Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Boycotting Call of Duty, Medal of Honor Games
An anonymous reader writes "As first-person shooters have evolved, they've transitioned from using Nazis as the bad guys to more modern organizations, such as the Taliban. Two recent games, Call of Duty: Black Ops II and Medal of Honor: Warfighter, have both shown the country of Pakistan in a very negative light, and now shopkeepers in the country are beginning to boycott the games. 'Saleem Memon, president of the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association, said he had written to members ordering them not to stock the controversial games after receiving dozens of complaints. ... The latest installment of the Medal of Honor series opens with American Navy Seals coming ashore in Karachi docks on a mission to destroy a black market arms shipment. But when their detonation sets off a second, bigger explosion they realize they have stumbled on a much bigger terrorist plot, sparking a global manhunt. A chaotic car chase through the city follows amid warnings that the ISI — Pakistan's intelligence agency — is on the way. Mr. Memon added there was a danger children would be brainwashed into thinking foreign agents were at war inside Karachi, possibly leading them into the arms of militants. "These games show a misleading idea of what is happening in the city. You don't get the CIA all the way through Grand Theft Auto," he said.'"
It'd probably be a bigger statement if he were selling legal copies
Where was the most wanted terrorist hiding out again?
Would shops in the US sell a video game showing the glorious jihadis blowing up Americans get sold in the US? The "sandn****r" guy above would probably blow a gasket.
Anybody have any info on the All Pakistan CD, DVD, Audio Casette Traders and Manufacturers Association? If I google it, all I get are links to different versions of this story. If a shopkeeper or group of shopkeepers decide they don't want to stock particular titles, that's a commercial decision they are perfectly entitled to take and - if they are part of a competitive marketplace and have competition who might decide differently - it doesn't really raise any freedom or censorship issues. Certainly, supermarkets in the US/UK have decided at times not to stock games which have the highest age-ratings, because they don't fit with their brand image or perceived clientelle. It doesn't matter, because you can still get the games from Amazon or another high-street retailer.
If, on the other hand, this Association is some kind of Government standards-body, or if it's a trade-association which you have to be a member of if you want to sell games (giving it genuine market-control) then that's more serious.
And as an aside, I'd note that plenty of games have sold well in the US despite having the Americans as either morally ambiguous or outright baddies (indeed, not to defend Call of Duty, but most of its games fall into the first of those categories) - and that here in the UK, being made into the baddies in games and films is pretty much standard fare.
It's not a ban, it's a boycott. Turns out that people don't like games where the best the can be is set dressing for the glorification of a violent foreign power when that same power back in the real world indiscriminately sends out robots to bomb the next village on a weekly basis.
I don't see a lot of games released here in which you get to play a Pakistani agent conducting ops in the states.
Surely some of them have a taste for and can afford these games.
Even if India's censorship is just as asinine sometimes, I can totally see them giving any game that paints Pakistan in a bad light a pass.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
If Pakistanis want their country to cease to be viewed as a hotbed of terrorism, the best approach would be for them to stop supporting terrorism.
Their crap. Sheer and utter crap. I refuse to buy crap.
Take that multi-billion dollar game franchises!
I remember playing "raid over Moscow" when I was a kid, which was a C64 game where you had to fly a bomber to the Kremlin, kill its guards, and blow it up. I suspect that it wouldn't sell well in the USSR, and that if somebody published the very same game today as "raid over Washington" replacing the Kremlin with the White House then it wouldn't sell well in the USA. People don't enjoy being offended, especially by propaganda, especially when it touches open wounds.
what is this free world you speak of? the land where TSA feels up your children every time you travel? where CCTV monitors your every move, government agancies have warrantless access to all your communication logs and can listen in whenever they want? where all that's needed to keep you in prison without due process is label you as a terrorist? where people don't get tortured, only waterboarded? That country is morally already in stone age!
Let's be fair to the game companies. They tried localizing the games for the Pakistani audience; but it turns out going from cave to cave while hiding from the Great Satan's minions doesn't make for exciting gameplay.
#DeleteChrome
If the games were set in fictitious countries, they'd get dinged for it. An interesting writing challenge for these games would be to anonymise the locations - in effect, to amplify the murky nature of the operations concerned. "We were down in South America somewhere, some rathole of a banana republic..." or "We'd been travelling upriver for a couple of days, heading deep into African jungle..." The original Bond books did it quite well - the idea that the top echelons of the various intelligence agencies had realised that they were all on the same side (i.e. the side that likes money and power in quite huge quantities) and were running their own organisation that wasn't based on or in any particular country. And they weren't going to let any grubby little politicians mess it up.
yes - we caved and lost.
But I still have hope
They follow the example of Muhammad impeccably, kidnapping and raping non-Muslim girls, terrorising non-Muslim countries, and even who oppose laws used to suppress non-Muslims.
The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think. In Afghanistan NATO compensates for the damage, which inspires villagers to quickly bury donkies and claim them as killed civilians since the payoff is worth it.
It is completely awesome the drones do this because if they didn't the jihadis would continue their following reign of terror:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Of course, if you are a cultural relativist you will excuse the jihadis for their violence and instead simply condemn the US/West/Israel for trying to defend their citizens against these vicious killers. You'll then probably come up with the excuse that the jihadis do it because they are poor (Osama bin Laden was rich), had their land 'stolen' (jihadis have been operating for 1400 years) or some other lame excuse. All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.
Meanwhile you'll probably ignore the hundreds of madrassas pumping out replacement zombies ready to kill Afghan villagers. You'll also ignore the Pakistani ISI and the crime syndicates and opium lords who provide the money for the Taliban. You'd much rather cherish the thought that the West is the bad guy for standing up to these brigands and crazed zealots.
Keep dreaming your false dream. Meanwhile the rest of us will be doing what we can to argue for our rights (stop creeping Sharia and 'cultural jihad' in the West!) and even for your rights. Hopefully one day you'll get a clue and realise who the evil guys really are - the ones that think it nothing to kill little girls for trying to get an education, or kill girls who don't want to be married to old men four times their age, or kill Muslims from another sect, or kill people just working in a building in Manhattan, or riding a bus in London, or a train in Spain, etc etc. That's the real evil.
I am from Pakistan, and all I can say is "LOL, a ban, haha, how cute"
This is just a storm in a teacup situation; For one, now one gives a flying fuck, and secondly, pirates CDs for 30 rupees (~30 cents) each man, if one shop doesn't, you don't think there are 100 other shops in the same damn plaza who will provide it?Besides they haven't been able to stop outright *porn*, they will do something like this? Yeah right.
Go back people, noting to see here, no one cares except some bourgeois who like to #TweetLikeABurger . Mr "Association President" just wanted the world to know that (a) He exists; and (b) Vote for me at the next association election!
This isn't even news here, I didn't even know this was an issue (For once, Slashdot provides news on time!). We are more concerned over CNG (no fuel for cars, winter heaters or stoves), or the fact that the investigator who was investigating corruption charges against our PM conveniently committed suicide (The fact that there were signs of torture, or that he had sent SMS to pals regarding him being pressurised to change evidence is obviously unrelated.)
Come on people, we are people of, what, 180 million? Most of whom can't even afford to feed them self, much less buy games. We are Hungry, cold, freezing and Immobile, not to mention without work. We have better thing to worry about, besides, no one can outdo us in cursing our nation, I am sure your games pale in comparison.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Pakistan has a bad image because of this: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks Most attacks are Muslim-on-Muslim . or on little girls that want education etc. This video game does nothing to their already well-deserved terrible reputation.
I don't think you have to be a jihadist to worry that the U.S.'s policy for combating it is insufficiently cautious about "collateral damage". There is also a realpolitik question of whether it's actually effective: bombing the bad guys may feel good, but from a rational perspective feeling good and killing bad guys is not sufficient, and is counterproductive if you cause so much negative sentiment that you inflame anti-American sentiment among the local population, increasing terrorist groups' ability to recruit new members and find sympathetic people to shelter them. In some cases bombing works, and in other cases it does not work, and I think it's legitimate to ask whether the strategy the U.S. is currently pursuing is actually working, or is intended just to make it look like they're doing something, to please U.S. voters.
Here's a fun game you can play in which you wipe out terrorists by bombing them.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I can tell that it's pointless to have a discussion with you until you stop being afraid of your own shadow.
Good luck with that.
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).
How would the US feel if a pakistani company was using the same sort of creative license to lampoon the NSA and the CIA?
And they whined and bitched about "The Two Towers", especially since the two towers were towers held by the Forces of Evil.
I think you have a rather ignorant view of what's going on, which doesn't match historical record or reality. Support for jihadists in Muslim countries has waxed and waned for various reasons. It's completely sensible, if you want to have an actually fact-based policy which causes improvements, rather than a blind-faith-based policy which makes you feel like you're playing a cool videogame and killin' dem brown people, to look at which U.S. policies contribute to waxing versus waning. And I don't think the "fire-and-forget" use of drones is mainly aimed at that kind of optimization. Rather, it's aimed at getting people reelected (and this goes for whether it's Bush or Obama trying to get reelected).
In short, I think your fondness for action films, and possibly some kind of weird bigotry, is clouding your judgment, which is true of many of my countrymen, to the detriment of America's safety. But killin' dem Muslims gets American politicians elected, so they'll keep doing it even when it's dumb. Shock 'n' awe, duuuuude! Mission accomplished! It's like a bunch of you fucking frat boys are in charge; I'd rather have some adults.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers.
The same applies to other religions too. Yet most practitioners aren't as focused on hating and subjugating, but rather on their everyday business. I think you're overestimating the importance of extremists. Most people there are just trying to survive.
It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength.
You're confusing them with Klingons.
The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means.
.
What the airport police in Europe are also known as TSA?
Seriously the places I have had the most pat down has been in Europe(UK and Germany) including the point where I had to throw 1/4 of the toothpaste tube away because the original full size was over the allowed amount.
USA customs are usually really easy and quick.
Easiest so far have been the middle east, if the alarms go off then do a quick pat of your pockets and if nothing in them you go on.
All the while you'll remain doggedly ignorant of the teachings of the Qur'an that make jihad obligatory for able Muslim males.
Yeah, in the same way that the bible make stoning children to death obligatory for the Christian believer. I can't see the US fighting against fundamentalist Christians. The US is attacking those people because they became a serious threat to the US goals in that region (mainly "We want the oil!"), mostly caused by the US itself by giving money and training to those people some time before, without thinking about the consequences. I don't have to be a "cultural relativist" to see that, these are enemies of the US because the US has made them to enemies, not because of the Qu'ran.
Got proof?
Or is it just "They're nig-nogs and ragheads, so they're all criminals"?
You could RTFA:
"Although shops in all of Pakistan's major cities have been told of the ban, the game was still available on Friday in shops crammed with pirated CDs in the capital Islamabad."
In most ME countries they really don't give a fuck about piracy.
It's not a ban, it's a boycott. Turns out that people don't like games where the best the can be is set dressing for the glorification of a violent foreign power when that same power back in the real world indiscriminately sends out robots to bomb the next village on a weekly basis.
I completely agree, awesome game.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
So wait ... let's get this straight ...
These nice people want to encourage game manufacturers to stop doing something, by threatening to stop selling and spreading pirated copies of their games ?
I'm guessing it's going slightly worse than planned.
Well for some old, anecdotal info: When I was deployed to Saudi in the early 90s you could get any software title for ~3 riyal per 3.25 floppy. From single disk games to 15+ disk AutoCAD. A guy was just sitting in the store making copies while you wait or shop elsewhere. That was 20 years ago in a different country but they were cutting people's hands off for stealing too.
Plenty of FBI in Grand Theft Auto though.
Is that really so different ?
so close.. you were so close to being a reasonable person that I disagreed with. Now you just sound like a tool. Didn't bother to read past this.
Just another second banana
I don't see a lot of games released here in which you get to play a Pakistani agent conducting ops in the states.
And you never will. They wouldn't let you make a game where the bad guys were taliban because you could play as the bad guys and shoot american soldiers. Quite frankly I Pakistan is completely justified in boycotting the game if only to send a message that "hey we're people and we love our country too and we ALSO get offended when you make games where you shoot us". We can all laugh and talk about how piracy makes this null but if the shoe were on the other foot it wouldn't be nearly as funny. I mean I don't play FPS but I find it kinda scary to think that they're making games where your tasked with assassinating sitting (or former) heads of state. It's a lot more offensive to my sensibilities than anonymous airport massacres
Just another second banana
In most ME countries they really don't give a fuck about piracy.
Or you could look at a globe.
Pakistan is the Middle East now?
Completely incorrect. There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you. Same with Israel. It is core to Islamic doctrine to hate and subjugate all non-believers. It is a mistake to think it is for any other reason. The other thing is the Arab and Islamic culture respect strength. If you are willing to compromise it shows weakness which they will push to exploit. The only way to earn respect is through strength and fighting at an intense pace that the jihadis can't match. That is the lesson Israel has learned the hard way. There is no quid-pro-quo with jihadi organizations. You can concede but all you get is 'hudna', a temporary respite while they gather strength preparing for the next attack. If you are weak you will not be offered hudna, jihadis take the weak down without remorse. Look at the slaughter of Lebanon. Your statements are nice in theory but just do not match the historical record or reality. There is no compromise with jihadis. Either you win decisively, or they win and you are extinguished. Winding down your offensive means looks like you are losing to jihadis and it emboldens more recruits. So your uninformed guesses about 'inflaming' the locals is wrong and counter to history (eg. see the Sunni Awakening in Anbar where the strength and moral restraint of US forces gained respect and did more than appeasement ever would).
Nothing really? Invading Iraq and Afghanistan and installing puppet regimes doesn't count? Western powers have interfered in the Middle East for a long time causing enough for the Arab populous to hate them. After WW1, the British and French having promised Arab independence carved up the middle east leading to decades of oppression. That along with GB promising a Jewish state in Palestine, WW2 and declaration of Israel as a state. The US presence in the region came with the departure of European control leading to Soviet interest in the region. It is all this that led to islamic fundamentalism. The invasion of Kuwait led to the first invasion of Iraq and permanent US military presence in the region which Bin Laden used as a reason for 9/11. Since this point, nothing the US has done in the region has endeared them to the Arabs/Muslims. US interference in the region is driven by resources and not by the welfare of the populations. Organisations like Al Qaeda have benefited from US interference - whether it is true or not CIA funded/trained Al Qaeda directly US presence training forces in the region has allowed them access to it. Overall, the US and the West in general have done a lot for the Middle East population not just 'jihadis' as you call them to hate us. With regard to Israel, without the US backing them they would not be in the position they are in now. No longer the persecuted but now the persecutors. Without the broken promises of the West (GB to be precise), Israel would not exist (at least where it is now). You don't have a clue.
Back to the games.. the FPS modern military shooter is getting way overdone now. Don't think its a bad thing they're banning them. We should probably do the same as it would save us money as they are all the same now. Warfighter was the biggest pile of poo I have played in a long time and CoD is just the same. They should do another BF 2142 or something. That was pretty good with the mechs, pods etc.. and titan mode was great.
I mean geez, it's not like helicopters of commandos are landing to storm armed compounds in the middle of cities, to kill the most wanted terrorist ever (who's been 'hiding' there in plain sight for years).
Oh, wait...
-Styopa
Every once in awhile I read something from a random stranger that throws me a much needed spark of hope. It isn't a video game and we're not 'winning'. We're playing into the [insert your favorite label here]'s hands. We're spending tons of money to make a whole bunch of people in one group scared and a whole bunch of people in another group sympathetic to the [insert your favorite label here] cause by killing their [insert your favorite label here] relative, acquaintance or countryman. It is indeed reasonable to question the wisdom of the approach.
There is nothing the US has or has not done that causes jihadis to hate you
Okay, let's have a thought experiment. Let's say that some unkown force starts to bomb places in the US. They claim they're targetting only "militants" and warmongerers but every now and again they happen to kill the entire family, a few neughbours etc. Are you telling me that this would not cause everyday citizens to become enraged at whoever it was that was doing this? And that the recruitment officials wouldn't use it as a marketing tactic to get young men (and women) to enlist? Because that's essentially what you're doing right now. And your take on this seems to be along the lines of "well, we can't reason with their ideological leaders, so we might just as well not give a fuck about what the general populace thinks of us."
You're missing something important here: jihadists don't appear out of nowhere. These kids don't list "suicide bomber" as their dream job when they grow up. They're recruited - just like american soldiers. The difference is, recruiting is not exactly hard when you can just walk into a neighborhoodthat recently had a drone strike and find the relatives/friends of those who've died on that strike and start talking to them about vengeance.
So it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the drone strikes are acutally helping or just making the problem bigger. No matter what the media would often want you to believe the world isn't neatly black and white. Believe it or not the way your foreign policy is conducted affects how people all over the globe judge you and if you're seen as the world police who will use whatever means to destroy those who disagree with it with little to no regard for civillian lives... well, let's just say you're not making life any easier for yourselves.
You tried the "The communists hate because they hate us and you can't reason with them so we must destroy them all" -tactic with much greater force in Vietnam and it failed there. And islam played no part in that whatsoever. All you've done now is replaced the Viet Cong with terrorists/jihadists and communism with islam.
Maybe it's time to try something else? Just a thought.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Actually, the jihadists don't worry about this, especially if the people accidentally being killed are not particularly sympathetic to their goals. They'd love it if that person's extended family was radicalized and perhaps provided some new recruits. As with the Southern Cause in the US Civil War, some were fighting because they believed in the Southern Way of Life, and some were fighting because they hated the damned Yankee invaders.
Hell, they may consider him an infidel, but even a Muslim fundamentalist jihadi can read Mao. The principles of guerrilla warfare don't change based on ideology.
However, drones are perfect for a modern, relatively unpopular, US war. Air power has always been seen as cheap in terms of lives lost, and in this case you won't have a robot's family sitting outside Obama's house demanding why their robot was killed in some foreign war, even if someone should get lucky and bring one down.
At this point in GWoT, force protection (keeping Americans out of harm's way) is very important, because the American public is starting to get somewhat weary of the whole War, especially as the whole country turns into a dump being looted by politically connected Banksters. Too many body bags, and maybe some oil companies would have to pay bigger markups on their contracts instead of having the US Military strong-arming countries to get them bargain prices.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
It has nothing to do with the "most" people, trollboy.
Bin Laden isn't a war criminal for targeting the Pentagon in and of itself, that's a valid military objective. He's a war criminal for targeting the Towers, and using 747s full of civilians to do it, deliberately, deliberately killing thousands of civilian innocents in the process. Bush did not target civilians, period. The US tries to avoid collateral damage - one reason we spent so much damn $$ on smart bombs and laser guided munitions. It'd be a lot cheaper and less risky to just carpet bomb with traditional bombs, if that's what the US really wanted.
You don't actually follow news, do you?
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/13/canada-will-burn--fk-the-troops
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
These kids don't list "suicide bomber" as their dream job when they grow up.
Are you sure about that?
Ezekiel 23:20
It's lucky the enlightened Saudis know that copyright infringement!=theft isn't it?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The drones don't 'bomb villages' (that statement shows how ignorant you are) they fire hellfire missiles into 'compounds' that the various special forces have usually reconoitered. Those compounds have jihadis and their families. Occasionally the missiles do miss and do kill villagers - this is indeed a tragedy, but is unintentional and less frequent than you would think
Ah, I see, you count the families of the "jihadis" as combatants and not civilians. Why not just say that anyone in the whole village is giving support to a terrorist, and so isn't a civilian either?
Eventually, you'll be able to show that no more than a handful of real civilians have ever been killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
And I'm sure you'd approve if terrorists started shooting soldiers' wives and kids back home and claiming them as legitimate military targets.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"You don't get the CIA all the way through Grand Theft Auto," he said."
Thanks for the game, and moive idea!
You tried the "The communists hate because they hate us and you can't reason with them so we must destroy them all" -tactic with much greater force in Vietnam and it failed there.
I don't see any such argument here. Only if you skim and don't actually read?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Now you just sound like a tool. Didn't bother to read past this.
Maybe if you had read further you wouldn't think that?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
The problem is that the middle east is pretty F-ed up politically, and economically.
It's more analogous to if during prohibition the U.S. government had allied with martians to take down Al Capone and the other gangsters by deploying martian tripods to destroy speakeasies.
The U.S. is undertaking the drone strikes with the permission of the local government and usually the drones launch from that very government's military bases. The local government doesn't like these people any more than the U.S. does, and there's a whole illegal international narcotics and weapons trade that is funding these outlaws.
The main problem is that illegal trade is pretty much the local economy and the U.S. doesn't have the guts to just say "fuck it, we're taking over it's our way or the gallows". Neither do we really have the option of simply ignoring these people and letting them wallow in their own mess because of the oil trade and our alliance with Isrial. It's also true that a fair portion of this mess is our fault as it's a result of the shenanigans the U.S. and U.S.S.R. pulled during the cold war.
The goal of the drone strikes is largely to act as a deterrent. The idea is that if the public at large sees the president of the U.S. crossing names off his "to die" list at a fast enough pace, they'll generally try to avoid getting on that list. And drones are the cleanest way to do that (no U.S. casualties and collateral damage is more limited than any other approach that wouldn't cost american lives.)
The Qur'an teaches it is better to give Sadaqah than Jihad
That doesn't matter, since verse 8:60 orders you to prepare for armed struggle without any reference to other obligations. If I understand it correctly, the ability criteria for requiring an individual to be prepared for Jihad per 8:60 are the same as for the same individual to take part in Hajj.
Ezekiel 23:20
Damn Imperialist Canadians!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
OK, that's nothing like the current scenario, as it wasn't like all was great in the Middle East and the Great Satan suddenly showed up carpet bombing the place.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
ARRRRGG!!! Not really sure how big a deal Pakistan boycotting would be to begin with. Does anyone have the numbers on PC consumerism for video game sales in Pakistan? I'd be interested if this was even a percentage, although I don't know and it could, in fact, be significant. I doubt it though. Note: Legal consumerism. Not just pirated copies.
It is the jihadis who are violating the international rules of war by hiding among civilians (eg. preparing bombs in their compounds). These rules require the drones to minimize casualties when going after the jihadis but recognize such people are legitimate targets even when hiding with their families.
It is a war crime to deliberately target civilians targets (with no nearby military facilities) which is why Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc have a modus operandi that is entirely war crimes. Because the US drones and Israelis seek to minimize civilian casualties and do not target civilians only that makes their actions legal under the international rules of war. It is clear from your false statements that you don't understand the international conventions at all. Hence you confuse drone strikes with war crimes (they are not), and hopefully you don't excuse the real war criminals (Al Qaeda, Taliban).
Eventually, you'll be able to show that no more than a handful of real civilians have ever been killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Every civilian death is a tragedy. However, in the fight against the evil ideology of Islam, which has global ambitions and is getting stronger, there is no second place. You win, or your culture is extinguished forever.
And I'm sure you'd approve if terrorists started shooting soldiers' wives and kids back home and claiming them as legitimate military targets.
This is a strawman. The drones do not kill women and children on purpose. They are tragic accidental deaths because the jihadis keep their families close to them and hide behind women and children. The jihadis remain legitimate and lawful targets. Your scenario talks about deliberately targetting women and children, which is what the Taliban (who you implicitly defend) do. This is illegal. If you can't see the difference you lack understanding of the legal aspects of the situation. The Taliban are the bad guys - you are just following a twisted morality if you think the US is the bad guys here. [not the US is not perfect by any means, but they are saints compared to the openly evil Taliban]
Drone strikes are legal, moral and necessary. They aren't sufficient though.
Bullshit. The jihadis have been art war with every non-Muslim for 1400 years. You are an idiot if you think it is because of something the US did, or the Zionist movement in Palestine. The Muslims hate us and are working to subjugate us and put us in the Islamic social system - and have been doing this for 1400 years. Your argument is complete rubbish (peddled by the political Left because it has common cause with Islam in seeking destruction of existing society).
So it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not the drone strikes are acutally helping or just making the problem bigger. No matter what the media would often want you to believe the world isn't neatly black and white. Believe it or not the way your foreign policy is conducted affects how people all over the globe judge you and if you're seen as the world police who will use whatever means to destroy those who disagree with it with little to no regard for civillian lives... well, let's just say you're not making life any easier for yourselves.
More crap. The drones are a huge issue in Pakistan because the Pakistani ISI *created and support the Taliban* and the drones are so effective at taking the Taliban down. There is also a soveriegnty issue as well, but given the Pakistani ISI are covertly fighting the Free World this is dismissed. The line about drone strikes making more enemies is rubbish. The majority of Afghans want to be rid of the Taliban. If the people in the madrassas are angry who cares? they hate us anyway. Your average ignorant citizen around the world responds to what they are told: and the Left media, for its own reasons, says that opposing violent islamo-fascists is bad (they are idiots because they are ignorant of Islams intended aims). The people around the World are peeved because of the media spin, if they saw the full picture (or are in a country ruined by jihadis) then they vehemently disagree with your leftist point-of-view.
It is clear you don't know very much about the history of Islam or the contemporary situation at all. Hence you defend the indefensible.
Have you read the Qur'an? obviously not. Read the hadiuths? obviously not. You are both closed minded and have an inaccurate view of Islam. How about you start with the following link and open your eyes to the fact I'm not bigoted (as you so incorrectly assume), it's just I have actually read the hate-speech warlord manifesto called the Qur'an and the brutal history recorded in the hadiths:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
It also didn't help that those games were actually just E.T. for the Atari 2600 with (slightly) updated graphics...
When someone says, "Any fool can see
It is clear you haven't read the Qur'an and don't understand Islam at all. You are speaking from a position of total ignorance. I hope when the jihadis come for you then you explain how you support them. They might wait for you to finish speaking before they take your head off, like Daniel Pearl etc.
We want the oil!
This is the mantra of the ignorant. Oil is a factor for sure but not the prime motivation of the US. You see, some parts of the US actually do understand what Islam commands (which you clearly do not - and haven't even bothered to check before posting your rubbish statements). The Free World is locked in struggle to the death with the totalitarian, theocratic political ideology called Islam. The Free World already defeated the gloabl threats from right-wing totalitarianism (National Socialism) left-wing totalitarianism (Soviet Communism); and is now engaged in a life-of-death struggle with the aggressive totalitarian ideology called Islam. The Islamic jihadi armies are failing but theior 'cultural jihad' is working quite well. Even you believe the lies ('taqiyya') of the jihadis. Wake up.
You're confusing them with Klingons.
You are confusing fiction with real life. For the sake of a cheap gag you discredit yourself. I've been to many countries in the Middle East (have you?). I'm no culture expert but they value and respect strength far more than we do. A man doesn't show weakness or he is shamed (and they worry a great deal about honor and shame - which is why they kill their own daughters, wives and each other).
The only way to defeat islamic extremists is to cut them off from manpower and supplies and that can be done only with non-combat means
Go and look at the surveys and statistics. The 'extremists' narrative is a lie propagated by the self-loathing media (who think it is newsworthy to continually denigrate the Free World, and try to give exotic natives/cults airtime pass no matter how brutal and inhumane their core doctrines are). If you look at the surveys yiou'll see that around 20% of the Ummah (the community of Muslims; which is estimated at 1.2 - 1.6 billion people) want to perform direct jihad. Around 50% (700 million or so) won't do direct jihad but support the ideal of those that do. Even higher percentages (eg. around 80% of Muslims in the UK) want to impose Sharia (which claims jurisdiction over non-Muslims; this makes Islam and ideology, and sets it completely apart from the other Abrahamic religions). So the narrative that it is 'extremists' that can be cut off is false. The idea of 'jihad' and 'sharia' are mainstream for Muslims and core doctrines. The only way to stop it is to reform or destroy the ideology. We could wait for reform but we don't have the decades or centuries to do this - Islamic states are gaining nuclear weapons and other WMDs and their core ideology says that they should use them to bring Islam to the whole world. Remember, these guys don't care about life, they care about the (fictional) afterlife they've been promised and the oinly guaranteed route to get there is to become a shahid (jiahdi martyr). Many consider themselves as doing Allah's work to nuke the planet (especially to kill rid the world of Jews, Christians and atheists) - and getting killed by doing this is the best outcome they could hope for. This doctrine is insane and inhumane, but is *core Islam* (not an extreme interpretation):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMOxjHIt0U
Fortunately most Muslims are good human beings (which necessarily makes then bad Muslims). Don't confuse the fact that many Muslims reject their core (clearly evil) Islamic teachings with Islam itself being tolerant or moderate. The totalitarian ideology of Islam is the problem, and must be neutralized. We are quickly running out of time to do this. Citations:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
http://www.al-rassooli.com/palestine/index.html
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
I can only offer you the Blue Pill or the Red Pill. The media idiots are either poorly informed (unprofessional!) or are lying to you and deliberately not reporting on the true global situation. Do the research, follow the links I've given. Fight for liberty! (which means, criticise the enemies of Freedom/Islamic supremacists at least as much as you criticise the drones, k? and tell your friends the truth you discover)
but it turns out going from cave to cave while hiding from the Great Satan's minions doesn't make for exciting gameplay.
I understand you're trying to make a joke, but that gameplay idea does sound interesting. You tie that in with the Left Behind universe and you have the beginning something here.
Please follow my suggestion. Go and watch Stephen Coughlin's analysis on YouTube. Then come back and insult me - at least then you might be able to grasp what I'm telling you (which is *fact*). If you watch those intelligence briefings and still think I'm full of shit I'll be very happy to be corrected.
Stop slandering me as a bigot, frat boy or videogame freak. The fact you make those arguments shows you can't address my points. My point was that the Free World is hated not for what we do, but for who we are, our beliefs and the fact some of us will stand up for them. Got that, or should I repeat it again so you don't need to make baseless accusations (incidentally, I'm not from the US, so your assumptions are doubly ridiculous). I have provided innumerable citations in my posts to back up my position. Perhaps you would learn something if you actually checked those references out. I'll repeat one for you so you can have more than zero clues: http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Disclaimer - I am a Pakistani who is fucking sick of how Islamic Militancy has destroyed my country.
Are you serious about wanting to stop Islamic miltancy? Then get out of bed with Saudi Arabia and hit the source of the funding for the wahabbis and militants. But no, can't say anything to Saudia Arabia because the King there is nice to Israel. So you'll look the other way while they export terrorism (all 9/11 hijackers, OBL, Al Quaeda's senior leadership - all Saudi) and keep bombing hamlets. That drives public sentiment against the West and helps recruit more militants. But what do you care? You got to kill a couple of militants, never mind that the collateral damage from killing them and killing innocents when you miss (more often than not - shoddy intel is the norm in this part of the world, not the exception) makes it harder for us moderates to curb the militant extremists.
The latter might make you feel good but does fuck all for stopping terrorism. You want to go after terrorism? Follow the money ALL the way. Prevent Saudi Arabia from sponsoring hundreds of madrassas in Pakistan that are churning out brainwashed drones.
You've got sanctions against the wrong muslim country. Iran isn't the big problem everyone makes it out to be, the bad one is Saudi Arabia and its been spreading its poison for decades now, unchecked.
Any chance you'd put tags, or remove spoilers from the summary? You basically told people the entire plot of the game.
Fortunately most Muslims are good human beings (which necessarily makes then bad Muslims). Don't confuse the fact that many Muslims reject their core (clearly evil) Islamic teachings with Islam itself being tolerant or moderate.
So you're basically agreeing with my point right here. Various teachings and what-not are pure fiction. They're just cover for practical concerns governing those people's actions. If you wish you can justify absolutely anything with religion or ideology. Do not let yourself be blinded by this bullshit.
I thought he was hanged (hung?) after a trial?
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
If you wish you can justify absolutely anything with religion or ideology.
False. As Sam Harris said in the link I gave (which it appears you did not watch), the problem with Islamic Fundamentalists is the Fundamental of Islam. As an example, you cannot justify killing in Jainism because it condemns killing with no exceptions. Islam is the problem, and encouragement of killing, racism and genocide is *mainstream* if you actually listen to what they say. Christianity is also a problem, but only the insane now use Christianity as justification for killing.
So no, I don't agree with you. You are wrong because you think it is only Islamicist extremists who think this way. As said, go and check the surveys of Muslim opinion. The *majority* agree with jihad even if they only practice it by providing money, the majority believe in Sharia and its imposition globally on non-Muslims too. Your argument is common, but false. The reason you believe it is only 'extremists' is because you follow the media narrative (who have their own reasons for misleading you with this false distinction). The statistics say otherwise if you care to do the research.
I have been to many countries in the middle east and I am also a Muslim (are you?). ... you guess it ... america.
We do value strength more than americans do. But "civilized" strength - not a brute show of force bought with money. One reason america does not understand (and the soviets didnt either) is that strength through tanks and other military weapons such as drones is frowned upon. Special forces in ground to ground combat kicking taliban ass would be respected. Drones, tanks and aircraft are valueless -- cowards hide behind machines. Most americans are cowards for doing so and regarded as such.
We do want to impose sharia as an alternative form of justice -- for muslims not non-muslims. Because the muslims in that case believe that sharia would treat them better than the regular justice system. I dont necessarily agree but I am also a lawyer and thus may be "indoctrinated" to the existing judicial system.
The desire for jihad comes from the repeated arrogance of western countries (america begin the symbol) by meddling with the west bank, afghanistan, israel and iraq (not to mention somalia, iran in the 70s etc). By meddling i mean propping up despotic regimes and generally destroying peaceful governments by propping up hate groups which then have to be destroyed by
Basically we would like you to kindly clear the fuck out of our countries and leave us alone. And get rid of the hate groups you created by sending in special forces and wiping them out. No drones please. Thanks.
I offer you the truth pill. Its better than the red and blue pills but may taste bitter.
i'm merely pointing out that there is no free world anymore. bush jr has taken care of it. it may have started in the US but the trend is spreading quickly. you'd have to move to a place like Mongolia and cut yourself off the interwebs to live truly freely.
It doesn't matter whether it's majority or not. It doesn't matter what they think. Only actions matter. Majority of them won't go much beyond sulking in religious conflicts. The only way to change their minds is education and cultural exchange, or slaughtering all of them if you insist on violent means. Current half measures like drone bombings won't help much in grand scheme of things.
You are not proposing a realistic solution because you resist recognizing the problem. The solution is to outlaw Sharia in all Free Nations (and the United Nations, although that is impossible as long as the OIC controls the UN). Once that is done the actions of jihadis are unlawful; since currenly they see their actions are not only lawful under Sharia, but olbligatory; from the Sharia point of view we are the terrorists for resisting the jihadis, "black is white, white is black": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 Ban Sharia and their claims to morality and lawfulness vanish - and their support dries up in the West. They will still get support from the Saudis (who are funding the current aggression) but the petrodollars will dry up in 15 years. We only have to survive as Free Men for the next two decades and then things will get better (that is, not require massive bloodshed).
Ban Sharia and have the courage to stand up for liberty - that is what really matters. Drone strikes help, but it is safeguiding the Free World that has to be done first. Until one recognizes that *Sharia is the problem* you will never win. It is interesting that many US States have draft statutes to ban Sharia but the Federal Government is trying to prevent them from being enacted. Madness. Just like the Arizona State Government enacting its own immigration law (a duplicate of the unenforced Federal Law) but Arizona being slapped down by the overweening Feds, the ban on Sharia also shows how the Feds are anti-Constutional by ursuping (defeating) State power.
The other solution is that the Free World needs better leadership (people with the balls to publicly and unapolagetically stand up for freedom - unlike the appeasement weasels we have now). The Prime Minister of Australia is one such person, as is Geert Wilders (who is unafraid to speak plainly about the existential and immanent threat to Englightenment Civilization). Unfortunately the Obama Administration is even more clueless than the Bush Administration with regard to this. eg. Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton promising to prosecute US citizens exercising their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil when she aided and abetted UN HRC Resolution 16/18; that was a shameful and willfully stupid act. Then there was Clinton and Obama's utter incompetence with regard to the Benghazi situtation (explainable though if they wanted to cover up their arming of Al Aqeda associates); then they blamed it on a stupid (but factually correct) video and critized Free Speech. Obama has also neutered the Fifth Amendment with NDAA and is now working on destorying the Second Amendment [I don't agree with guns everywhere, but what he is doing is both anti-Constitutional and anti-democratic with his massive and dictatorial Executive Orders]). How much more has to happen before the US citizens realize that the government is taking away their rights, crippling those who stand up to condemn the stripping of those rights, and aiding enemies of the citizens (engineering the coup to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power - and the MB are no different to Al Qaeda in their intended end-goal, subjugation of the entire planet to Islam).
That is why I didn't agree with your statements. The problem is a combination of Sharia (which is a core doctrine of Islam) and incompetent leadership in the West (driven by Left-wing ideology that has common cause with Islam, and makes them refuse to see the facts that are obvious to non-ideologues).
The capital is called Islamabad. I think it's safe to say Islam is influential there.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.