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children."
This sentence uses the word ACCUSED, in case you can't read, not convicted.
"The report also describes human rights violations directed against children. The report states that children, as young as 5 years old, are recruited into the Ashbal Saddam, or "Saddam's Cubs," and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children are also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. The report also describes how parents of children are executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves are imprisoned."
"Iraqi citizens were not allowed to assemble legally unless it was to express support for the government."
Is this the freedom that the US has taken away that you are talking about ? Because I'm mighty confused.
The US is a LOT better than any muslim. And it's a LONG way down before the US arrives at the average islamic level of "freedom". Saddam killed nearly 5% of his population. That is, the killings we know of.
The translation of the arabic word "islam" is "oppression" or "submission" depending on intonation. That's not a coincidence.
The Muslim version of Jehovah specifically states (like the Christian version) that vengeance is his and that the unbelievers shall suffer, not that you should MAKE them suffer.
And in this country we have a higher conviction rate against minorities than whites. So instead of being punished for being a woman, you're punished for being a minority.
Check out the race of the folks on death row sometime.
I didn't say the US took away freedom. I am saying they prevent it. They're not allowed to assemble in many cases there, either. And in THIS country, we don't permit people to assemble in many public locations. Three people on a street corner can legitimately be investigated by the police for being a gang.
Congratulations! You just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are a racist. Welcome to my foes list.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can't wait for the next Postal game by Running With Scissors. That studio really knows how to exercise their freedom of speech. In Postal 2 you had the option to deal with many situations however you saw fit, with violence, stealth, by conforming to societal expectations, or by running like a coward. It's a first person shooter you can win without firing a shot (and can't win without pissing on your own father's grave).
One of the first missions in the game pits you against militant protesters picketing outside the Running With Scissors studio, brandishing guns and blunt objects. You may deal with them however you wish.
RWS is brilliant because any violence in the game exposes the will of the player more than the designer. Thus, all the people who protested the game for being morbid and sick were forced to eat their own words in the worst way. Just desserts.
Would this be the same Saddam that we propped up for twenty years plus? Even while he was gassing Iranians and Kurds? Noooo, couldn't be. We would never support a man like that. A great analogy posted a long time ago: If you lock somebody up in a room with an insane man for twenty years, do you expect him to be grateful when you finally let him out? I suspect you're just having fun with a little bit of trolling. If you actually believe what you posted, then you are delusional, or evil.
What?
Bush's priority was never to "liberate Iraq." His original arguments for invasion were (off the top of my head):
1. Iraq (i.e., Saddam Hussein) was responsible for what happened in Sept. 2001 (which is untrue)
2. Al Qaeda was in Iraq (also untrue - and Iraq is mostly Shiite Muslims, Al Qaeda is comprised of mostly Sunni)
3. Iraq had WMDs (also untrue)
Only after these attempts failed did he change his argument to include those you are thinking of, although I don't remember the exact order (it might have been at the same time):
4. Spreading democracy in the Middle East
5. Saddam Hussein is a dictator
Who said people here "blast any attempt at safeguarding freedom"? I'm sure many readers would support a democratic government in Burma, an overthrow of communist governments (aren't they all fascist now, anyway?), ridding the world of racism in Sudan and Zimbabwe, and all the horrible atrocities that are occurring in this world right now. But foreign politics is not as simple as black and white. Shiites hate Sunnis, and vice versa. Communist governments will sometimes oppose other communist governments (like the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam, Russia, and China in the 70's). And in Iraq, the US has replaced a dictatorship with civil war and sectarian violence.
I'm not defending Hussein in any way. He committed many frightening atrocities. But that has little to do with freedom, at least in your context. Bush lied. There's ample evidence that Bush long had a desire to overthrow Hussein (see The Vulcans, the name he and his cronies called themselves, or the Downing Street Memo, etc.). Bush never had the intention of creating freedom in the Middle East.
But you don't have any clue how many of the people in Guantanamo are like that guy, unless you just believe everything the government says.
"If we refuse to tackle issues and remain purely a thing of fluff and fizz then interactive entertainment will never have the gravitas of its cousins."
Does anything really have gravitas anyway? How many really important films have come out in the last 30 years (arguably as long as video games have been around)? Ok, more than just a few. What percentage of all produced films did they consist of? Wow, that low, huh? I mean, take The Matrix. Lots of philosophy based discussions: but would it have been successful if it wasn't flashy and action oriented or anything like that? Probably not. Which makes oh so obvious:
If you want to find games that ignore censorship and throw caution to the wind and convey messages beyond simple entertainment, you have to find an environment that supports it. The marketplace where a measure of success is dollars and units is most definitely not it. Slamdance wanted to be it, but lost all credability with that Columbine game issue.
Any attempt at true art right now is going to get lost in a sea of "ooh, cool graphics!" and "wow, Will Wheaton did the voice in this cut scene!"
Buck up, chum, video games are a relatively new phenomenon: especially when backed by hardware powerful enough to tell a story. It will eventually find it's niche. Just like powerful music has, like thoughtful poetry and literature have, like important films have. But if you expect the INDUSTRY (ie. EA, Universal, 3DRealms?!) to do it you're going to end up disappointed in the end.
More Twoson than Cupertino
OeLeWaPpErKe has made probably one of the worst posts I have ever seen on Slashdot, ever. The fact that it has a +3 Insightful modifier is incredibly disheartening to me.
"Whatever else the war on Iraq did, it created freedom for the Iraqi people." What a ridiculous statement. We went to Iraq on false intelligence to knock off Saddam so that his non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" would not be a threat to America. That was what the American public was sold on by irresponsible media and duplicious politicians. But, of course there were no weapons. There is substantial evidence that Bush knew this and didn't give a shit anyway; he wanted to make his buddy Dick Cheney's company rich (Halliburton) and get revenge for Saddman's assassination attempt on his father. So we went in, and when there were no weapons it became "spreading peace and democracy to Iraq".
Yeah, the peace to have your nieghbor cut your fucking head off over a 1,000 year old grudge.
Meanwhile, here at home Bush dissasembles our rights. He trashes Habeas Corpus and hold hundreds in a gulag (and yes, GITMO is a fucking Soviet-style GULAG and we would have called it such in the 80s) in Cuba. He systematically destroys an American citizen with torture to the point of incompetancy (Juse Padilla). Oh and he took a huge dump on New Orleans, because they are too black and too poor to get the kind of help that our president gives -- the corporate kind. "Nice Job Brownie!". And yet he remains a "freedom-fighter" to mouth-breathers like you.
You know, here's something that may surprise you: middle-easterners are people. They love their children. They love their parents. They hurt when they are sad, they have hopes and dreams. They also have unimaginable poverty; over 30 percent of them eat ONE MEAL A DAY or less. They are so hopeless that they blow themselves up for a chance at a better life, not because they are crazy but because their situation sucks and they can't find a way out of it. They are not monsters, they are human beings being manipulated by their clergyman and sold out by their leaders. If anything, we should be dropping books, not bombs, on them. We should take the ONE FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS that our Fearless Leader's little Iraqi jaunt is going to end up costing us (enough for an 85 dollar check for every man, woman, and child on earth) and invest it in educating the middle east and building up real infrastructure for them. Within a generation we could change the world for the better.
Or we could treat them like you advocate, like savage monsters who need to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Or given "enlightment" and "freedom" at the point of a gun, while we steal all their natural resources. It is the "white man's burden" after all. I can recall several other empires trying the same tack; if they were still around we could ask them how that worked out.
Since when does an industry that pioneers the use of DRM care about freedom? The gaming industry is only following in the footsteps of the film industry; only the smaller artists will fight for their freedom of speech, because they're more interested in saying something worthwhile than making big bucks.
Both this and the parent post are way off-topic. On a personal note I disagree more with this one than the other, but this isn't the place for it.
Oh, if you say so. Personally I would interpret the "literal words" of the muslim god a bit differently :
Quran 8:12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
Personally, I wouldn't go with your interpretation. The muslim god specifically calls for muslim mass murder
Please substantiate this claim. Please give me a link that says the US executed hundreds of women, in front of their children, without conviction. Oh and that would have to be minority members. Do you seriously claim the US does this ?
Quite right. The US takes away the muslims' "right" to publicly behead women. What scandalous behavior ! What monsters ! *cough*
Glad to be there. Tell me, is it my fault that the muslim god demands mass murder ? Would you prefer everybody shuts up about it and just gets on with business without telling you ?
Notice that racist obviously implies race being involved. Which is not the case here. Following the mass-murdering muslim god is a choice, just like becoming a murderer is a choice. Tell me, why are you racist against murderers ? In fact, becoming a racist is also a choice. Why are you being racist against my choices ? Do tell.
You may also notice that you did not make my foes list.
I need some links to Bush getting blasted for spreading freedom. I have yet to see this happen.
What I do see, is criticism of Bush for going to war. I haven't seen anyone arguing that giving Iraq freedom is bad; what they're arguing is that the cost is not worth it to the American people. The price of their freedom is high, why are we the ones footing the bill?
Is it our duty to impose it? That's a moral argument and jury is still out on that one. Is it economically adviseable? We'd have to look at the opportunity cost of the money spent on Iraq, what other places could we have spent the money, and weigh the benefits against each other. Is America going to benefit more from spending money on a war in the middle east than spending it on infrastructure, deficit, health care, social security, space program, etc. etc.? Iraq may benefit, but what is the value of Iraq's freedom to America?
These questions are important.
Shit. Mod points, and instead I decide to reply. I guess I'm in a "Feed-the-troll" mood today.
Quran 8:12 is not a verse. I'm guessing you simply copied and pasted that info from the vast sea of Christian blogs who throw out verse numbers and quotations to support their position that Islam is evil. Not to mention that the first page of Google search shows about half a dozen different locations (and quotation methods) for that quote. So I'm gonna go out on a tangent and say that you have no clue about the Koran, and are simply quoting what others have told you about it.
Secondly, don't go around throwing one-liners from a religious text. The Old Testament shows a fantastically vindictive, authoritation and cruel god. It's trivial to find quotes from the Bible that are just as genocidal and cruel as anything in the Koran. With that quote, you're simply demonstrating your own ignorance, bias, cluelessness and lack of independent thinking.
As for Bush fighting for freedom... hah! I didn't see him leading any charge. Oh, you meant he ordered others to fight for freedom? Alright, let's look at then at the results of his leadership - for example, the current state of affairs in Iraq. Iraqis have the freedom to vote, protest, be abducted, tortured, shot, car-bombed, work, frolic and otherwise live merry and free lives. Yes, what an accomplishment. What's the freedom to vote when you don't know whether your next grocery run will run in complete bloodshed? Or that whomever you vote for will sell you out to his tribe? Oh, I forgot. Freedom is always Good. Especially if you're safe in the US from any terrorist attacks.
Nice troll, really. You managed to turn an article on game developers working for more art in their games into a demonstration on how exactly Bush turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists worldwide. Good job. Now go away, or I shall taunt you again.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Since I already replied to the second of your idiotic rants, I might as well go the full distance.
1) Define Freedom in iraq. Freedom to vote? Or freedom to be tortured by death squads from the other religious/ethnic groups?
2) Show me a quote of someone blasting Bush for wanting to remove a known dictator or bad man. Oh, wait. That didn't happen. He gets blasted for lying about why he wants to go to Iraq and about completely botching the job once there.
3) Show me a quote of someone calling Khatami a voice of reason. Blogs don't count btw, as it's too easy to find some idiot who thinks that being able to create a post on the Internet makes them insightful. Oh wait, that hasn't happened either.
4) I didn't know that muslim suicide bombers can talk. After all, they're generally dead. Oh, you mean the videos that surface after the suicide bomber is dead? Woo, you figured out that they are propaganda. Good job. What's your point again? That some people lie? Really? I had no idea. What you missed is that no one takes grievances of suicide bombers seriously. You're confusing that with people trying to figure out how to stop people from becoming suicide bombers, as it is nearly impossible to stop a suicide bombers once they've made up their mind.
5) Everyone in Guantanamo is a suicide bomber? Really.... And you know that how? Because Bush said so? I guess he changed his mind on a couple of hundred of the inmates there who have been released back to their countries without so much as an "Sorry 'bout that."
6) Anyone who talks about a woman gets beheaded? Wow, nice hyperbole. That's how you get some pretty lynchings. Make up some crap, yell about it, then go kill everyone about whom you made shit up. Worked very nicely for the KKK and a bunch of other people in the US until recently.
I have to say, to be so far off-base in nearly every sentence of yours takes some serious skill in reality-avoidance. Can I have your name? I'd like to stay as far away as possible from you. Just in case you mistake me for one of those freedom-hating towel-heads.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The Tanach and Qur'an are written in Semitic languages, whch tpclly us wht we nw mght cll a shrthnd wrtng sstm tht omts th dicrtcs tht dnot mst of th vwls. Therefore, some interpretations of the texts by mortals into English screw up verb inflections. Ideally, one should compare any human interpretation of holy texts to the original Semitic texts. The second-best way, as shown in Christian comparative study bibles, is to compare several translations and understand the imperfection of one's own understanding.
In this case, without reference to the original Arabic, one cannot know for certain that the form of the verb "strike" is "I shall strike" (i.e. leave it to God) or "you shall strike" (i.e. take it into your own hands). Do other translations agree with this interpretation that encourages mortals to decapitate those whom they perceive as not believing in the supremacy of the lone God?
Judging by OeLeWaPpErKe's moderation results, and those of many posts lately on Slashdot, I think it's safe to assume just a wee bit of political astroturfing. I seriously doubt many actual Slashdotters hold his opinions (which seem tied only to the most barbaric human impulses, and the worst human qualities).
If they do, and if they're at all representative of trends, then the world is in serious trouble.
This is the price one pays to sell a game to the mainstream public, as opposed to the behind the curtain of the back of your local comicbook/hobby or porn shop. Believe it or not, in the "real world", people don't necessarily want their children just buying any random game they get at Walmart only to find 3d enhanced silicon boobs or whatever strikes your offend-o-meter--or they at least want to be warned it's in there.
Game developers know that in order to get good distribution they have to have a product that meets certain standards.
Ironically, we in the industry don't want videogames to be blamed for any social ills, and we hate censorship, and we are more than ready to blame the parents for their negligence in allowing their kids access to the lastest bloosplat fest game and real guns... then we shirk when labels are put on games that actually do contain the content that becomes Jr. Psycho's favorite new fantasy game.
There's a shellgame going on here. The game industry wants to be able to do anything they want, and make more money at it while they do it.
I don't have a problem with that, or the folk that say, "Hey, wait a sec, not at my expense." Just tell it like it is. Game developers have to choose between being freedom fighters actively promoting their worldview come hell or highwater--damn the torpedoes fullspeed ahead--pervert all the children in the world... or they can choose to get better distribution at Walmart, in which they can buy themselves a new home in Thailand and live out their perverse fantasies... whatever they may be.
Strange that game pros seems to be chosing money over principles. You'd think that's why they're Pros, and not doing freeware anymore.
--Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
A somewhat short rant reply to that....
No shit the gaming media pays that stupid ambulance chaser a lot of attention with through new coverage, and following his every move.
You want to know why they do it Doug? It is because you and your group did NOTHING to combat his lies and FUD. And he is the one drafting all these unconstitutional laws that you guys end up challenging. Why do you even put up with his harassment by proxy via lawsuits and unconstitutional laws? The Florida bar is looking into his current actions, so suing him for barratry might have some weight.
Maybe if ESA did a good job of dismissing and standing up against its main opponent people would pay JT less attention. As long as the main stream media considers him a creditable source and your group does nothing, WE are going to keep our eyes on him and warn people of his misinformation.
Then why don't you read the whole chapter ? Or the whole book ? You will find it full of cruel ruthless commands to kill.
...) (and yes, it's not called slavery, just "servants" that can be raped without punishment and cannot leave the house without written permission from their "employer").
Then "you need to interpret this". Great. There are lots of books published about this interpretation stuff. Trust me you do not want to turn to them either. They directly state that muslims should massacre jews, beat their women and children, etc. That muslims should conquer by force any non-muslim government and make non-muslims pay a 50% income tax, and refuse their entry into police or military forces.
Sharia is the interpretation of the quran, you know. It does not exactly have this peaceful reputation you speek off. But don't worry. Just look up "Barbary wars", to see how muslim states used to respond to america.
Note also, that slavery still exists today in Saudi arabia, the only sharia country in the world. (no Iran does not enforce sharia, for example for most Iranian loans intrest IS due
Seeing how they aren't calling for an invasion of Israel nor helping Iran with its war efforts I'd assume they just want to make the govt stop caring about either country.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Surely you must be joking. Your insane rambling simply makes too little sense (as in: none at all). Are you truly suggesting that the people in Iraq are more free now than they were before the war? Are you truly suggesting that "all people in guantanamo" want to "fight and murder innocent people"? Do you realize that most people imprisoned in Guantanamo are very likely innocent and have never had a fair trial? Does that sound like freedom to you?
And yet he is constantly blasted for it.
nice fallacy there .. criticizing bush is NOT the same as criticizing Freedom!!! .. and definitely NOT the same as joining the terror-side.
.. and you will pay the price for that .. because you fully deserve to.
first and foremost, bush is not a FreedomFighter, he is a low-IQ Retard... and that's what he is blasted for.
i have nothing against Freedom and i have nothing pro Terrorism...but that guy is the kind of person i wont even trust with my car keys.
however, you and others gave him your country and your future
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Thank GOD there's still some people out there that use their head for something besides a hat rack. Great post!! I'm sick and damn tired 'moral relativity' - there is ONE bottom line when it comes to Islam vs Christanity - and it's NOT the past. It's the present. Presently, you will not find any respected Christian leader professing ANY sort of violence towards anyone - in fact, quite the opposite. Got a pen and paper to list the number of present day 'respected' Islamic leaders professing violence towards..well..pretty much anyone that doesn't agree with them, ESPECIALLY us non-believers?
And don't try to feed me the 'we created it' crap. Christianity is under CONSTANT attack here in the US and you still don't see the Pope calling for a holy war. Your religion either allows for violence or it doesn't. You either profess that as option or you don't.
Look around. You never hear about how radical Christians blew up a train station today killing women and children. Only one cowardly religion does that. Terrorism is terrorism - it doesn't matter whether you mumble Allah while you explode.
The good ol U.S. of A. foreign policy is responsible for FAR MORE DEATH than Hussein ever committed. Read some history books, you ignoramus.
Installation of cruel dictators who kill thousands of their own people - check.
Sale of the weapons to them and others so that they go about it in the most "efficient" manner - check.
Killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (who exist in a televised fantasy land that doesn't actually exist in the minds of most Americans because they've never been outside their own borders) just so Puff Daddy can drive another SUV - check.
Get a clue.
Work smarter, not harder.
Bush isn't blasted for fighting to free people. He's blasted for being an incompetent boob. He didn't really free Iraq. He eliminated a dictator and plunged the country into a religious civil war. You can't be free when you're afraid to go outside because someone might shoot you because you either worship the wrong god or worship the same god but in the wrong way.
That ain't freedom. That's anarchy. Ironically, you need to sacrifice some freedoms to actually be able to use the rest of them. There's no freedom in Iraq only death and despair.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
you seem to be saying.
Anarchy is only wonderful when you have the bigger guns.
You speak of Bush fighting for freedom. Where was he in dealing with the Darfur tragedy? Where were the US armed forces when East Timor was taken over?
Why aren't we in Burma restoring the democratically elected president?
Study some history and you can see the US foreign policies have always been dictated by national interests mixed in with some bloated egos. Human rights and freedom
are applied when they're convenient, but almost always trumped by other interests
if there are conflicts.
Your argument is just as flawed since you are presenting an opinion or assumption as fact.
Don't get high and mighty on somebody else's flawed logic when your own is just as bad.
"Finally, any freedom brought to Iraq is utterly incidental. The goals of this war were entirely financial in nature."
You have no way to substantiate your argument except by 'feelings' and that doesn't fly.
Owning non-government approved literature is grounds for fines, imprisonment and death in some Middle Eastern countries (as well as China.)
"This is what the muslim god demands :a m_Hussein's_Iraq"
n d-cover.htmlm /2006/11/when-victims-rejoice.htmla d-should-i-be.htmli t.html/ 12/it-is-jungle-we-need-tarzan.htmlr bendblog_archive.html#116738820591750213- my-boy.html- al-iraqi.htmlr aqi-destiny.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Sadd
Saddam Hussein was a secularist. He came out of the Baath (renaissance) party. The idea that the Muslim God demands human rights violations makes as much sense as the idea that the Christian God demands them (think of all the juicy bits in Leviticus).
Saddam was a thoroughly evil man, and Iraq under his rule was a pretty horrible place. But the US has made it worse, by any reasonable standard. Here are some blog entries written by people who actually live there, people of many different political opinions and backgrounds:
http://iraqi-roses.blogspot.com/2007/02/un-duck-a
http://firstwordsfirstwalkfirstiniraq.blogspot.co
http://nabilsblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/happy-or-s
http://livesstrong.blogspot.com/2006/11/eids-spir
http://twentyfourstepstoliberty.blogspot.com/2006
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_rive
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/2006/07/goodbye
http://glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com/2006/06/shalash
http://neurotic-iraqi-wife.blogspot.com/2007/02/i
Can you seriously read these and rejoice at what has been done?
"The US is a LOT better than any muslim. And it's a LONG way down before the US arrives at the average islamic level of "freedom". Saddam killed nearly 5% of his population. That is, the killings we know of."
I'd be very surprised if US and allied forces aren't responsible for another 5% or more of the Iraq population.
if you look at sims games, particularly sims2, you'll notice that while the designers fought for the possibility of homosexual relationships, there aren't any gay sims that actually ship with the game.
it's not as much of a statement as would be nice to see in games, but it's as close as it can come to outwardly being pro-gay without actually pissing people off and getting pulled from walmart.
i think a lot of games can improve the world without actively and blatantly fighting for freedom. it was a long time ago now, but i remember when i played The Longest Journey i was really struck with how good a job they did putting you in the shoes of the female protagonist.
i really enjoyed the parts where the sleazy guy was always following her around trying to get a date. "oh, so that's what that feels like." small realizations like that can build up to be big things.
for example, if altair from Assasin's Creed turns out to be a well-formed and symphathetic protagonist, who also happens to be from the middle east, that's quite a big deal in today's world (as made obvious by the ignorant posts at the top of this thread).