Seven Arrested After Protesting Army Video Game Recruiting Center

GamePolitics writes "Seven anti-war protesters were arrested in Philadelphia on Saturday during a protest rally and march which targeted the Army Experience Center, a high-tech recruitment center which uses PC and Xbox games and simulations to attract potential recruits. GamePolitics was on hand to cover the protest, and took video of the arrests. A local news station also reported on the rally, and the Peace Action Network released a statement saying, "In its desperate approach to meet recruiting numbers, the military is teaching the wrong values to teenagers. Sugarcoating combat experience with virtual war is a dishonor to those with real war experience."

Comments

fp!

[CheshireFerk-o]

i for one have played America's Army for years, and i would love to play in the vehicles and huge screens with other ppl! sure its a recruitment tool but take it for what it is, a great team-based shooter.

Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[nysus]

After watching the video, that "Army Experience" store, set up in a mall, strikes me as a little twisted. It seems pretty clear this place was set up to resemble a video game center to "lure" high school kids to it so recruiters would have an opportunity to talk to them about joining the Army. I'm not very comfortable having my government treating its kids this way.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[American Terrorist]

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

I have a cousin who went to a military academy high school in Virginia where the students were encouraged to chant "kill 'em all" repeatedly. Now he wants to join the marines or rangers and go to Iraq and shoot as many people as possible. He is 18, and thoroughly brainwashed by militarism.

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[tacarat]

Which video game is it that teaches suicide bombers or their handlers such anti-social activities?

As far as your cousin is concerned, sorry. Maybe he'll smarten up eventually, but it'll probably have to wait until he finds out there's more to life than beer, bullets and bitches. I'd take more issue with the military academy high school than the US military, though. If he doesn't know about LOAC and the Geneva Convention, he may be in for a bit of surprise.

Hopefully he's not so far gone that he doesn't think that, unlike movie bad guys, his opponents can actually think or aim...

Re:Recruitment tool probably steps over the line

[inviolet]

Glorifying deadly combat is more than a little twisted. Senseless violence is against the basic principal of civilization. If the army's goal is to build a civil society in Iraq it should be teaching its soldiers more about civility and less about headshots.

The army does not use "senseless violence". They are very clear on the importance of shooting only the bad guys, and Iraq demonstrates that they have a good success rate at doing so, at least compared to the whole rest of the history of war.

Your argument is a straw man, and not even a clever one.

Incidentally, one of the basic principles of civilization is "Keep a lot of violence ready for when the barbarians attack." Any civilization that fails to do so will end soon after. Don't let the current Pax Americana, the product of the West's skill with violence, lead you to believe that barbarians aren't still knocking at the gate.

Re:At least they are protesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Where were all these protesters during the last 8 years when Bush was acting like an idiot?

Acting?! He most certainly was not acting!

In Norway

[KarlIsNotMyName]

In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion. After that it's possible to join the army full time. Semi-obligatory because it's not that hard to get out of. So the following could be considered a recruitment event). All males of around 18 years old (and I think they've made attending this obligatory for females too now, just not obligatory for them to serve) are called in for a "Sesjon" (Session?) to determine physical and mental abilities, as well as a minor health checkup.

One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.

Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.

Re:In Norway

[swillden]

Luring teenagers into the army is a dirty trick that eventually will backfire.

It will lower standards a little, but not nearly as much as instituting a draft. The problem the US military faces right now is that the ongoing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan require a lot of bodies. Not because many of them die, but because it's unpleasant duty and people tend not to want to do it for very long. Since it's an all-volunteer military force, recruiters to do whatever they can to motivate people to volunteer.

The real solution here isn't to shut down the recruiters, it's to reduce the demands on the military, i.e. get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually, I think we should return to the Constitutional form of national defense. Get rid of the "standing army" almost entirely. Limit the armed forces to the high-tech forces that can't be staffed on a volunteer basis plus a training cadre capable of quickly training and equipping large numbers of volunteers for the bulk of the ground forces. Shift most of those forces to the state national guards (organized militia). All we really need at the federal level during peacetime is the Navy and maybe a core staff to coordinate the training and equipping of national guard forces to maintain consistency and standards. Finally, repeal the NFA and encourage citizens to own and practice with military-style weapons in standard caliber to maintain/rebuild the "rifle behind every blade of grass" defense (unorganized militia). But I realize that following the Constitution is a radical idea.

Re:Shutup you commie

[tacarat]

I found it ironic that as a service member, I had less freedoms available to me. The freedom of speech, needing to ask for permission to get married, etc. Throw in the the base clubs weren't allowed to have "offensive" music (and of course the sensitive types wouldn't have the decency to stay home). /sigh. Buy all the liquor, tobacco and bibles you want, but no porn!

Re:This is America

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't continue to protest on private property once the owner asks you to leave or you are trespassing. Trespassing is an arrestable offense.

So simple a caveman would get it.

Re:So...

[smchris]

Dude, that's like 43 these days.

Re:This is America

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Wanna bet the "protesters" were doing more than just standing there with placards ?

Wanna bet that you didn't RTFA? The protesters were described as peaceful as can be, with the average age being over 40. Their list of offenses? They made some speeches and marched to the entrance of the AEC. Essentially, they were considered trespassing.

You don't get, as a protestor, to deny anyone access anywhere.

Which they didn't do.

You don't get to damage cars, or any other type of private property and, of course, a protest takes responsability for all protestors.

Which they didn't do.

If the police thinks the group is damaging property or denying people access to a location, they do not only have the right to end the protest, they have the duty to do so.

Again, they didn't do any of those. The police arrested them for trespassing, and I don't blame them for that. The police were only doing their job. But I don't see the point in your post, when you're basing it off of assumptions and won't even bother to read any of the links posted in the summary.

Besides, peace protesting in the united states is a farce. Someone who hides in a territory that's defended by the biggest guns on the planet is not a peace protestor. A real "peace protestor" would demonstrate in a lawless region without police forces present. You know, like Southern Darfur. You don't see many peace protests there, of course, for good reason. It doesn't make peace protests in America any less hypocrite.

How the fuck did this get modded insightful? Why would peace protesting be hypocritical in the U.S. ? One of the definitions of hypocrisy is:

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

How are peace protesters, in this case, practicing beliefs that they do not hold? It would be hypocritical of them if they were protesting war, and at the same time, donating money to weapons manufacturers. One of the freedoms afforded to us is the freedom of assembly. It would be a damn shame for us to HAVE such freedom and not exercise it.