Slashdot Mirror


Video Games As Propaganda

SharkLaser writes "A video game developer working for Kuma Reality Games has admitted that the company has been receiving money from the CIA to design and freely distribute special movies and games with the aim of manipulating public opinion in the Middle East. Amir Mizra Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, moved to work for Kuma after working for DARPA and has said the goal of the company was to convince people that whatever the U.S. does in other countries is a good measure. Kuma officials have declined to comment, while Hekmati himself is locked in Iran. The United States government has demanded the release of Hekmati, but Iran has sentenced him to death for spying, which he confessed to."

251 comments

  1. And Monkey Island was fully funded by .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The pirate party

  2. Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, all of the "evidence" in this case comes from the man's forced confession. Given Iran's record on human rights, he was most likely tortured into confessing. Why on Earth is this being reported as fact?

    1. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It fits in with the slashdot narrative.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by ugen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because this is /. , reflexively anti-American regardless of right/wrong/otherwise. If it takes siding with Iran to stay the course, then so be it.

    3. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know confessions obtained through torture are reliable.

    4. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by DCTech · · Score: 1

      It's not new that US uses entertainment as propaganda. See Hollywood, the largest propaganda machine ever created. It's not a surprise that they want to extend it to games too.

    5. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by alphatel · · Score: 1

      Or / wrote it, sent it to Iran, and republished incognito.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    6. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange how when people are tortured and confess to 9/11 everyone is happy to take it at face value.
      Being tortured doesn't make you innocent. Confessing under torture doesn't make you guilty.

    7. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given Iran's record on human rights, he was most likely tortured into confessing.

      I thought torture is a useful and valuable tool in extracting actionable intelligence from terrorist suspects.
      Why wouldn't it work on an American spy too?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Confessing under torture doesn't make you guilty.

      Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, confessions resulting from torture are still allowed as evidence at trial. Personally, I think that sweating a suspect in an interrogation room for 8+ hours, when the cops can lie to him and spell each other off (so they're always relatively fresh), is still psychological torture. While not nearly as bad as water-boarding or other Geneva-convention-listed forms of torture, I'm not convinced that what cops regularly do isn't torture. If you think that the only way to get out of the interrogation room is to tell the cops what you think they want to hear, it's a coerced statement.

      I'm sure Iran was more, um, forceful than that,of course.

    9. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's not at all suspicious after they banned battlefield 3 . Not at all, these people are just asking for a US invasion, or is it our media that's telling us? :)

    10. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Because no one loves spies. The prevailing feeling is, if you were a good spy, you wouldnt have gotten caught anyways. If you do get caught, well you were a shitty spy so who gives a fuck about you?

      --
      Good-bye
    11. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you had bothered to look at their wikipedia entry, you would see that Kuma Reality Games suddenly took a turn a couple of years ago, designing Middle Eastern-oriented games in Arabic exclusively. You'll also see that these new games focus on things like fighting "political corruption." Seems to strongly bolster his confession. The CIA has done stuff like this for decades, of course. IIRC they even did special comic books back in the 60's with anti-Russkie propaganda that they spread behind the iron curtain.

      Unfortunately, this kid decided to go into field operations too. And Iran is hunting down CIA and Mossad operatives pretty hard right now (probably pissed about all those dead nuclear scientists). I suspect the death sentence is just a bargaining ploy for Iran, though. I hope they don't actually execute him.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by bfandreas · · Score: 0

      Or the /. hive mind hasn't forgotten America's Army.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army

      Now imagine you weren't a US citizen and you first got wind of this...thing. How would you react? It might have been a good game but it was also quite blatant.

      Using all types of media for propaganda is even older than the word "propaganda" itsself. Move along, there is nothing to be seen here.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    13. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Loopy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Disingenuous at best. There's a big difference between confirming suspected intel and turning a prisoner into propaganda. There is also a tremendous gulf between broadly applied and completely opportunistic use of it and the "graded escalation" the US goes through before utilizing distasteful tools. Of course, such fine distinctions aren't exactly helpful to The Cause, are they?

    14. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      Just because Kuma Reality was anti curruption doesn't mean they working for the CIA. Most of the occupy wallstreet prostestors are against curruption but they are not getting checks from the CIA. Also anyone can edit wikipedia including Iran and the CIA.

    15. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forced rendition, that'll get the truth out of him. Works for the US, right?

    16. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by jd · · Score: 1

      If they aren't, why does so much of the world rely on them? Yes, America included, though they're hardly the only ones.

      And if they aren't reliable (they aren't reliable, but in the interests of neutrality I'll pretend otherwise) then every nation that carries out torture, or sponsors other nations to carry it out for them, is guilty of serious crimes against humanity. Strangely, a number of these nations are not signatories to the International Court of Justice (you may even be living in one) and thus outside any legal framework for protecting the victims of torture or abuse. Also strangely, a number of nations with strong laws protecting victims of governmental abuse have also passed laws exempting those the government wants to victimize in this way from any protection of the legal system. Which defeats the purpose of there being laws in the first place, but there ya go.

      In other words, most nations are guilty of extra-judicial killings and other abuses of individuals who have zero involvement in any activity that is hostile to, well, pretty much anyone. Singling out one is stupid and ignores the reality of the real issue. The real issue is that zealots and paranoid schizophrenics rule most of the world because otherwise sane, rational people voted the zealots and paranoid schizophrenics into office.

      I'm not even going to blame those in office - they're ill and they need treatment, their actions are not meaningful choices but merely symptoms of their disease. The blame goes entirely to the healthy people who regard it as amusing to torture the mentally ill in this way. It *is* torture, it is cruelty and it is abuse, just as much as the abuse that the ill then mete out to the innocent is.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I always liked AA, except for the fact that you couldn't play Opfor :( I ended up spending half the game trying to get an AK-74su every time.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    18. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Bucky24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see the difference. They suspected he was an American spy. He confessed under torture. So using torture they confirmed suspected intel.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    19. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The true believer believes what he wants to believe. If you want to believe that this guy had nothing to do with the CIA, that it's just a coincidence that his company suddenly started designing Arabic games, that he was just on vacation to see grandma, etc. then more power to you, buddy. I bet you think those three jews they caught on the Iranian border a while back were really just on a "nature hike" too, and that spy drone just accidentally strayed across the border, and all those Iranian nuclear scientists who started turning up dead just accidentally fell onto bullets and shrapnel, and Stuxnet just happened to sabotage a bunch of Iranian uranium centrifuges.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      Like, if you don't confess, we will take your kids, you will loose your job, loan, mortgage, fancy car, computer, iPhone......oh wait, what was the question?

    21. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by poity · · Score: 1

      Your attempt at sarcasm to point out hypocrisy is disingenuous and falsely accusatory by the very fact that you are using the moral positions of two different and unrelated people, i.e. policy makers who support torture, and the GP poster. The fact that your post has been modded so highly "Insightful" indicates either a deeply flawed sense of logic in the /. community, or a childish penchant for ill thought out potshots.

      Your post can only be relevant under two circumstances: 1) GP having a history of supporting torture, or 2) Policy makers who support torture now pointing out the unreliability of Hekmati's confession. Neither is true.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    22. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      This is still just speculation, even if the company is a propaganda device, it's not necessary the CIA that is behind them. And if they were, they wouldn't just tell it to every developer. The whole point of a front company is to keep the identity of its owner a secret.

    23. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course it is torture. Indeed, that was part of the basis of the appeals by the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. The fraudulent "confessions" sealed the fate of the prosecution's case (the statements were shown to have been tampered with afterwards with the signatures of the defendants edited in) but the courts were utterly horrified by the police treatment - which was no different from what you're describing.

      Indeed, even in a prior appeal that failed, heard by the late Lord Denning, it failed because Lord Denning ruled that torture and abuse on such a scale was too horrific to contemplate, too savage to imagine. And, no, I'm not exaggerating his remarks. He really did say that what you're describing for police behaviour was too horrific to contemplate. Lord Denning naively concluded that it was better to refuse the appeal than to even think about police cruelty. With all respect, I disagree. It is better to imagine the unimaginable so that you can stop it, or - if it's not taking place - then at least be sure that the safeguards exist to ensure it never does.

      Given that torture does take place, I am of the opinion that confessions should never be allowed in court at all. Evidence collected as a result of a confession, sure, but not the confession itself. If the police can't maintain conduct of a standard better than "too horrific to contemplate", then they should not be able to directly use in trial anything that is likely tainted by such conduct. Simple as that. Eliminate the incentive. That should go for any evidence involving methods established to have suspect credibility. Dubious crime labs get the press from time to time, for example. When standards improve, remove the bar. It is the only way you will ever get the police motivated to operate in a clean manner.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timing is everything.

      Iran is suffering from the recent round of US economic sanctions. To offset the loses, they antagonize the international Oil market to raise the price of Oil. For example, by conducting "War Games" in or threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz (a major Oil trade route). Or by threatening to execute prominent "spies". Basically anything to destabilize the area and cause a spike in Oil speculation.

    25. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's a big difference between confirming suspected intel and turning a prisoner into propaganda

      No there's not. Torture never confirms anything. Torture is a way of getting your prisoner to say what you want to hear. Confirmation bias is built into it, so it can never reasonably be used as actionable evidence. The only thing it is good for is propaganda.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by jd · · Score: 1

      We don't know what Iranian intel said, they may well have been confirming something they'd been given.

      We don't know what US intel said, we have no reason to believe that any of the prisoners were being held to confirm anything. That the CIA defied a court order to preserve the video tape sessions of interrogations -- well, I don't regard that as being in the US' favour when it comes to their claims about anything. Nobody destroys evidence of their own innocence, after all. We don't know what the US does in regards to escalation - without the tapes, we have nothing to go on. And, again, nobody destroys evidence of their own innocence.

      (The only things we do know is that Iraqi prisoners were subjected to 48-hour sessions of the Barney song on continuous repeat, to "soften them up" before interrogation. This was step 1. If there was any gradual escalation, it started at the nuclear option. Even to western ears, that would be bad, but to middle eastern ears - they aren't used to music with those frequencies - it would have been as painful as scratching a chalk board for the same length of time.)

      The British prisoner held at Gitmo was cleared for release in 2007/8 after being shown to have no links to extremism of any kind. He won't be released until after 2012 at the earliest, if he is ever released at all. Before anyone starts on about American care and attention, I would want to know precisely why. No why, then no excuse. If you can't explain why a wholly innocent person was in prison for 6-7 years without trial and without any evidence against him, and THEN held a further 3-4 years after being found by tribunal to be wholly innocent, with no prospect of being released for many many years to come, then you have absolutely no legs to stand on.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    27. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the company was paid by the CIA. Perhaps the company changed direction and saw a market opportunity. Will we ever know?

      One thing is for sure, the World needs a lot more fighting of political corruption (in every country). Transparency International (TI) seems a good place to start, as it uses locals in each country, rather than video games. I supposed it would be hard for TI to get a hold in many countries through, including Iran.

    28. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 2

      You'll also see that these new games focus on things like fighting "political corruption."

      That hardly begins to cover it. As noted by Gamasutra, they created one game in 2005 called "Assault on Iran", about attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. It's described in detail here but a few excerpts quickly reveal the flavor of the thing:

      Given the alarmingly advanced state of Iran's nuclear program, the US military might well consider an all-out assault against Iran's nuclear installations.

      Iran's retaliation options include[...] perhaps most frightening of all, summon[ing] their terrorist allies in widespread factions like Hezbollah to initiate vicious terrorist attacks against Americans on every continent.

      Iran's nuclear means and shadowy intentions cannot be ignored. The War on Terror is not about retribution for the attacks of 9/11 or taking out dictators who brutalize the innocent. It's about keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the rogue states and non-state organizations most likely to use them...and the risk here couldn't be clearer.

      I dare ANYONE to call this anything other than propaganda. And though it may not be CIA sponsored, the company has developed software for the US army in the past, so it's hardly a logical leap.
      All of that said, creating propaganda shouldn't be a crime. I too hope this man is freed.

    29. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them?

      Because SOPA hasn't been enacted yet, and we may as well exercise the last bit of freedom we have on whatever contributes to turning the tide.

    30. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Never tried it. Not my genre. Plus it really got my heckles up so I wouldn't have liked it even if I tried.
      But I believe it was a good game. I truly do.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    31. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      If they aren't, why does so much of the world rely on them? Yes, America included, though they're hardly the only ones.

      Because most of the world, yes, America included, doesn't care about justice; they (we) care about proving that they (we) were right, whether or not that's the truth.

      And if they aren't reliable (they aren't reliable, but in the interests of neutrality I'll pretend otherwise) then every nation that carries out torture, or sponsors other nations to carry it out for them, is guilty of serious crimes against humanity.

      Pretty much.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    32. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was written by SharkLaser aka DCTech aka at least one other username starting with "I" that I can't even remember, a dedicated troll. I'm starting to wonder if these are all puppet accounts actually being run by Slashdot staff to boost page views by stirring up nerd rage. The guy's an obvious troll and all his stories get approved, what am I supposed to think?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    33. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      Evidence collected as a result of a confession, sure,

      IANAL, but I'm pretty sure evidence collected as a result of an illegal confession/interrogation is not admissible in the USA.

      If you allowed all evidence in, regardless of how the police got the information that leads them to the evidence, you would be creating an incentive for the police to use any tactic they want, including torture, to get information from all suspects. Sure, some innocent people may get tortured, but they may just get the location of a body that they may not otherwise find.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    34. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which part of fact?

      That he was in Iran? That he was 'visiting family'? That he is/had worked for the US Government? That he confessed to spying? That he was tortured? That he probably said he was spying because he was tortured? That Iran is making an example of him?

      Plenty of facts going around. Not some grand conspiracy here, other than Irans justice system is wholly insane.

    35. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Aguazul · · Score: 1

      Given Iran's record on human rights, he was most likely tortured into confessing.

      There may be a high correlation between torture and confession, but (invoke meme that needs to die): "Correlation is not causation."

    36. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Larryish · · Score: 4, Funny

      Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.

      General Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!

      Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...

      General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!

    37. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The fact that your post has been modded so highly "Insightful" indicates either a deeply flawed sense of logic in the /. community, or a childish penchant for ill thought out potshots.

      Nope. TubeSteak's posts start at +2, so it only means three people have upvoted him, which isn't a valid sample of the /. community.

    38. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given Iran's record on human rights, he was most likely tortured into confessing. Why on Earth is this being reported as fact?

      And this is different from the Manning sham-trial just how?

    39. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      I'm not sure I buy this bit about the guy being a spy. Not because I don't think we have spies in Iran (we damn well better), but because of the reported circumstances specific to this case.

      As for psyops in video games made in arabic targeting political corruption... well on a scale of 1 to 10 on my surprise meter, that would rank about a 2, and only because it would mean someone thinks that's a workable strategy worth diverting funds towards.

    40. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to brag but there are some countries in europe where all evidence is valid, regardless of source, yet there are no problems with torture (ofc, any evidence found through illegal means will result in a seperate trial - which sounds alright to me).

    41. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we stop repeating all the U.S. / Israeli propaganda against Iran. Iran is the only nation of the three that hasn't started a war in 400 years. The other two routinely start wars of aggression, routinely torture, carry out extra-judicial executions, and routinely murder civilians-- so, on a human rights basis, have no high-ground to stand on _either_.

      Anything coming out of Iran is as believable as the propaganda coming out of the US / Israel. Read, "you would have to be a fool to believe either."

      The fact that the US and Israel are actively seeking war with Iran makes propaganda from them even less believable. I urge you to research the recent claims out of the IAEA. The US got their guy appointed head of the IAEA (through underhanded dealings). Immediately after his appointment, old data (decades old in some cases) that had been previously used to show Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons was re-hashed, but this time with the suggestion that it showed a nuclear weapons program (and also with the claim that it was new information). The clowns that run Israel and the US will have the US in another war within the year if they have their way.

      BTW, the US military has paid EA to create games in the past for propaganda and training, so it is not really much of a stretch.

    42. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1
      Well you just need to look at the facts.

      Fact 1) He is an Iranian American

      Fact 2) He has an grandmother living in Iran

      Fact 3) He visited Iran through the normal channels. He told them he was a former US marine when he entered the country. He didn't enter the country with an alias or by sneaking in over the border. He used his real name in all his business dealings with the US government.

      Fact 4) He worked on speech translation software for DARPA

      Fact 5) America is currently pushing for sanctions against Iran.

      Opinion) If Iran didn't want this guy in the country they could of turned him away. Instead they let him in and then captured him. He is nothing more than a hostage.

    43. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see the difference. They suspected he was an American spy. He confessed under torture. So using torture they confirmed suspected intel.

      A reasonable person would know that *that* confession would guarantee a death sentence in *that* country, at this time.
      Short of murdering pregnant kittens, what on Earth could make you feel so guilty that you would freely confess to what would assuredly end your own life?

      So, ruling guilt out of this...
      If someone signs their own death warrant ****in any country****, you have to be a god-damned moron to not take it with a pound of salt.

      Think before you mod folks.

    44. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      What you've just ranted about has very little to do with what I said. I wasn't talking about the person condemned to death. I was commenting on GGP's comment on Iran. Though what can you expect from an AC?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    45. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by snero3 · · Score: 1

      I thought torture is a useful and valuable tool in extracting actionable intelligence from terrorist suspects. Why wouldn't it work on an American spy too?

      Why would you think that? If you are being tortured you are going to say anything to get them to stop, whether it is true or not.

      --
      It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
    46. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Correction:

      Because this is /. , reflexively anti-Corruption regardless of right/wrong/otherwise. If it takes siding with Iran to stay the course, then so be it.

      america != corruption - unless you are saying it does?

      in which case, who is anti-american?

    47. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Torture is evil, full stop. I've spoken against it when used by the US, and I'll condemn it here too. The fact that the nation this man was born in did something bad does not justify doing that same thing to him.

    48. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      There's no evidence (aside from a forced confession) that this man even worked for Kuma.

      Here's a sequence of events for you:
      1) Kuma starts making games that might have a political message (maybe at the CIA's behest, maybe because they think it's a good niche to make money in)
      2) Iran doesn't like this, and wants to find a way to shut down the company
      3) Iran picks up an American within their borders, a tortures him into confessing that he works for Kuma and that they're on the CIA payroll
      4) Iran now has "evidence" that Kuma is an enemy of the state, and can use this pretense to ban their games, shut them down, etc.

      This same sort of thing has been happening for millenia. Torture has always been used to get someone to implicate your enemies in a conspiracy.

      The alternate theory is that a man with a background clearly tying him to the US military went to Iran to work on games subverting the Iranian government, and announced on arrival his ties to the US military, even though he easily could have done the same work from literally anywhere else in the world.

      You tell me which one seems more likely.

    49. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge gap between "information that might warrant some further looking into it by our intelligence services" and "information good enough to be used as evidence in trial and to sentence someone to death".

    50. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Most confessions are coerced in on way or another. The police might not be promising not to break the next finger, but they make suspects believe that they will serve more time in jail by staying quiet. Torture should obviously be illegal--admissible or not, some cops would do it fun.

    51. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate, if the prisoner says something while being tortured which can be corroborated against other sources which he shouldn't know about if he's innocent, then it's logical to conclude that the prisoner, in fact, knows something. Of course, this is totally invalidated if the torturers are pushing the prisoner toward a statement with leading questions.

    52. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the case of needing time sensitive information from someone? The ticking-time-bomb scenario?

      There was a case in Germany where a known paedophile had admitted to kidnapping two girls but would not tell the police where they were. In the past children he and others like him had kidnapped starved to death (in his case while he was in jail for driving offences), and the police were obviously desperate to save them. One officer decided to threaten him with violence in the hopes of making him reveal their location, but he didn't and the officer ended up in jail for human rights violations. As it happens the girls had been dead for some time anyway IIRC.

      Personally I don't think torture can ever be justified, but there are situations where it can be effective.

    53. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by couchslug · · Score: 0

      He visited Iran voluntarily. No one not a spy has legitimate business with that enemy country.

      Either he's guilty or a fool. Spies accept the risk, and fools deserve what they get.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    54. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Of course it could.

      Torture broke trained US aviators in the Hanoi Hilton. Cultural disconnects made the accompanying interrogation less effective, but given that torture can break resistance and interrogation can extract information, it is perfectly logical to use it.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    55. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the sarcasm of TubeSteak was lost during this thread of discussion..

    56. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that all those innocent until found guilty people at GITMO are also hostages. I always thought the majority were simply quick cash bounty stooges. Intelligence contractors for the US seeking to fatten their wallets basically just grabbed anyone and everyone they felt they could get away with. So maybe some asshat in Iran is doing what the Asshats in the US are doing nailing who ever they can to a cross, all to get that next promotion of contractors cheque.

      Didn't the US chuck out a bunch of Russians after imprisoning them for basically doing what any US lobbyist is legally able to do.

      I am starting to lose track of this whole espionage thing. Does it exist when countries are not at war. Is it spying when the spy doesn't actually break any local laws. Is spreading propaganda spying. I know that bribery and corruption to break local laws should be treated as espionage, so what happens when countries publicly fund those activities in other countries and seemingly brag about it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    57. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by rakslice · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? You mean... Iran took Time Cube guy!? Oh noes!

    58. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      A hostage? In Iran?
      Perhaps they could get Ollie North to set up some sort of deal to get him back...

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    59. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Wow, so the CIA is funding producing games to help fight political corruption in countries whose regimes the U.S. is reputed to be supporting for oil, etc. (take your pick of nefarious plots).

    60. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      No, you wouldn't, not if you prosecute the policemen if they have indeed crossed the line. It can work fine, but will probably have problems in the US, where the DA's seem to be more interested in pandering to the electorate or the police than about doing their job, and thus will not prosecute the police.

    61. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly when I first started hearing the details of this I believed he was a spy. The fact that he was "former" military and had gone to linguistic school alone is a rather decent indicator. Happening to want to visit his grandma in a time of such high tension is another extremely suspicious circumstance.

      Countries do not tend to throw the word spy around unless they're pretty damn sure something is going on. Not every American who goes to Iran is labelled a spy. They may be watched but they won't be pounced on until there is sufficient cause for concern.

      Same as here in America.

    62. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could "of". *sigh*.

      Do you honestly think he's the ONLY American in Iran? Do you think that every single American who enters the country is called a spy, locked up, and then sentenced to death on a whim?

      Get a grip dude.

    63. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Torture is still not actually effective in time critical scenarios. All the subject needs to do is tell you some inaccurate information and waste your time.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    64. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      ran's nuclear means and shadowy intentions cannot be ignored. The War on Terror is not about retribution for the attacks of 9/11 or taking out dictators who brutalize the innocent. It's about keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the rogue states and non-state organizations most likely to use them...and the risk here couldn't be clearer.

      Well funnily enough of all the nations that have nuclear weapons on the US has ever used them, and it is the US that leads the invasion of various countries that didn't actually attack it or in fact have any weapons of mass destruction in the name of spreading it's ideological and religious ideology.

      Ignoring your feelings on which side is more or less evil for a moment you can see why Iran and North Korea are worried about being attacked by the US, because that is the sort of thing that the US has a history of doing. And since they know that ultimately they couldn't win a conventional war with the US their only option is long range nuclear missiles.

      The argument that they ware war mongers is weak. If you look at their actions they try to avoid actual wars, despite all the posturing. They don't want to nuke the US because they know they themselves would be wiped out, their goal is protection. The world is in an impossible situation because the US and Israel will never disarm and the US can't back down now, and of course Israel never would anyone on ideological grounds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    65. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Methinks you're confused here. The U.S. most definitely hasn't supported any regime in Iran since the Shah fell in 1979.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    66. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, law enforcement and the military in the United States would never force a confession from someone. Or detain them indefinitely without a trial or charges.

    67. Re:Why is /. repeating Iran's propaganda for them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if you prosecute the policemen if they have indeed crossed the line.

      That really depends on how badly the police want to convict the suspect. If it's personal enough, that may be an acceptable risk for them to take.

  3. Similar to Hollywood? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 0

    Not surprised to see games with propaganda. Hollywood is doing this successfully for years, albeit (probably) without US Government asking for it.

    In fact, in my opinion, Hollywood is the most successful PR machine the US has ever created. It's cultural impact on other countries and cultures is massive. People may politically dislike the US/US government/US military - but at the same time, a lot of them want to mimic The American as defined by Hollywood blockbusters.

    It's a different discussion if this is good or bad, but it's certainly working for the US.

    I am not surprised gaming industry is following it up - with active support from the government.

    1. Re:Similar to Hollywood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you're modded 0, but I'll have to agree. As a Colombian, I've noticed the dramatic switch from the traditional Colombian drug dealer/War lord to the Venezuelan government official. Mexico has a dramatic drug problem (worse than the 1980's Colombian problem), yet they don't seem to be the standard bad guys in the movies.

      Unfortunately, Americans watch the stereotyping, eat it, and then expect their society to accept the immigrants without any prejudice. (yes, I've been asked if I sell drugs many times, and the Colombian officials have been fighting this stereotyping for more than 20 years).

      So, yes, if Hollywood has served this purpose, why the video games wouldn't?

  4. Not a reliable confession by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This guy is in prison in Iran. This would not be the first time that a regime has coerced people to say things that aren't true and to sign false confessions. The US has in the last decade done it also. In the US, even when there is no torture, false confessions can be extracted even in murder cases- http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this sort of program really did exist, but the fact that someone in Iranian custody confessed to it isn't good evidence for the claim.

    1. Re:Not a reliable confession by snero3 · · Score: 1

      Finally someone presenting both sides of the story

      --
      It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
  5. He told them he was a soldier... by Saishuuheiki · · Score: 5, Informative

    They actually discussed this on NPR earlier. When applying to enter the country, he told them about his military history and asked if it would be ok. Telling Iran that you were formerly in the US army is not the kind of thing you would do if you were an actual spy.

    Not to say entering Iran and telling them you used to be in the military is a good idea.

    1. Re:He told them he was a soldier... by n1ywb · · Score: 1

      Not to say that entering Iran at all is a good idea if you're American.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    2. Re:He told them he was a soldier... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Telling Iran that you were formerly in the US army is not the kind of thing you would do if you were an actual spy.

      Unless, of course, you are the type of person who would feign having military experience because Iran is the type of country to assume if you did that that you weren't a spy.

      What it boils down to, is are you the type of guy who would put the military experience in your own dossier? Or would you instead put the military experience in my dossier?

      Truly, I have a dizzying intellect.

      * Besides which, we know that we shouldn't make the second greatest mistake, which would be to get involved in a land war in Asia.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:He told them he was a soldier... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Telling Iran that you were formerly in the US army is not the kind of thing you would do if you were an actual spy."

      Which is why it would make good cover.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:He told them he was a soldier... by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      So... you're saying that he confessed to being a spy in order to throw them of the trail and make them believe that he wasn't a spy when he really was?

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  6. Admitted under duress to Iranian captors by GabrielF · · Score: 2

    Hekmati "admitted" this while he was in Iranian custody - as reported by the Tehran Times. Given the history of the Iranian regime (they seem to arrest people for spying for Israel or the US every couple of weeks) I think we should take this with a grain of salt. Considering that making video games and infiltrating a foreign country require completely different skill sets, I find it hard to believe that the CIA would send their video game developer deep into Iranian territory. (According to the NY Times, he was visiting his Iranian grandparents.)

    1. Re:Admitted under duress to Iranian captors by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      CIA and Mossad kill an iranian scientist every month or so, so Iran is kinda justified in its paranoia.
      Still, this is probably just propaganda and lies.

  7. Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... company has been receiving money from the CIA to design and freely distribute special movies and games with the aim of manipulating public opinion ...

    The CIA also financed the 1954 Animal Farm movie (especially the end of the story is different from the book).

  8. Just going to say by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm pretty sure making pro-American video games is better than invading and occupying countries for decades at a time. I am 100% in favor of military-sponsored video games replacing our current military strategies.

    1. Re:Just going to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the games suck.

    2. Re:Just going to say by gman003 · · Score: 1

      I've played Daikatana, E.T. and DNF. Trust me, I'd rather play them again than get shipped out to some desert to get shot at.

  9. Uhhh... by Shoten · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shouldn't the text be something along the lines of "An American that was visiting his family in Iran who has been sentenced to death by a Sharia court for spying on behalf of the CIA has also claimed in the same prepared statement that he was a video game developer who made games for the CIA, even though there don't seem to be more than a single game that would align itself with Western interests." I mean, let's face it. Trusting Fars (a semi-official Iranian news agency)...these guys have backed their President's view that the Holocaust didn't happen, for Christ's sake...is NOT exactly relying on an unbiased source. For Fars to complain about propaganda is like the pot calling kettle black.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:Uhhh... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      even though there don't seem to be more than a single game that would align itself with Western interests.

      Did you even read their Wikipedia entry? Their last two games were both in Arabic and aimed at a middle eastern audience. And in one of them, the entire goal of the game is to fight "political corruption." That's a pretty odd turn for a company that did English speaking games exclusively until a few years ago.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet all the posts pointing that out get ignored, while the drooling idiots, ALL OF THEM just mindlessly repeating their own "we're the good guys" fantasies, get moderated to high heaven.... fucking nazis :/

    3. Re:Uhhh... by Shoten · · Score: 1

      No...I looked at their actual website though. Here's where we get into the concepts of "primary source" and "secondary source". Their website lists over 150 games, mostly based on FPS concepts; they have combat and wars everywhere from WWII Europe to Vietnam to the Middle East. For this, I would say that the Middle East is just another venue for the game setting, since those games don't have any kind of a majority. Oh, and also...a company that has cranked out 150 games is not exactly blowing the bell curve when they produce something in Arabic, these days. There's a large audience there. And if you look at the Wikipedia entry for "Arab Spring" you will find that fighting corruption is a hot topic there...

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    4. Re:Uhhh... by Clsid · · Score: 1

      You do know that Jews threatened Germany directly right? Minorities are persecuted everywhere, but you can imagine the amount of hatred that it would bring if whole communities will start to embargo and affect trade. Go read http://www.biblestudysite.com/judeawar.htm where you can find more info about it. The main issue I have with the holocaust is that the Jews weren't exactly the group that lost more people. They did the same with gypsies, homosexuals, vagrants, communists, apart from people of all nationalities beginning with the Soviet Union, that make up for far more damage.

      World War 2 in general was pretty horrible regarding human beings killing each others like animals. The atomic bombs were as bad as the holocaust himself in my opinion. A lot of people died in both sides and I do agree with the Iranian guy in one thing, the killing took place in Europe, why should the Palestinians have their lands divided to satisfy European crimes of war.

    5. Re:Uhhh... by gtall · · Score: 1

      To argue the Nazies didn't target Jews for extra special treatment is just silly. Go back and read history before your revisionist propaganda clouds your mind even more.

    6. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A secondary source is a supported analysis (presenting a new concept based on existing materials); for example, a research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal by a degreed expert. Wikipedia does not, has never and will never qualify for this. Perhaps you are thinking of tertiary sources?

  10. Re:Eye for an eye.` by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you want to kill some random person because of his nationality if his nation does something bad? Do you think that killing of Iraqi civilians justifies the killing of American civilians? Retribution may feel good. But it accomplishes very little. At the end of the day, when you kill someone you are killing someone's son or daughter. You are killing someone' mother or father. You are killing a fellow human being.

  11. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He admitted to being a spy. Capture and possible execution is part of the job.

    If they kill an American, we should kill an Iranian.

    Really? On what grounds? Being an Iranian? Why stop there - let's just kill anyone who isn't us. Oh, wait. We're not us. We're them living here.

    Every. Single. One. Of. Us.

  12. except for those dirty Canananadians! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    North America is best America!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:except for those dirty Canananadians! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      except for those dirty Canananadians!

      North America is best America!

      Don't forget the Mexicans!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:except for those dirty Canananadians! by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      What about Alaska? You have very "famous" people there too..

  13. Misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the fact that this guy is in the custody of the Iranian "Revolutionary Court" should have been mentioned in the summary. The brutal treatment handed out by the Iranian "justice" system is not a secret (think Abu Ghraib but still ongoing), and it makes any statements this guy may have made highly suspect. The story here is not that the Americans are trying to do P.R. with games (nothing wrong with that, though concealing it is not good) but rather that the Iranian government is going to murder someone over it.

  14. Re:AHA! by alphatel · · Score: 1, Funny

    My name is Amir Mizra Hekmati, you killed my video games, prepare to die.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  15. Re:Got what he deserved by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Plenty of people do, and most of them don't have any problems coming or going or during their stay for that matter. Whenever you go to another country things can go bad. Just look at what Amanda Knox went through in Perugia, Italy if you don't believe me. At least in theory Italy being a EU country that sort of sham shouldn't have happened, and yet it did.

    Or the US where TX in recent memory executed a foreign citizen who hadn't been informed of his right to contact the embassy when it was still early enough in the process to make a difference. Granted in that case he might well have been guilty, but still it doesn't lead one to the conclusion that foreign travel is without risk.

  16. Transformers by Dukenukemx · · Score: 1

    I figured that out a long time ago. It seems that a lot of modern games and movies that are aimed at potential solders, seems to include a lot about American armies and how bad ass they are. If you've seen the Transformer movies, they were able to somehow involve the US army. As if that's the only army in the world.

    Forget it, I'm playing Skyrim.

  17. The CIA is as clueless as ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During Viet Nam the CIA conducted war in Laos, placed sensors which looked like a turd on the Ho Chi Minh trail, and
    generally wasted a lot of time and money. It didn't change the outcome of the Viet Nam war on damned bit.

    None of their tricky methods are going to work now, either.

    The waste of money is bad, the waste of lives is worse. It will all be a huge waste, that's obvious to anyone with a brain,
    regardless of where that person lives.

    I just have one thing left to say : Ron Paul 2012

    1. Re:The CIA is as clueless as ever by Nidi62 · · Score: 0

      During Viet Nam the CIA conducted war in Laos, placed sensors which looked like a turd on the Ho Chi Minh trail, and generally wasted a lot of time and money. It didn't change the outcome of the Viet Nam war on damned bit.

      Nothing anyone could have done would have won the Vietnam War for us. Hell, it was already won, but politicians lost it for us. If all Ron Paul supporters are as ignorant of history as you are, then its a good thing he has no chance in hell of winning.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  18. Accused of "Waging war on God" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What, God can't defend himself?

    I'll never understand fundies. In one breath they'll say "God is great and all-powerful" and in the next they they freak out claiming that a pitiful human is "waging war" on him.

    1. Re:Accused of "Waging war on God" by jesseck · · Score: 1

      The god has to be real first.

    2. Re:Accused of "Waging war on God" by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a logical explanation would be that God, while all-powerful is so incredibly dumb and/or lazy that he would not do anything even if a human found a way to kill him and actually attempted it. That is why it is up to the fundies to
      1. Find out what God wants (since he is too lazy to say it or maybe not able to speak because of stupidity (maybe, while immortal (naturally, that is, he can still be killed, but won't die of old age), he is still susceptible to age related degradation and given that he is so old, maybe he is in a coma).
      2. Try to implement it.

    3. Re:Accused of "Waging war on God" by tjbp · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that rampant inconsistency of theirs can't have anything to do with their use of theocracy as a disguise for tyrannical rule by a megalomaniac elite. No siree, they just haven't thought about God long enough. Eventually they'll realise their error and come over our place for beer and hamburgers.

    4. Re:Accused of "Waging war on God" by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Except that it's never about God. It's always about a charismatic individual's self interest. The only thing God does is get people to listen and then take the blame for when things don't go according to plan.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  19. Impressive resume by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Apparently, not only did he work for the CIA and, according to this summary, as a video game developer, but his family has also said that he owns a linguistics company (as reported by CNN). Remember, Iran loves to arrest Americans and charge them with espionage, even if they are just a few naive hikers who got lost.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  20. And what if it was? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how the original post assumes that what the U.S. does isn't for the best.

    What, you never considered that the U.S.'s actions are for the best? We have a word for that here. It's called biased.

    The U.S. wins conflicts and then gives back the country to their people, going back decades. What part of 'evil empire' is 'give it back', anyhow? Just curious. 'Empire' and 'return' seem pretty mutually exclusive.

    1. Re:And what if it was? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What, you never considered that the U.S.'s actions are for the best? We have a word for that here. It's called biased."

      I have two words for you: nazi idiot. now drool elsewhere.

  21. Well... by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...as sympathetic as I am to the guy, since he was there to see his grandmother, he's going to have a hell of a time persuading anyone he was not working for the CIA if indeed the CIA was funding the company he worked for, and that he was aware the company was involved in psy ops*. Doesn't matter if the company wasn't part of the CIA, we know the CIA runs companies as fronts (from previous CIA scandals) and since the CIA would have to be incredibly stupid to reveal all the companies that were fronts.

    Iran, therefore, is in a difficult position. The guy is essentially being paid CIA money for carrying out CIA-commissioned tasks, which is not going to go down well there no matter what. Psy ops also require some form of feedback - you can't manipulate in a vaccuum, which is a major factor in North Korea's isolation - and that means feet on the ground at some point. It must have been obvious to everyone involved (except for the poor guy involved) as to what would happen next.

    I honestly doubt he really is a spy, they're generally not stupid enough to be that obvious, but I do believe he's "collateral damage" that the US considers wholly acceptable for intelligence-gathering purposes.**

    *Manipulating the perception of another, rather than giving them information and free choice, is a "psychological operation" of the kind believed to be used in covert ops. Doesn't matter if it's merely the opinion of a boss or the opinion of a sponsor that's being expressed, with no military or intelligence involvement at all, it is still a psy op because it is still about manipulation and not choice. Had I not put in an explanation, but relied entirely on emotive description, that would also be psy op/manipulation. Because I am stating what is meant and why the choice of words, there is information and therefore freedom of choice and therefore it is not manipulative.

    **Intelligence gathering will always involve collateral damage. You can't avoid it. Totally innocent people will inevitably be sacrificed, which is why this idea that you control your destiny is such a laugh. All nations gather intelligence from all nations (themselves as much as anyone else), all nations need to at this point in history, and therefore all nations will have wholly innocent victims. The British have been investigating a whole host of scandals and "collateral damage" from internal investigation by the police recently, after a couple of undercover operatives defected to the organizations they were spying on and blew the lid on some very shady dealings.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Well... by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      Totally innocent people will inevitably be sacrificed, which is why this idea that you control your destiny is such a laugh.

      As much as most, if not all, of what you're saying is spot on. Why try to draw a correlation between the loss of innocent life, and a philosophical perspective like Free-Will and control of your own Destiny? It's a completely different argument.

    2. Re:Well... by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      well yes there are some places you really don't go if you work for certain companies who have links with your government I used to work for BT and they where considered "crown forces" and therefore valid targets by the IRA - there are defiantly bits of NI I would think twice about going to even today. I certainly would not say my "Catholic" last name. (probably a few bars in Boston as well)

    3. Re:Well... by jd · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing free will, but I am disputing that you can truly control your own destiny if, in the political chess matches of the world, you can be sacrificed at a moment's notice for the benefit of others. I have a hard time reconciling the idea that anyone, anywhere, in any country, can be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency (a blood cult if ever there was one) with the idea that a person can decide how things are going to end.

      If you liken your life to a book, then free will is everything between the second to the second-to-last page. Destiny, the very last page of all, is something some people get a hand in writing, though not all, and I would seriously question if anybody can honestly claim that even one person has ever written it in its entirety.

      It is the "not all" part that gives me greatest concern with my previous post. Way too many people don't get any say in that final page at all, often because of some outside interest or other finding it more expedient for the person to have no say in it.

      Now, what other people mean by "Destiny" may be very different. That's fine, and from your reply I'm guessing that you do indeed use a different definition of Destiny. That would obviously change the nature of the argument, so if I'm correct then simply ignore that piece as it only applies to a very specific definition.

      Ok, but it's still a philosophical argument? No, not with the definition I'm using. The definition I'm using has nothing to do with abstractions, it has to do with the concrete notion that if player A can offer person P as a sacrificial victim to player B, and if P has no say in the actions of A or B, then for all P so offered to B there exists no instance of P who has a say over what happens next. They are hostages of fortune, closer to the thralls of Nordic times in terms of their power to influence events than free and independent citizens.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Well... by couchslug · · Score: 0

      He's clearly a raging idiot. Americans should not visit Iran.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Well... by couchslug · · Score: 0

      "I honestly doubt he really is a spy, they're generally not stupid enough to be that obvious, but I do believe he's "collateral damage" that the US considers wholly acceptable for intelligence-gathering purposes."

      He's an idiot at best, visiting an enemy country with his work history. I hope they chop his head off as a lesson to other naive folks. He'd be more useful to the US if they do that.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Well... by couchslug · · Score: 0

      Why was that downmodded? Iran is a vicious Mullocracy whose government blithely kills its own people when they protest!

      Americans have ZERO reason to visit Iran. Choose one country and stick to it. Dumbass insisted on visiting relatives despite his military history. If I had relatives who refused to immigrate I'd leave them and not look back.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Well... by gtall · · Score: 2

      You are right, Iran is in a difficult position. Run by a bunch of religious zealots who believe stoning for adultery or homosexuality surely would make anyone feel like the rest of the world is out to get them. Conjuring Jew hatred to help in the Holy War begun in the 600 to help the Shi'ites overcome the Sunnis is a hard row to hoe but someone has to do it. Running sham elections to prevent the people from living in a free country is really hard, there's ballot boxes to be stuffed (local toadiies don't come cheap, ya' know), candidates to be imprisoned so they cannot run, secret police to silent the opposition, etc. All this takes a lot of oil money and keeping the faithful in line to properly hate the West, Christians, Ba'hais, women, Jews, homosexuals...one wonders at how they hold up over all these hardships. And just think, within a few years and they have their nuclear weapons, then they'll really be able force their neighbors to see things the way they do.

      Okay, let's all take a moment in silent remembrance of the difficult position the Iranians find themselves...sniff...now I'm all teary eyed.

  22. given by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his work history he was a fool to visit iran

    1. Re:given by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Why? Was he working against Iran? If not, then he should have little to fear.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:given by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Iran and the US are ENEMIES. Islam is the enemy of secular civilization, and the Mullocracy are ENEMIES of the Western world and of any country aligned with Israel.

      The stupid shit apparently didn't get the memo. I hope they shorten his neck as an object lesson to other naive humans.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  23. Re:Got what he deserved by jesseck · · Score: 1

    I think part of the problem with this guy traveling overseas is that he is a US Marine- I would think he'd be more paranoid and not travel to Iran. Those Iranians don't look fondly upon the US.

  24. So much for .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... intelligence gathering.

    The CIA is supposed to be monitoring events and gathering intelligence to support our administration's decision making process. Ideally, it should be a neutral observer, reporting facts discovered in various nations be they good, bad or whatever. Asking the CIA to effect changes in governments or foreign groups and then asking them to report the outcome is just plain bad management. Now they'll be motivated to bias the data to make their missions appear successful. And to hide their mistakes, right up to the point at which we trigger a revolution or terrorism in response to our meddling.

    Its even worse when they have to convince the public at large that their missions are needed and productive. If the CIA wants to be in the active intervention and propaganda business, then we're going to need an entire department of Bradley Mannings to report back the truth about their performance.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:So much for .... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "If the CIA wants to be in the active intervention and propaganda business, then we're going to need an entire department of Bradley Mannings to report back the truth about their performance."

      Considering the lack of actual damage to US interests, it may be that Manning was spoon-fed controversial content which couldn't be publicly addressed any other way (salted with some useful info).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  25. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He admitted to being a spy. Capture and possible execution is part of the job.

    If I imprison you, torture you, and threaten your family, I'm pretty sure I can get you to admit to being a spy. Doesn't mean you are one. I didn't realize imprisonment and execution as a political propaganda tool came along with simply visiting family.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  26. Oh, I am sure that it is all true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    After all, the fact that he has a gun to his head, a gov. appointed lawyer (in spite of the family hiring a private one), and most likely loads of torture, has ZERO bearings on his saying these things.

    Lets get it over with and just bomb Iran. All of this foreplay gets SO old. Heck, if we must, lets move an old carrier into position and allow Iran to take it out and then we cans send in loads of bombs there.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Are you volunteering to pick up an M-16 and lead the charge?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    2. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about cruise missiles and drones. YOu do not have to put troops on the grounds.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you want to make sure you hit the right targets. Instead of, y'know, accidentally bombing families...

      Don't call for war unless you're honourable enough to do the dirty work yourself.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    4. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      That is true for terrorists living amongst a population. For a military base, that is a non-issue. By definition, it is all military. And as to their nuke facilities, they are all military since they do not open it up.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Open it up to who? Flip the roles here... Say Iran had a carrier sitting off the coast and was going to bomb the office you work at unless you let their inspectors in to make sure you aren't doing something they don't like. After all, by definition it's all military because somebody in your office voted for the guy who bombed them first.

      Have you ever been to a military base? How are you going to know it's something you want to hit? Do you even care or do you just want to bomb something?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    6. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I have been to a military base. What about it? You can see large amounts from space and drones

      And who said that we are going to bomb office buildings. Bombing bases is not the same thing as bombing downtown UNLESS their military is hiding amongst the population.

      And PER THE NUCLEAR TREATY THAT THEY SIGNED, they are required to open all of their nuclear facilities for all of us to see that it was civilian. Yet, they refuse that, which is why the UN says that there is enough evidence to show that they are making bombs and not just civilian. Hell, the fact that they said that centerfuges were purely about nuclear power and then suddenly claimed that it is about nuclear medicine should be MORE than enough to convince a rational person that Iran is full of shit.

      And yes, we do that. In addition, USSR and now Russia DO see the inside of our military nuclear facilities as well. ALL PER THE NUCLEAR TREATY.

      So, your points are total BS.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      My only point was that this chickenhawk attitude of sending "loads of bombs" from the nice clean safety of a drone control station where you don't need to experience the destruction and impact on the lives of people (many of whom would be innocent and uninvolved) is an extremely dangerous path. You end up with armies that no longer fight each other, and instead just fight the civilian population of the opposing nation.

      That's why I asked if you would be willing to pick up a rifle and lead the charge. You want to bring war to somebody else, but not go there yourself.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    8. Re:Oh, I am sure that it is all true by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I tell you that we will bomb military operations such as bases and nuclear facilities and you scream that we will bomb loads of innocent lives specifically civilians. What civilians are there on Iranian military bases?

      And I have DONE my service, but I doubt that you have. BTW, I am NOT in a hurry to watch us go to war. HOWEVER, when a fucked up 2-bit nation like iran grabs our citizens, then yeah, I say fuck them and lets blow their military back to the stone ages. I also have damn little issue with taking out their leaders.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. Re:Got what he deserved by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    What kind of idiot American actually travels to Iran anymore?

    The same kind that goes on a "nature hike" on the Iranian border: a spy.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  28. Re:Got what he deserved by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    My neighbors do all the time. Some of them go 2x a year. They still love the ppl, just differ with the government.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After some of the info that has come out about US methods...
    We have no more moral high ground on which to stand and denounce any other country for anything. Including torture.

    It's impossible to even pretend we are the 'good guys' anymore. And if we don't have that image to deal with now..
    We might as well be the best bad guys we can be.

    Lets go all out. Nuke the middle east. Big smoking craters all over. Fuckem. Give them something to really hate.
    Enough of this 'winning the hearts and minds' crap. Lets win the destroyed ruins.

    (i can't even tell if im being scarcastic anymore. my country is no better than the barbaric assholes we're fighting. All of us disgust me.)

  30. Re:Eye for an eye.` by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    No. He admitted it with a gun to his head. Not much of an admission is it. And that is based on what the Iranian gov is claiming.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  31. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Loether · · Score: 1

    Exactly, In fact if he really was a spy he would be far more likely to withstand torture and interrogation.

    --
    TODO create witty sig.
  32. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retribution only accomplishes nothing if you merely strive to achieve parity. Have one of your people killed? You kill ten of the enemy. At least this way, they'll run out before you do.

  33. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the phrase "eye for an eye" carried an original meaning of a call for just punishment which suited the crime rather than excessive or retributive punishment. That is, it was meant "only an eye for an eye" instead of "a life for an eye". This "Chicago way" of escalating responses leads to conflict, and that's not the goal of criminal justice.

    In our modern times, "one death for one death" is generally excessive, especially if it's "death of an innocent for death of a 'spy'".

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  34. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methinks you missed the movie quote.... (HINT: Think Andre the Giant)

  35. yeah by unity100 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    we see how well it is working for israel. if not for the inordinate amounts of american taxpayers' money they have been gulping since their founding, they would have been overrun by 10-12 nations decades ago.

    stupidity. priceless.

    1. Re:yeah by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      Actually when the US withheld weapons during the initial stages of the 1967 'Six Day War' the Israelis decided to create their own defense industry (and supporting scientific facilities). Now many of the innovations that people attribute to the US actually are designed in Israel (mainstream Intel CPUs, helmet-mounted sights, laser weaponry, advanced SAMs). I understand some Israeli politicians would like the US aid to stop since it comes with strings. It is not the US funding that is keeping Israel going - it is the sheer 'bloody-mindedness' of the Israeli citizens that kept them from being overrun (well before the US supplied any money). This bloody-mindedness is both a great strength and a great weakness.

    2. Re:yeah by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      strings ? those strings fell away long ago. and their bloody mindedness has kept all these wars going.

  36. Darn, not CoD then by tjbp · · Score: 0

    Who was honestly hoping the videogame in question might be one we'd heard of? I was hoping the real news item would be about blowing open an intelligence body manipulating game developers covertly. Not so. This is their site:

    http://www.kumawar.com/

    "Kuma War is a series of playable recreations of real events in the War on Terror. Nearly 100 playable missions bring our soldiers' heroic stories to life, and you can get them all right now, for free. Stop watching the news and get in the game!"

    Free games that are openly biased towards the US campaign, all the while encouraging you to not watch the news. CIA-funded? Wait, REALLY?! Gasp.

  37. The Iranian way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They rescue your fishermen from pirates, you execute one of their "spies". That's the Iranian way.

  38. On a completely unrelated note by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    Who plays America's Army!? http://www.americasarmy.com/

  39. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

    Didn't we already kill Iranians?

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  40. Depends what kind of spy he is. by raehl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If he's the kind of spy who is paid by the CIA to create and distribute propaganda material (in this case, video games) to subvert a country's government, that might be exactly the kind of spy who doesn't get much interrogation training.

    Is the person stationed at a US Embassy abroad who goes to all the elite social dinners with various parties of state and covertly sends intel reports back to the CIA a spy? Most would say yes.

    Is the Iranian former-marine helping develop propaganda for Iranian consumption under contract with the CIA a spy?

    I don't think you'd say he's definitely NOT a spy...

    Death seems a bit extreme however. Deportation would seem more appropriate. And hopefully this is all just a bunch of diplomatic posturing and deportation in exchange for some other consideration is what this comes out to.

    1. Re:Depends what kind of spy he is. by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      You mean when the war is imminent, they would show good will and release him? On what ground?

    2. Re:Depends what kind of spy he is. by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American and Israeli spies have arranged for "accidents" to happen to Iranian scientists, it's not unrealistic at all for them to act very aggressively against caught spies and suspected spies.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Depends what kind of spy he is. by couchslug · · Score: 0

      It's reasonable, and no loyal American would even consider visiting Iran were he NOT a spy.

      He's either a fool or he's guilty.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Depends what kind of spy he is. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between acting aggressively and acting carelessly. Surely there are Iranian spies or other intelligence assets in Israeli or US custody that Iran would be willing to trade for. If they have something we want and we have something they want then it's in the best interests of both sides to make a deal. The exchange of captured spies has long been the custom among civilized nations, even mortal enemies. There's no dishonor in it. The Iranians will not kill their hostage because they need him alive and unharmed to make a deal.

    5. Re:Depends what kind of spy he is. by sentimental.bryan · · Score: 1

      Not quite as subtle as that, I was under the impression they just blew them up. Not much ambiguity there.

    6. Re:Depends what kind of spy he is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it.

      Thats all anyone is really asking. If Iran can prove that American or Israeli spies are operating within Iran, then yeah, I can see how the behavior may be justified.

      But in this case or the case of Iranian scientists dying in "accidents"?

      How do we know its not just domestic infighting? Or Al-Qaeda? Or maybe Iraqi spies? Or maybe Russian and Chinese spies trying to make things difficult for the U.S.?

  41. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... but what if we killed an Iranian spy? I'm sure we have some locked up in secret facilities... Or at least someone who is willing to say they are.

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  42. Re:Got what he deserved by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

    just differ with the government.

    With a government like Iran that's not a good attitude to hold when travelling there. At least not held openly.

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  43. That's not torture. by raehl · · Score: 0

    That's interrogation. There isn't a stark line between the two, but one of the points of interrogation is to make the subject uncomfortable/stressed, with the idea that even a stressed individual won't have difficulty recalling the truth, while it's more difficult for a stressed individual to maintain a false story.

    Obviously you wouldn't want to spend your Saturdays being interrogated, but I'm willing to accept contributing the occasional few hours answering some questions as part of the process.

    Anyway, merely being made uncomfortable is not torture.

  44. is there info on the actual games? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    As a fan of propaganda videogames, this is relevant to my interests.

    1. Re:is there info on the actual games? by c0mpliant · · Score: 1

      I played one of their games years ago, it was a squad based 3rd person shooter. It was very much a US propaganda piece. It featured actual missions that took place in real life, but highly sanatised. Very little if any blood from what I remember, no pesky civilians in the way, US soldiers always acted professionally and used restraint before using weapons... I always wondered why the game was free and how they were making any money. Now it makes a bit more sense.

      Now as for whether or not he deserves to be in prison, let alone killed, I don't think so. But I think its time for double standards to be recognised by everyone. Iran spies on the US. The US spies on Iran. Iran tortures people. The US tortures people.

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
  45. well, can some explain by superwiz · · Score: 1

    what is the difference between propaganda and marketing?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:well, can some explain by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      propaganda is concerned with selling ideas, marketing with selling goods.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:well, can some explain by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      i have to disagree.

      I would say that "propaganda" (17th century coined term which originated from "to propagate" information) is a marketing itself; a "deceptive marketing" at that.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  46. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    We're not us. We're them living here.

    Every. Single. One. Of. Us.

    Bitch, please.
    -Native Americans

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  47. Wrong. by khasim · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's a big difference between confirming suspected intel and turning a prisoner into propaganda.

    Torture does NOT get "intel".

    Torture gets CONFESSIONS.

    This guy confessed to being a CIA spy working in Iran. By your "logic", they "confirmed" the "intel" they had on him.

    The same as our people did with the people we tortured.

    Which is the reason why we should NEVER use torture. It does NOT work in gathering accurate information and it DOES cloud the issue of who actually did what, when, where and why.

    Confessions are ONLY useful in propaganda.

    There is also a tremendous gulf between broadly applied and completely opportunistic use of it and the "graded escalation" the US goes through before utilizing distasteful tools.

    No. Once you resort to torture you have given up on getting accurate information and you're just looking for a confession or revenge.

    1. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference between confirming suspected intel and turning a prisoner into propaganda.

      Torture does NOT get "intel".

      Torture gets CONFESSIONS.

      This guy confessed to being a CIA spy working in Iran. By your "logic", they "confirmed" the "intel" they had on him.

      The same as our people did with the people we tortured.

      Which is the reason why we should NEVER use torture. It does NOT work in gathering accurate information and it DOES cloud the issue of who actually did what, when, where and why.

      Confessions are ONLY useful in propaganda.

      There is also a tremendous gulf between broadly applied and completely opportunistic use of it and the "graded escalation" the US goes through before utilizing distasteful tools.

      No. Once you resort to torture you have given up on getting accurate information and you're just looking for a confession or revenge.

      Bullcrap.

      Torture can net you verifiable truths. Period.
      There is a degree of torture where freedom for information is a good bargain, and a degree of torture where death for information is a good bargain.

      That should frame the philosophical debate on torture, but you have to be man enough to admit it does work first.

    2. Re:Wrong. by gknoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Torture can net you verifiable truths. Period.

      No, Torture only gets you what the prisoner believes you want to hear.

      If an interrogator straps you to a chair, and tells you that they know you've been kidnapping neighborhood kids (and you know you haven't), and if you sign this confession you'll only get 10 years instead of 20, you'll tell me to fuck off and ask for a lawyer. You might even accept that it's better to go to prison for a crime you didn't commit than confess to lies.

      When the interrogator gets dissatisfied with your refusal to confess, and they start cutting off fingers and toes, how long do you hold out before confessing to a lie? When they start to immerse your head in a bucket long enough that you're choking on water, or start applying sharp implements to sensitive (or irreplaceable) parts of your body, how long do you maintain the truth, rather than tell them what they want to hear?

    3. Re:Wrong. by johnny+cashed · · Score: 2

      I don't even think they need to resort to cutting off fingers and toes. That's messy and unpleasant. Plus it leaves direct evidence of the torture. That is the beautiful thing about "enhanced interrogation" (torture by any other name). Sleep deprivation, sensory overload (music for example), 24/7 bright light, 24/7 darkness, no windows, naked, cold, hot, nothing but a locked door and a drain, some food, some water, no toilet, no toilet paper. And then the daily water-boarding (with a defibrillator handy, so you don't accidentally die), drugging your food, giving you food you hate, restraints so you can't try to kill yourself, god knows what else they could do. You'd want to die. But it wouldn't leave a single physical scar. Mentally, you can break a person. They will say anything to leave the hell you've created for them.

      I'm not saying that the CIA has used all these techniques. Water-boarding is known. That alone is bad enough. Matter of fact, you probably don't need half the things on my list, just some restraints with your head inclined so your lungs don't fill with water. From Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib to "black sites" many of the things on my list have occurred under the control of the US government. Doesn't matter if it were a few "bad apples", many of the things on my list were permitted under "enhanced interrogation"

    4. Re:Wrong. by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 2

      Bullcrap.

      Torture can net you verifiable truths. Period. There is a degree of torture where freedom for information is a good bargain, and a degree of torture where death for information is a good bargain.

      That should frame the philosophical debate on torture, but you have to be man enough to admit it does work first.

      You do realize that's how Stalin got people to confess for the show trials of the thirties, right?

    5. Re:Wrong. by Loopy · · Score: 1

      How do you think torture sessions go? Do you think it's multiple choice? Or even simple yes/no? "Hi Mr. Terrorist, Sir. We heard Jamiya Islamia was going to bomb Atlanta. Is this true?" No. Most of the guys doing the interrogation have some studies (formal or informal) in psychology. They know better than to ask leading questions. "You are planning to bomb Atlanta, right? ANSWER OR WE CUT ANOTHER FINGER OFF!" Well, duh: "YES YES I AM PLEASE DON"T KILL ME!" Morons.

    6. Re:Wrong. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "No, Torture only gets you what the prisoner believes you want to hear."

      That's an asserted conclusion. Intelligent torture can logically net useful information. For example, verifiable information may be demanded and torture thus used to obtain intel.

      Torture even broke trained US aviators in the Hanoi Hilton. The poor intel gleaned was due to cultural disconnects which a sophisticated interrogator could eliminate.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Wrong. by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      No, torture can get you verifiable truths. So you have to have the right questions. If a treasure is hidden in a forest and you know who knows the location then the location can be extracted through torture and it can be verified. If you're asking "who is helping the resistance"(nowadays we call them terrorists) then you get a name but verification is hard. So there's a lot of additional torturing of additional people in order to get something verifiable. or not, you just keep working on unreliable information. "Where's the drop-off location" looks like something verifiable.

      Part of the discussion will be about what will be your "typical torture case". As in what's the code to stop the atomic bomb that's hidden in newyork from exploding. The point there is that an imagined or at least very untypical case is used to represent a category. Therefore if you accept the representative example then you have to accept the conclusion. That is plain wrong and it often is very dishonest. The reality is massive use of low-yield strategies of just random torturing to see if it turns up something that you can build on. It's about of terrorizing the population and recruiting informants. I'm not saying that doesn't work either.

      I'd rather focus on how low you'd go in order to score in a conflict, rather than whether it actually works.

    8. Re:Wrong. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      True. However, it's really easy for someone to imagine that they can withstand things like sleep deprivation or heat/cold extremes Long Enough to be rescued or let go. For lay-people at home, going to the extreme is the easiest way to describe a point where nearly all of us would say anything (even lie) to avoid further pain.

    9. Re:Wrong. by gknoy · · Score: 1

      With the right questions, and a victim who is actually guilty, you might get verifiable truths. However, that already depends on the person actually being "guilty" or having knowledge. In the case where your victim is the Wrong Guy, you could easily get them to confess to stuff (especially if the interrogation is contaminated with stuff that the interrogators know but tell the victim) that they didn't do.

      Also, consider torturing the Wrong Guy. (We'll pretend that the interrogator doesn't know he's the Wrong Guy.) At some point, you ask him for a verifiable truth about Something, and he doesn't give it. He claims not to know, to be the wrong guy. When torturing, you threaten him with (or enact) bodily harm. You still won't know whether he's lying about "not knowing", and you'll have harmed the Wrong Guy. The fact that in the (potentially rare) case where you have the Right Guy you can sometimes get good info (but often might not) does not excuse using torture. Not even when you're Jack Bauer trying to save the world.

  48. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans probably want to be careful with that kind of philosophy considering the actions of their government.

  49. Incorrect. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Your post can only be relevant under two circumstances: 1) GP having a history of supporting torture, or 2) Policy makers who support torture now pointing out the unreliability of Hekmati's confession. Neither is true.

    Bullshit.

    Option 3 - pointing out that the same people who claimed that "enhanced interrogation" was necessary when we did it will now claim that such a confession was "tortured" out of an "innocent" man by the "evil" Iranians.

    Even if those people were NOT "Policy makers".

    1. Re:Incorrect. by poity · · Score: 1

      Where is the source to back your claim that it is the same people who "claimed that 'enhanced interrogation' was necessary" who are now saying that "such a confession was [unreliable]"?

      It seems you're making the mistake of grouping everyone in the government as one, which is the same error that you seem to want to take issue with when you mock the usage of the word "evil" as a descriptor for Iran.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  50. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MAD's an interesting thing.

    And before you start: a nuke or two does not induct you into the MAD club. When the nukes required to glass a fraction of us would glass yourself and your neighbor(s), then it's not really mutually assured destruction, now is it?

  51. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maintaining a healthy economy requires killing to keep industry demand and r&d working at a healthy pace. That is especially important for the American economy, since it is dominated by defense contracting work (inputs and processing, including subcontractors, etc.). Also, keep in mind that the government is similar to a company, except it is much more conservative. Companies are unable to last much longer than 100 years, however, governments have a goal of stability that should last longer than 2-3 generations, but the only type of government bankruptcy is facilitated with war. So wars help to eliminate problematic governments, reducing the competition for natural resources, helping to expand the ruling elite and further suppresses the working class (middle/low classes), which means wars help to maintain order and reduce freedom. In culture that focuses on personal desires, rather than the desires of the community, war just seems like a naturally necessary occurrence to help support the class structure (i.e., the ruling elite).

  52. Re:Eye for an eye.` by lexsird · · Score: 1

    Which one though? Selective targeting is best for maximum desired results.

    If they think snatching up one person and calling him a spy and threatening to kill him is going to make us leave the Middle East, they are very high. All it's going to do is piss us off, giving our propaganda machines more to work with. Seriously, the American war machine is desperate for a hot war to perpetuate it. By all means be stupid enough to put your balls out there so it can shoot them off.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  53. orly? by shentino · · Score: 1

    "which he confessed to"

    Did he give the confession freely or was it beaten out of him for political reasons to make the US look bad?

    It's no secret that Iran hates their guts.

    1. Re:orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so? look up kuma games, instead of being redundant -- idiot.

  54. Re:Got what he deserved by St.Creed · · Score: 1

    I'm still not so sure about the "sham" thing with mrs. Knox. She went out of her way to make herself suspicious in any possible way. That attitude would not have gotten anyone off in the US either. She's lucky that in Italy, they don't (usually) shoot first and ask questions later. The fact they couldn't make it stick doesn't mean she didn't do it, either. However, there were errors in the investigation so she was released. She wasn't tortured either.

    Would you suggest that a random EU citizen would get better treatment in any US jail when behaving as suspicious as mrs. Knox? Given the way things happen in US courts according to the news we see and hear, I strongly doubt it.

    --
    Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  55. check the propaganda games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ask me he was working on propaganda games. Have you checked the place where he worked? I am not saying that he was actually spying, that would be rather stupid given his profile that could easily attract attention.

    check these 'games': http://www.kumawar.com/

  56. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no sympathy for this guy... Trying to spread US propaganda.
    The US government is the world's largest terrorist organization. They started two wars that have killed over a hundred thousand civilians each, they don't respect human rights, they spy on and lie to their "allies", etc. Anybody fighting for the US government or helping them in any way, such as spreading propaganda, is an enemy of the world and of humanity. I don't wish the guy to be killed, but whatever happens to him won't stop me from sleeping at night.

    1. Re:Who cares? by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's what we're up to. It makes perfect sense. No falsifiability or critical thinking failures there, no sir.

  57. Re:Eye for an eye.` by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    It's a pretty safe bet that many Pakistanis probably feel the same way about us, and they have nukes, too. Are you going to lead the revolution against the powers that be here in the U.S.? No? Didn't think so. Perhaps you'd better be careful what you wish for, and think through the implications of what you're saying before spouting off.

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  58. Re:Eye for an eye.` by parlancex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He admitted to being a spy. Capture and possible execution is part of the job.

    If I imprison you, torture you, and threaten your family, I'm pretty sure I can get you to admit to being a spy. Doesn't mean you are one. I didn't realize imprisonment and execution as a political propaganda tool came along with simply visiting family.

    I think it's hilarious to hear Americans complain about this practice. I suppose all the confessions that were elicited at Guantánamo Bay are completely different, and totally legit(tm).

  59. Re:Eye for an eye.` by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    If the enemy thinks the same way, as retribution they'll kill 100 of you. Which will be followed by you killing 1000 of them, them killing 10000 of you, you killing 100000 of them, them killing a million of you, ... in the end, it won't matter any more who runs out of people to kill first.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  60. We haven't seen anything yet by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Bradley Manning allegedly leaked STATE DEPARTMENT information; the level of the leaked information was LOW security information.

    We've not had any significant CIA leaks ... ever? Former people disclosing stuff in various ways without any evidence; but I can't think of any actual CIA document leaks can you?

    1. Re:We haven't seen anything yet by PPH · · Score: 1

      No. But its about time. If the CIA is going to be marketing themselves and their performance to the public, then we deserve some ability to fact check their claims.

      If they confined their PR to the Senate intelligence committee, I wouldn't be as concerned. We expect our representatives to audit their performance (given that committee members have the clearance to do so).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  61. Re:Eye for an eye.` by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    Those confessions are the key hang-up in bringing chargea against many detainees. We wont allow tjem to be used as evidence against torture victims, but, still don't want to release them. Its a terrible black mark on the nation that we havent found a better solution than idefinote detainment, but you cam be damn sure GITMO evebtually boomerangs to destroy the credibility and freesoms of the folks that created it and allowed it to persist. I know that is shallow comfort, but hey, its not likeany modern nation would execute a tortured man based on his confession... right?

  62. What? by khasim · · Score: 1

    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

    That is correct. It is your comments that make you a troll.

    Where is the source to back your claim that it is the same people who "claimed that 'enhanced interrogation' was necessary" who are now saying that "such a confession was [unreliable]"?

    This is Slashdot. You're looking for Wikipedia.

    It seems you're making the mistake of grouping everyone in the government as one, which is the same error that you seem to want to take issue with when you mock the usage of the word "evil" as a descriptor for Iran.

    Really? Is that the best you have? You're going to completely skip over all the non-governmental people in the media who kept claiming that "enhanced interrogation" was necessary and claim that I was talking about some monolithic government?

    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

    I don't have a "thin skin".

  63. Re:Eye for an eye.` by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or he complains about both. Do you agree with everything the government of your country does? I know I don't.

  64. Re:Eye for an eye.` by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm actually pretty sure we owe them a lot of eyes... In the greater balance of eyes for eyes, we are waaaay in debt.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  65. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    Looks like I offended someone. Gosh, you must have entered 6th grade to carry such esoteric knowledge!

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  66. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent was making a joke fuckwit.

  67. Re:Eye for an eye.` by couchslug · · Score: 0

    He visited Iran and is of Iranian ancestry. That's "volunteering" for whatever they wish to do to him.

    The technicality of his US citizenship doesn't negate the fact no one should visit Iran who doesn't support the Mullocracy.

    I'd prefer they execute him.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  68. Re:Got what he deserved by couchslug · · Score: 0

    You got downmodded by fools. No reason exists for anyone not a spy or a fool to go there. Same deal with the "hikers" who got scooped up a while back.

    The most arrogant Americans are those who think they can go anywhere in the world without consequences.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  69. Old news by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    What do you think that stupid flash game about occupation and islamic terrorists was? It was propaganda. Complaining about propaganda games now is just hypocrisy in action.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  70. What, no mention of Al Gore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine my surprise that there was no mention of Al Gore "challenging companies to create new games that address the same issues facing his Climate Reality Project". http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2012/01/06/4192/al-gore-looking-few-good-sustainable-games/

  71. No Spy Here - Typical Iran by layer3switch · · Score: 1

    1. There is no such thing as "former" Marine.
    2. No matter how dire consequence there may be, a death penalty doesn't help either party, US or Iran, especially Iran.
    3. Forget the sanction talk for now and go back to negotiation. Econ. sanction didn't work and doesn't work without stepping on our own foot anyway. There is no gain here, so use it for our advantage on negotiation table.
    4. Iranian gov't taking political hostages isn't new, but this is an enormous precedence in pushing toward future Iranian nuclear disarmament. US might be out of Iraq, but US just delivered F-15s to Saudi.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    1. Re:No Spy Here - Typical Iran by couchslug · · Score: 0

      He chose to visit Iran. No sane American would do that. If I had family members there I'd pay to help them escape but if they want to stay, fuck 'em.

      The life of this idiot isn't worth anything. If Iran kills him, it's useful to the US (and an object lesson not to visit enemy countries!).

      "1. There is no such thing as "former" Marine."

      Shitbags come in ALL uniforms, and the stupid don't all get weeded out though the Corps does a better job than the Army (who can't afford to be choosy, can you say "morality waivers"?).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:No Spy Here - Typical Iran by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      There is no room for some libertarian free will talk here. Regardless of one's choosing, US does not prohibit traveling to Iran. In fact, it's prevailing that Switzerland is interim de-facto protection power over US interests in Iran, so the point is moot.

      But to point out how "useful" one can be in situation like this without de-humanizing anyone regardless of nationality, we have to consider some facts here. Is Amir Mizra Hekmati a US spy? As you may well know and as many people do, clandestine operatives are anonymous and are not in business of becoming a collateral damage. Matter of fact, most of us just don't know, can't know, won't know and don't have to know, because nobody needs to know. And those are the facts we are dealing with.

      So what if he isn't a spy? Then one must think about why Iranian gov't is boasting and carrying out "court prosecution" of an innocent person. Of all places, state controlled media in Iran, what is the point of all this propaganda?

      Even if Amir Mizra Hekmati is a silent partner in NCS clandestine effort, how much credibility in the region will US lose in the wake of so called "Arab Spring"? Or better yet, should US care? What context is this leading US into? Is this even relevant?

      Now here comes the point.

      Iran wants... no, Iran IS taking this opportunity to boost its regime's influence and credibility over neighboring region during this turbulent time. Amir Mizra Hekmati is just a pawn caught in the middle. If US doesn't do anything as some suggested we take "Don't Do Something, Just Stand There!" approach, we can be assure that Iran will bank on every opportunity to takeover US influence in the region. And in the back of my mind (small mind at that!), I think, Iranian gov't is playing a game of double jeopardy with US; damn if you do, damn if you don't.

      Therefore I think, US should be in damage control mode to minimize any further erosion and get back to negotiation. To do that, we may need to rollback some of recent Obama's Iran Econ. Sanction executive orders if need arise. After all, what does Iran have to lose as the recent intel shows that they already have nuke bunkers anyway? By killing US interest during negotiation, Iran has everything to lose, including credibility.

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  72. Tin foil hat paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a load of bullshit, now if you excuse me, im going to have some fun playing my exciting new game, Call of Duty:Propaganda. I heard it has some really good action story filled with deep subliminal messages eerr plots.

  73. Seeking Peace is Propaganda? by atticus9 · · Score: 1

    I don't doubt that the US military spent a lot of money trying to convince people they're the good guys, why not through video games? We're building schools, handing out food, helping communities, even soldiers giving candy to children around the destruction and fighting that's happening. Ultimately we're trying to make peace with these people, which means convincing them we're about more than invading, and that we actually want to help them out and want to establish peace.

  74. "confessed" by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    Confessed. Right. Poor bastard... I wonder how much torture he endured before he "confessed."

  75. Re:Got what he deserved by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Did she go out of her way to make herself look suspicious in every possible way, or did the prosecution go out of the way to make it look like she was going out of her way to make herself look suspicious. Her 'confession' to the Italian authorities had all the hallmarks of a coerced confession. Her 'accusation' initially of a man has all the hallmarks of coercion as well. Apparently, the interrogators played the old "imagine he did this, and describe how he would have done it" ploy for that one. People go on about all kinds of ridiculous claims she supposedly made, but they neglect the critical point that most of these would have been in response to questions from interrogators who are trying to make her look as bad as possible. It's pretty standard practice for interrogators, after wearing down the subject and leading them around in circles until they're dizzy and breaking down their sense of reality, they introduce hypotheticals as truth (essentially, they lie about what they found at the crime scene) and demand that the subject explain them.

    The simple fact that they prosecuted and convicted one guy of the murder under one theory of how it happened and then convicted two other people of the murder under another theory of how it happened and joined the two theories together with spit and baling wire should be enough for anyone to realize that something wasn't quite right with the conviction. The thing that really bothers me about it, is that everyone knows who Amanda Knox is, but not who Raffaele Sollecito is. He's her boyfriend who went through the same nightmare she did. Now, in a way he's very lucky since without her, it's probably no-one would have given his conviction a second look. On the other hand, he might never have been pursued for this in the first place if they hadn't decided to go after her.

  76. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you want to kill some random person because of his nationality if his nation does something bad? Do you think that killing of Iraqi civilians justifies the killing of American civilians? Retribution may feel good. But it accomplishes very little. At the end of the day, when you kill someone you are killing someone's son or daughter. You are killing someone' mother or father. You are killing a fellow human being.

    Do you think the killing of 2000 people on 9/11 warrants the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents in retribution?

  77. Re:Got what he deserved by couchslug · · Score: 1

    I get modded down, but no articulate disagreement.

    APK must have mod points tonight.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  78. Re:Eye for an eye.` by couchslug · · Score: 0

    He went to visit his Iranian relatives and basically ASKED for it. No American should visit Iran. If his relatives want out, he could have sent money instead. If they don't want out, fuck 'em, they made their choice.

    He deserves to be executed for stupidity, and his death would be useful to the US. The sooner we go to war the sooner we can stop the Mullonazis from their preparations to nuke Israel.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  79. Re:Eye for an eye.` by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Visiting family in an enemy country isn't the brightest idea. Nothing makes what he did anything but spectacularly negligent.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  80. Re:Eye for an eye.` by couchslug · · Score: 0

    I'm not complaining. Anyone insane enough to visit Iran who is NOT a spy merits execution for being stupid. If the "relatives" want to emigrate he doesn't need to visit them, and if they don't they aren't worth visiting.

    Spies accept the risk and understand that it's reasonable for any nation to kill spies.

    If Iran offs this idiot (there is no appropriate kinder term) it's a fine lesson to those who might be tempted to do likewise. Iran doesn't care about killing IRANIANS, let alone confused diaspora.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  81. Was it torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or only "enhanced interrogation."

    Because if it was torture, then we should all be rightfully outraged at this evil act.

    But if it was merely "enhanced interrogation", then his confession must be true. We know this because this works for us.

  82. Re:Eye for an eye.` by localman · · Score: 2

    Ding ding ding! We have a winner! We've got someone suggesting genocide in just three comments!

    You, sir, are everything that has ever been wrong with the world. Have a cigar.

  83. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Considering:

    1. Fallout
    2. Contamination area
    3. Devastation of infrastructure
    4. "Beheading element" (look up NATO doctrine vs USSR)

    A couple of nukes that hit their targets in US would be very close to MAD, and definitely dangerous enough to warrant a place in "don't piss them off enough to start shooting those missiles" club.

    Of course, a couple of nukes that actually hit their targets in continental US are not a simple thing to make. You need a working, relatively accurate ballistic missile, and those are very difficult to design without proper know-how and resources, as North Korea's and Iran's struggles with the subject showed.

  84. Re:Eye for an eye.` by localman · · Score: 1

    Quite so. My grandfather was held in a communist prison for 5 years without trial in the late 40's. He eventually admitted he was a spy, even though he wasn't.

    Let me tell you, watching the US struggle with these basic issues is a laughing embarrassment, considering how I was told so many times growing up that the best thing about America was that such a thing that happened to my grandfather could never happen here.

  85. couchdouche the fool fails & runs? LMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:couchdouche the fool fails & runs? LMAO! by couchslug · · Score: 0

      Hello APK!

      http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=453001

      "I miss him, actually. I absolutely loved logging in every day during the whole sordid mess to see what inane crap he was posting. It had all the fascination of a car wreck in progress, and it lasted a lot longer as well.

      Alec Starr Entertainment +++ "

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  86. See couchdouche blow it & run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  87. couchdouche blows it and runs? LMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  88. couchdouche blew it & ran, lol, see inside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  89. Aw, poor little couchdouche is cryin now, lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Aw, poor little couchdouche is cryin now, lol by couchslug · · Score: 1
      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  90. Re:Got what he deserved by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Iran is an enemy country. As for those Iranians who hold US passports yet insist on going back, they should have their US citizenship revoked for supporting an enemy country.

    Like your country of origin? Good. GTFO.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  91. Yes and witch exists by aepervius · · Score: 2

    I mean, look , torture was refined and intel gotten in the middle age, they even had a lot of forged instrument SPECIFICALLY for torture, and a whole book as "how to torture for dummy". And they found witch aplenty. That alone should tell you a LOT about torture. I assume you might be american and holding tightly onto the impression that torture is Ok in some case, otherwise you would have to admit that your country is indeed as bad as some of the less enlightened one.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  92. Re:Eye for an eye.` by jpstanle · · Score: 1

    I'm not complaining. Anyone insane enough to visit Iran who is NOT a spy merits execution for being stupid. If the "relatives" want to emigrate he doesn't need to visit them, and if they don't they aren't worth visiting.

    I know, right? I mean it's not like thousands of Iranian-American immigrants and their US-Born children enter Iran every year to visit their extended family members. That's almost as absurd as those people returning safely to American soil and making the trip multiple times! I mean, if my 80 year old grandmother doesn't want to emigrate to the US, well then, fuck her terrorist ass, right? Next thing you know, people will be claiming that Iranian law allows the US-born children of Iranian citizens to freely enter the country! LOL!

  93. Re:Got what he deserved by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Oh, I doubt that these ppl say hardly anything publically when there. And I know that they do not post on-line with that info (at least not in english; they might in farsi, but I doubt it).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  94. couchdouche, look @ that reaction (lol) of urs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarassed n running away when APK kicked ur ass here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38588550 are we? LMAO!

  95. couchdouche = running away from APK, lol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarassed n' running away when APK kicked ur ass here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38588550 are we? LMAO!

  96. LOL, witness "couchdouche the cowardly troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Embarassed n' running away when APK kicked ur ass here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38588550 are we? LMAO!

  97. Hahahaha "couchdouche the cowardly troll" runs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What'd u want of "couchdouche the cowardly troll"? It's what he does (troll n run), hahahaha.

  98. Re:Eye for an eye.` by couchslug · · Score: 0

    If you are going to commute to a country which is an enemy of the US you should expect the Jihadists who run it to do their will on you if it amuses them.

    Iran belongs to Iranians, not chickens who ran away but still want commuting rights.

    I hope Iran executes the fool as an object lesson.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  99. Re:Eye for an eye.` by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    citation please.

  100. Re:Eye for an eye.` by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Why are you so interested in getting this guy killed? You've posted twice on the subject. I find it odd.

  101. APK running away from my bed, lol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Peter, APK, my love, come back to bed ...

    Daddy

  102. Re:Eye for an eye.` by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    Well now aren't we demanding! I will not cite sources for my jokes, it would ruin the humor.

    --
    +1 Disagree
  103. couchdouche, what's this about you & a themeso by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  104. and the problem with that is... what? by khipu · · Score: 1

    "A video game developer working for Kuma Reality Games has admitted that the company has been receiving money from the CIA to design and freely distribute special movies and games with the aim of manipulating public opinion in the Middle East.

    You say that as if "manipulating public opinion in the Middle East" is something bad. Of course, we have to "manipulate public opinion", otherwise, how are we going to get peace?

    What would you prefer? Leave them to the manipulations of religious extremists? Just bomb them outright?

  105. Re:Eye for an eye.` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry. Israel apparently is killing Iranians proactively. By the time the American's sentence is carried out, Israelis have managed to kill 10 highly educated Iranians. Would that be a decent, US-satisfying conversion ratio between the value of lives of Iranians scientists versus a single American marine?

  106. Re:Eye for an eye.` by couchslug · · Score: 1

    They are losing nuclear scientists at an amusing rate:

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/11/world/asia/iran-scientist-killed/

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  107. couchdouche runs after being STUPID? LMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  108. Propaganda? by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    How very unsurprising.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.