Call of Jihadi

By Simon Parkin Published 26 March, 2008

Wafaa Bilal on the FPS the US government wants shot down.

In September 2006 Al-Qaeda became a game developer.

Its first release? First-person shooter "Night of Bush Capturing", a game free to anyone with an Internet connection and an open mind. Its six-mission campaign is constructed from genre features familiar to any gamer: work your way deep into enemy territory, shoot enemy soldiers before they shoot you and assassinate the leader.

Only, in this case the territory is America, the enemy soldiers are US troops and the leader in question is George W. Bush. Oh, and the developer is a notorious Islamic militant terrorist alliance.

Programmed by a team from Al-Qaeda's Global Islamic Media Front, Night of Bush Capturing is in fact a modded version of an older, US-made game, Quest for Saddam, released by Petrilla Entertainment in 2003. Al-Qaeda's coders swapped out the artwork and textures of this earlier game - made with the Torque Game Engine - replacing the crude representations of Arab soldiers and anti-Islamic propaganda for equally crude versions of American soldiers and anti-American propaganda. This straightforward re-skin turned what was intended to be a rallying, pro-Iraq war game into a diametrically-opposed (but curiously symmetrical) attack on George Bush, his foreign policy and the nation behind his presidency.

'Call of Jihadi' Screenshot 1

Bilal is no stranger to controversy. In May 2007 he locked himself in a room in Chicago, set up a paintball gun, a webcam and a website called 'Shoot an Iraqi' and allowed viewers to fire the gun at him over the Internet. According to Newsweek, viewers shot the gun 40,000 times in the project's first two and a half weeks.

At first neither game attracted much media attention, the former seen as little more than a basic, home-coded game that typified the popular American anti-Arab atmosphere of 2003, the latter a cheap and cheeky knock-off response from an international terrorist organisation. But recently both games found themselves at the forefront of a global debate on freedom of speech, artistic expression and the importance of story and setting in videogames.

Wafaa Bilaal is an Iraqi American artist and professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His latest artistic creation is a hacked version of Al-Qaeda's Night of Bush Capturing, in which he integrates himself into the game's narrative to present his own commentary on the conflict. He renamed the game 'Virtual Jihadi' before presenting it to the world as a piece to challenge viewers and inspire debate and conversation on some difficult issues.

In real life, Wafaa's 21-year-old brother, an ordinary Iraqi citizen, was killed by shrapnel during a firefight in Najaf. In his game the lead protagonist, upon learning of his sibling's death, is recruited by Al-Qaeda as a suicide-bomber, joining in the hunt for George Bush. Through his work Wafaa intends to "bring attention to the vulnerability of Iraqi civilians, highlight racist generalisations and stereotypes promoted in videogames, and demonstrate how British and American foreign policy is pushing Iraqi citizens into the arms of violent groups like Al-Qaeda".

It's a bold and broad purpose and one that saw Wafaa invited by the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to present a lecture and exhibit on this work at the end of February 2008. But the exhibition was only open for an hour before it was shut down by city officials. According to newspaper reports, the decision came after the College Republicans called the Arts department "a safe haven for terrorists". Eurogamer caught up with Wafaa this week to unpick the drama and examine some of the issues that have been raised by his game under these unusual circumstances. We started by asking him why he decided to use a videogame to get his message across.

'Call of Jihadi' Screenshot 2

The original version of the game was created by Jesse Petrilla, founder of the United American Committee. Bilal describes Petrilla's game as having been "driven from deep hatred and misguided ideology".

"While I'm not a big gamer, I realise that games are now a huge part of our lives," he explained. "Videogames are moving from being reactive to more dynamic and interactive. For a long time we did not have interactive mediums but only reactive ones. I think that videogames can be more effective and powerful than other mediums such as film in conveying a message, in part because they are an active experience that allows the participant to create the narrative. Also, videogames are the medium of our time. As Quest for Saddam and Night of Bush Capturing were already out there, modifying these controversial examples added weight to my message."

And what exactly is that message? "I am trying to engage people in a conversation," says Bilal. "We, in the United States of America, have become isolated in a comfort zone. We are so far removed from the conflict. In a way I wanted to hold a mirror to people's faces to let them see the reality of this war's repercussions and explore the fallacy in our culture's denial of that disconnection and their stereotyping of other cultures. In a sense I want to reverse the role of the hunter and the hunted."

"The original game, Quest for Saddam, did not get any attention from the media and the state department because the ideas it promoted (that all Arabs/Muslims are terrorists) was the norm. Then when the game was modified to become the Night of Bush Capturing, the State Department labelled it as a terrorist propaganda and a recruiting tool. I thought that was strange because the only thing Al-Qaeda did is to replace the Iraqi skins with American soldiers' skins and Saddam's skin with Bush's skin. What exactly made it propaganda where it wasn't before?"

The idea that any war on terror is destined to failure has been previously explored in the flash game September 12. Players are able to fire rockets at terrorists milling about in a crowded city. Doing so will eliminate the threat but it's impossible to avoid collateral damage, as any nearby civilians are also killed. The family members of these killed civilians then become terrorists and the destructive cycle continues. We wonder if Bilal's game is trying to make a similar point?

"I like the allegory here. What the United States is doing in Iraq is very similar to the idea explored in September 12. Before the invasion of 2003 there were no terrorist organisations other than Saddam's (which was supported by the US). That the US fails to protect Iraqi civilians gives Al-Qaeda a safe haven to exist in and pressures ordinary Iraqis to become part of it. Also since there is so much death among Iraqi civilians, the population becomes outraged and adopts violence as a way of speaking out against the occupation. Sometimes I think that was the original intent of going to Iraq - to create a conflict zone and attract all the Jihadis to fight the US there. As Cheney and Bush often say 'better to fight them there than here'. Perhaps they wanted to stir up this conflict in Iraq to serve their own interests?"

Driver, the 1998 precursor to the 3D Grand Theft Autos, told the story of an undercover cop working from within the mob to bring about its downfall. Cast as one Maverick Tanner, players were given assignments to steal cars, carry out hits and scare witnesses into silence all with the aim of eventually showing your employers a police badge and your true reason for working with them.

At least, that's how the story ended up. But it wasn't always that way. During development Maverick Tanner was as crooked as his bosses, a plain old mobster, working the game, living life one death at a time. However, as the game neared completion, developer Reflections caught wind of the fact their back-story was likely to land their game an adult age rating, a decision that would hurt the game's sales significantly. The solution? Recast Tanner as an undercover cop. While every single aspect of gameplay and mission remained untouched, the shift in narrative purpose secured the game the 15 rating its creators were after, a message sounding loud and clear that, where the mainstream is concerned, the back-story and purpose driving a game character is at least as important as its mechanics in influencing public reaction to a game.

The actions you undertake in Virtual Jihadi are really no functionally different to those experienced in Call of Duty or Medal of Honor (i.e. shoot the enemies before they shoot you). But the back-story makes it somehow less acceptable. Eurogamer asks Bilal if this kind of reaction is hypocritical or natural?

'Call of Jihadi' Screenshot 3

The Al-Qaeda re-skin of Quest for Saddam was just that: a simple graphical overhaul whereby Petrilla's original textures and images were swapped out for their own ones. That the underlying message of the game could be twisted so simply by each side speaks terrifying volumes.

"Of course it is hypocritical," he replies. "But then again we should expect it. My game reverses the roles, viewing the conflict seen in countless first-person shooters from the other side. And people in the US do not like what they see (or in this case, what they heard, since the game was open for less than one hour before it was closed down). This reaction reinforces my belief that a 'superior' culture will always impose its point of view on the rest of the world. And when someone speaks out effectively, he or she gets labelled. That is a sign of culture in trouble because it cannot accept a different point of view.

America's Army is a first-person shooter paid for by the American military. We ask Bilal if he believes games such as America's Army and Night of Bush Capturing are effective recruitment tools, or of they're simply entertainment. "The Army denies their game is propaganda," he answers. "But at the same time they labelled the Night of Bush Capturing as a recruiting tool. Personally I think what the United States is doing in Iraq is the best recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. In both cases I'm concerned when teenagers and kids play because of the inherent idealisation of the war and violence."

That Night of Bush Capturing had only to change some textures to turn the message against the original creator reveals a kind of logical symmetry between the anti-Saddam and anti-Bush messages. "I think it's fair to say that," says Bilal. "Since I lived in both places I see more and more similarities between the decisions made by the two regimes. I hope it doesn't come to the same point that was reached in Iraq under Saddam. But Iraqis surrendered their power to the regime in the name of the nation and the national security, something that is clearly happening in America right now."

That Bilal's game has been thrown out of the RPI in a sense proves all of his points regarding closed dialogue in America, the threat to freedom of speech and underlying racism in many of the American people. Eurogamer wonders if this was the kind of reaction he was expecting? "I did not expect it from an educational institution. But it looks like the institution there has become an extension of the military and the government - in fact the RPI gets extensive funding from the government. It is taking an authoritarian direction, which I think is the future of the US if people do not start speaking out. It is sad because if that is the case, Al-Qaeda has achieved its goal in changing the way people live in the US. The treatment my videogame has received is yet more evidence of the fact the terrorists have already won."

Picture of Simon.

About Simon Parkin

Simon Parkin is an author and journalist on video games. A regular contributor to Eurogamer since 2005, his work has also appeared in Edge, The Telegraph, Gamasutra and Boing Boing.

Read more articles from Simon by visiting the Simon Parkin archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (181) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dizzy #1 4 years ago

    Capture Bush? Surely shoot him in the face would be a better idea.

  • GrandTheftApu #2 4 years ago

    Like whoa

  • php_penguin #3 4 years ago

    why has EG gone so political lately? I just want funny reviews and news for games ...

  • Bealsy #4 4 years ago

    serious politically based article on eurogamer... *throws up in shock*

    Where does this sit in the "360 iz teh beztest everr lolzzz" argument?

  • CaptCastle #5 4 years ago

    Interesting article, thanks.

  • Razorus #6 4 years ago

    Thank you Eurogamer for publishing this article. It's relevant and important and I just hope more people can open their eyes and see that not everything is black and white. "Goodies and Baddies" don't exist any more. It's more like "quite bad, and worse".

    There was another game that should have been mentioned (maybe I missed it actually) called America's 10 Most Wanted. Anyone remember that? It was an FPS where you slaughter terrorists and then turns into a beat 'em up when you face a boss. The bosses were Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Wonder what happened to it?


  • Loser #7 4 years ago

    Great article!

  • TripSkyway #8 4 years ago

    Interesting article.

  • miiiguel #9 4 years ago

    Interresting article, however, it goes the "mainstream" route - VGs are beeing used as war propaganda tool, and whatnot. We're reaching another level, Army of Two is an example of that. It does of fine job in ridiculing war, and pro-war individuals (aka weirdos?) - "That's a good find, but if you happen to find WMDs I know someone who who'd be very happy!"; "Why do you want to do the right thing?, it's all about money man!". Some American sites (Gamespot) even claimed that AoT should be more carefull the way they treat "delicate" matters. I say AoT's is the way to go.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 13:56

  • Madafunkola #10 4 years ago

    I think Mr Bilal is a very dangerous individual.
    Paintball without Goggles!!!????!!!!
    He needs to watch the PJ and Duncan era of Byker Grove to realise how irresponsible and damaging to todays youth he is with such a blatent disregard for basic safety precautions.

  • _Price_ #11 4 years ago

    I'd quite like to play a game in the same style as Freedom Fighters, but as a 'baddie' instead of a vengeful American plumber. The hero (antihero?) invariably has huge odds stacked against them so why not have the chance to take down a corrupt (fictional?) 'free world' government.
    Edited by 2 at 26/03/08 @ 13:56

  • Fur_Cough #12 4 years ago

    Well done - a very interesting, relevant and well written article. Exactly what Eurogamer should be doing!

  • anomagnus #13 4 years ago

    Oh yea, this is A GREAT idea, this will really close the gap between the arab world and the west.

    this is just one more arab pissed of at the west, trying to dress it up as art.

  • Razorus #14 4 years ago

    @anomagnus:

    Yes, that may be the case. But I don't remember other Arabs dressing up hate as art lol. Plus, this guy is hardly antagonistic (especially compared to some other people). He's just trying to make a point and not hurting anyone in the process (except himself with a paintball gun). What's wrong with trying to bridge the gap anyway? You don't want peace?

    also, @sofalover: Errm....wtf dude? Don't bother making dumb comments like that.

  • Dark_Stranger #15 4 years ago

    reminds me of Golden Eye

  • PazJohnMitch #16 4 years ago

    Interesting read.

    American's in hypocritical shock.

    This has been going on for years in other medias. Many American war films have either been canned, left unreleased or are heavily editted before they are allowed to be viewed by the public. The reason for this is many of the Hollywood studios are backed with military investments. Therefore the military stops films that show them in a bad light.

    And it is not only the Americans. At school we we taught about Nazi propaganda and the Allies recruitment techniques. We were not allowed to refer to the Allies propaganda as propaganda as we were always in the right. Like fuck we were! Concentration camps were invented in South Africa under British rule the Nazis just took them to a whole new level.

    Every government filters the information they give to the people living there. Countries like China do it more than others but nobody is innocent.

    And remember; history is always written by the country that won.

  • lewiep #17 4 years ago

    I heard terrorism is bad.

  • lempriere #18 4 years ago

    Great article on a difficult subject. Thank you.

  • Hughes. #19 4 years ago

    Turnabout is fair play.

    How many games feature going to middle eastern countries and removing their leaders?

  • quantumsheep #20 4 years ago

    Awesome article. Amazing how just changing the textures can completely redefine how a game is viewed, or how a story is told.

  • DrKuK #21 4 years ago

    "this is just one more arab pissed of at the west, trying to dress it up as art." quote

    I wonder what could be making him pissed off? Surely it had nothing to do with his brother dying in Iraq, nah thats not it its just because he's an Arab who hates our freedoms. You know those freedoms that arent really freedoms but conceptually enough to make us believe we are better than those Arabs.

    Seriously tho great article, crap game (whatever skin is used)
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 14:13

  • miiiguel #22 4 years ago

    Anyone read about the donations the video-game industry did to USA presidential candidates? They mainly go to the Republican one (EA gives the same amount to the 3 that are still on the run though). Activision stands out with the largest donation (at the time) again, to the Republican old dude.

  • IronCladChicken #23 4 years ago

    @PazJohnMitch

    What school did you go to?
    At my school they reveled in telling us how much shit Britain (especially during the empire) had done
    British war propaganda was called British war propaganda; British concentration camps were called British concentration camps, etc...
    None of it was watered down to make it seem more acceptable/palatable - In fact, the teachers seemed to enjoy telling us what bastards the British were it more than any else they did that year :)

  • IronCladChicken #24 4 years ago

    @lewiep
    That's okay, because freedom fighting is good.

  • penhalion #25 4 years ago

    Was it not Thomas Jefferson who first said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

    Americans have long since seased to be vigilant about anything except their external appearances (cosmetic surgery seems more important than their rights as individuals). All major decisions seem to have been handed over to the state out of sheer apathy.

  • suicida #26 4 years ago

    Great article. More please EG.

  • James173 #27 4 years ago

    Good article. No reason this kind of writing can't fit in alongside "funny reviews and news for games".

  • HonestJoe #28 4 years ago

    Sure I've seen a porno called "Night of Bush capturing"

  • Ryuken #29 4 years ago

    This is good stuff.

  • Laika #30 4 years ago

    Good article. I like a nice side order of politics with my fun and games.

    Not that politics can't be fun.

    Incidentally, opinions on tomorrow's Byron report anyone?

  • Kenshin001 #31 4 years ago

    I seem to remember Al Qaeda slamming two planes into a couple of buildings resulting in the deaths of thousands of American civilians. Odd that the US government doesn't want an Al Qaeda propaganda game being shown then.

    Anyway I'm sure we are all looking forward to the game where you can play a jihadi and blow up London busses. It will surely be thought provoking and interesting and prove some kind of point.

  • anomagnus #32 4 years ago

    Personally, i'm pro war, pro bush, and a mad, right wing autocrat. I make no apologies for it, and nor should i

    I personally can't stand the Arab worlds constant assertions that it's ALWAYS someone else's fault, it can never be their fault.

    But what i don't want are articles like this creeping into a gaming site. I game to get away from rubbish like this man.

    @razorus

    sorry, poor grammar on my part. Hes just one more pissed of arab. But this one is different in trying to dress his hate up in art.

    I wonder, deep down, when the planes hit the two towers, was there even a small part of him that said 'you deserved that'


  • DanWhitehead #33 4 years ago

    Many American war films have either been canned, left unreleased or are heavily editted before they are allowed to be viewed by the public. The reason for this is many of the Hollywood studios are backed with military investments. Therefore the military stops films that show them in a bad light.

    I'd love to see your evidence for this.

  • anomagnus #34 4 years ago

    @ PazJohnMitch

    Oh, you must mean films like Platoon, Apocalypse now, Rambo (first blood!), etc, which were lovely and shiny happy propaganda films

    i suspect you like your conspiracy theories...

  • tapper #35 4 years ago

    I'd love to see your evidence for this.

    Me too.

  • PazJohnMitch #36 4 years ago

    @IronCladChicken

    I went to a school in Tamworth. (Tamworth is 15 miles NE of Birmingham).

    The school was quite insular to be honest. There were only 2 black families, 1 Chinese family and 1 Japanese family whose children attended my school. It is only looking back that I realise just how odd that is for an area that close to a major city. We were taught about how great it was to be British. Religious Studies were also removed from the school as many parents complained that only Christianity should be taught in schools. (I even suspect my mum was one of those that complained).

    It is clear to me that many people just accept what they are told. I find this weird. (Maybe this is why I went on to study science and engineering?) I always want to find out the truth for myself.

    I was a little worried when I took my ex home, (she is Indian), as I was unsure how people would react to her. Fortunetly things seem to have improved since I was at school. Although I still know people that are very racist and think nothing of telling anti-islamic jokes.

  • Buztafen #37 4 years ago

    Its that time of the year again is it.....:)

  • ScarOnTheSky #38 4 years ago

    Great Article. Gaming journalism is constantly getting more mature.

  • Turambar #39 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    "I personally can't stand the Arab worlds constant assertions that it's ALWAYS someone else's fault, it can never be their fault."

    This is of course contrasted by the western ideals of taking responsibility for your own actions. Only in the Arab world will you get people suing mcdonalds for making them fat and suing coffeeshops for serving hot coffee without warning labels...... Wait...

  • BadBoyBonner #40 4 years ago

    Anomagnus

    Don't forget to add...

    Born of the 4th of July
    Jarhead
    In the Valley of Elah

  • mischief #41 4 years ago

    Great. Look forward to the Daily Mail and Keith Vaz getting their teeth into this one. Last week video games incited rape, this week they promote theft and vandalism, next week they are at the root of all terrorism. Expect the Byron report to get flushed down the lav as video games become the official media scapegoat foreverything bad in 2008.

  • Turambar #42 4 years ago

    @JSPOOLE

    I think you may have missed the point entirely. Please open your mind and read again.

  • BadBoyBonner #43 4 years ago

    And doesn't one of the best games out at the moment allow you to shoot American Soldiers all day long - CoD4?

  • PazJohnMitch #44 4 years ago

    @ anomagnus

    Interesting that you mention Apocolypse Now. That is one of the films that was cut down before it was released. I believe some of the material was later reinserted in the Redux version.

    I also saw a documentary on this subject which is probably ona special edition dvd of one of the films you mentioned. (I suspect it was Platoon but I am probably very wrong). One of the famous Nam films was rejected by nearly all of the big Hollywood film studios as it showed too many autrocities. It was eventually picked up by a smaller studio.

  • gogobaka #45 4 years ago

    "The Al-Qaeda re-skin of Quest for Saddam was just that: a simple graphical overhaul whereby Petrilla's original textures and images were swapped out for their own ones. That the underlying message of the game could be twisted so simply by each side speaks terrifying volumes."

    Yes, terrifying...

  • Agente_Silva #46 4 years ago

    Can I suggest adding Ratzinger to the "bosses" in this game? I don´t see any problem on the argument of this game, considering that US Government is making propaganda through videogames since the American´s Army days. Every one knows nowadays that US policy STINKS. Since the end of the cold war that the recipe for US´s inner stability (employment and controlling inflation) is achieved through making war in other countries (doesn´t matter if there´s an enemy there - comunists; terrorists, whatever!). The "general public agreement" on those actions is, in certain ways, binded by this subliminal campaign that says war is ok! I say F"## US Policies - it is time for a change on economy references (wich will take a bit) and a change on public opinion and individual minds (wich is already happening).

    Be Well

  • ruckus #47 4 years ago

    Good article. I always prefer games which allow you to go either side and should be the norm for war games in general.

  • cheekyjay #48 4 years ago

    What a fantastic, brave, intelligent article. I'm glad somebody in the game's press is seeing fit to discuss these issues, and not simply label Bilal a terrorist sympathiser as much of the American press has seen fit to do. I may be a very Westernised Jewish guy myself, but I must admit that the article raises some really interesting issues for debate about true freedoms of speech and the nature and perception of propoganda from different sides. I'd love to see IGN or one of the Fox affiliates running this story - something tells me they may take on a slightly less balanced opinion.

  • anomagnus #49 4 years ago

    @Turambar

    seriously, is that it? Is the best possible recourse that your defense is able to offer?

    The arab world is sitting on the worlds most valuable resource, and what has it done with it? NOTHING. Nadda, f**k all, except fund terrorism, and generally complain that the west tramples all over it.

    its always Israels fault that the middle east is unsettled! Its America's fault for needing the oil! Its the west fault for not giving us enough aid! Its America's fault for supporting saddam! Its Americas fault for toppling Saddam! Its the Sunnis, no wait, its the Shi'ites, no, hold on its the Kurds! No, its Egypt's fault for supporting Israel now! NO WAIT....................

    You know what, in many circumstances, the arab world has been unfairly treated and exploited, and in just as many circumstances, its been the arab world exploiting itself. Had OPEC ever bother to do anything other than count its money, it could have transformed the arab wrold. But why do that?

    Simplistic view or not, the arab world has never once stood up and said, yea, look, at least half our problems are our fault

    Do you know what i remember most from 9/11, the video footage around the middle east, of crowds celebrating in the streets, the same scene repeated over and over and over, of seeing kids running around firing guns in the air celebrating.

    I knew, it could have been any western country, and they'd still be celebrating.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:04

  • stoopidgreg #50 4 years ago

    congrats eurogamer

  • septimus #51 4 years ago

    This is going to go well.

    A game based on killing people for your invisible friend... sounds like a good idea to me. I'm going to wait for the railroad tycoon style game that's based around Scientology instead. Probably as much death involved in that, but more profit and Tom Cruise.

  • Turambar #52 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    "Simplistic view or not, the arab world has never once stood up and said, yea, look, at least half our problems are our fault"

    Neither has anyone else so i really don't think thats reason enough for your blatant and generalistic racism.

  • BadBoyBonner #53 4 years ago

    Lets not forget films need to put bums on seats and be palatable to the masses - they are designed to entertain and make money.

    Now if you want something insightful and closer to the bone - watch a documentary.

    Film studios are out to make money - if they seem to be politically motivated that is merely a byproduct of them seeing how much cash they can make on something rather that it being the primary driving force.

    As for propaganda - I think most of the world was hoodwinked by America - and the state of near permanent fear it tries to engender to justify action which is seemingly without much basis or at least it's response is disproportionate to the problem. If all the worlds oil was actually under American soil you can bet your bottom dollar there would be next to no soldiers fighting in the Middle East.

  • cheekyjay #54 4 years ago

    The only section of the article I would really challenge is the assertion that the American eduction authorities are perhaps propagandist institutions. Sure, they are part-funded by their government, but aren't almost all educational facilities across the world?

  • DanWhitehead #55 4 years ago

    You know what, in many circumstances, the arab world has been unfairly treated and exploited, and in just as many circumstances, its been the arab world exploiting itself. Had OPEC ever bother to do anything other than count its money, it could have transformed the arab wrold. But why do that?

    Simplistic view or not, the arab world has never once stood up and said, yea, look, at least half our problems are our fault

    Why do you keep saying "the arab world" as if that's some sort of coherent entity? It's like blaming "the european world" for World War 2.

  • anomagnus #56 4 years ago

    @f01re

    while you watched the towers burn, are you seriously saying part of you said 'you deserve that?'

    America's foreign policy never seems to be a real concern to most Europeans when its benefiting them, does it?

    Bear in mind to, that when 9/11 was conceived and planed, Clinton was in power, and Bush had got into the office on a platform of disengaging and an almost isolationist approach.

    Had osama just kept his head down, things would have been very different.

    No one ever mentions that fact that had 9/11 not occurred, there would be no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    But god forbid anyone be seen to criticizing the lovely, and gentle arab world. After all, its much more trendy to attack america.

  • Danbojones Verified Senior Staff Writer, GamesIndustry.biz #57 4 years ago

    "Do you know what i remember most from 9/11, the video footage around the middle east, of crowds celebrating in the streets, the same scene repeated over and over and over, of seeing kids running around firing guns in the air celebrating."

    Anomagnus. Who in the f*** do you think chose those images to be repeatedly shown on TV news networks? The locals? The sinister Islamic underground which controls the media? Or maybe people who had a vested interest in putting across the perception of the Arab world as hateful and vindictive. An ideology which would perhaps like to see more people supporting conflict with the Middle East in order to pursue its own goals more efficaciously? Like, say, the predominantly politically influenced Western Media perhaps?

    JSPOOLE You're either a troll or simply somebody who is incapable of forming logically acceptable arguments. How is the game talked about here based on 'real life murders'? The whole point is that the re-skin changes perception of the action from being a celebration of freedom and vigilance against terrorism to being about an assault on the Western way of life and its 'elected representatives'. It's not a celebration of violence in any form whatsoever, just a way to make us re-examine the way in which we perceive our 'enemies'.

  • anomagnus #58 4 years ago

    @dan white head - i treat them like a single entity because i view them as a single entity.

    @Turambar

    the fact that your friends have never had the courage to examine the roots and causes of the arab worlds current state, doesnt mean that no one else has.

    And i wondered how long it would take you to throw up the racism card....... Not very long it appears
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:12

  • septimus #59 4 years ago

    Half of you don't have a clue what you are commenting about.

    Most of the deaths in Iraq are from them killing each other. The invasion just gave them an excuse to kick off and kill each other over their religion. Same religion, two opposing branches, both want control. Death.

    anomagnus is wrong on quite a few levels, but he is also right on others. Turambar, you just seem like an apologist and liberal who would sit on any fence. At least he knows what he believes in; I don't think he is racist, more angry but spouting off about it on a comment thread instead of actually doing something... just like the rest of us.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:12

  • anomagnus #60 4 years ago

    @Danbojones

    the fact that cnn chose to show those pictures doesnt actually excuse the event does it?

    The point being that the streets were still flooded by people celebrating the mass murder of 3000 people?

    Does the fact that it was shown on cnn excuse that?

  • Double0_Jensen #61 4 years ago

    JSPoole... You really did miss the point of the article, didn't you? Read it again, although this time I suggest you engage brain beforehand, and try and make some sense of it before you pass opinion. The artist is trying to put across his own commentary on the war in Iraq (in which his brother has already been killed). I suspect that you don't understand his art, or his viewpoint, which is why you've resorted to accusing EG of 'celebrating' the game. And lets not forget that the game in question was originally a game about capturing Saddam. But I suppose you think that would be ok, as it's white people getting the funny coloured foreigners.

    Anomagnus... Well... You're just one of those plain and simple idiots, aren't you? I suggest taking a couple of history lessons. Then grow up a bit. And then never share your opnion with anyone else ever again.

    As for me, I don't like the idea of this 'art' because it just doesn't strike me as a very good idea. BUT, I do applaud EG for tackling such a tough subject. Nice work.

  • anomagnus #62 4 years ago

    @Double0_Jensen

    i'll post my opinion where ever the hell i want, idiot

  • DanWhitehead #63 4 years ago

    i treat them like a single entity because i view them as a single entity.

    Impeccable logic. Well done.

  • f01re #64 4 years ago

    @automagnus

    "No one ever mentions that fact that had 9/11 not occurred, there would be no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq."

    *lol* Yeah right, America had never been anywhere near those places before 9/11. Oh wait...

  • mkreku #65 4 years ago

    Great article! I've always been disturbed by the obvious propaganda in American games (Gears of War, Call of Duty, etc) where they basically rewrite history so it looks like the Americans single handedly won the war and saved the world or portray war as the best thing that can happen because it gives people a chance to fight for their country. I had no idea censoring was in such effect in the US though.

  • Turambar #66 4 years ago

    @anomagnus & septimus

    Arabs are a race. Racism is hatred or intolerance of other races. Just because you can justify it to yourself doesn't stop it being racism.

    Liberal? Maybe. But i haven't apologised for anyone or anything so far.

  • BadBoyBonner #67 4 years ago

    When you have people of power that are capabale of grave crimes - someone needs to take action.

    Here is a link as to what can happen to one of the most powerful men of our times - crime just does not pay.

    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=kYvZnTFpip0
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:30

  • Killerbee #68 4 years ago

    Great article EG. Well done for reporting on this.

    And whilst Bilal's message undoubtedly makes for uncomfortable reading to western minds, you have to accept that he has a point about US hipocrisy. His aim, surely, is to challenge people to think about this and not just accept what their government and media choose to tell us.

    Disagreeing with him and disliking his message is fine - the point is you're allowed to hold and express those views.

  • f01re #69 4 years ago

    @mkreku

    "I've always been disturbed by the obvious propaganda in American games (Gears of War, Call of Duty, etc)"

    I'm guessing you haven't played it but CoD4 constantly takes the mick out of American foreign policy and their soldiers general incompetance and ignorance.

  • anomagnus #70 4 years ago

    @ f01re

    pre 9/11 i think the only interest the US had in Afghanistan was Clinton's abortive attempt to take out bin laden with a few cruise missiles.

    pre 9/11 the only time America was in Iraq was AFTER it invaded Kuwait, and was accompanied by virtually the whole of nato.....

    as for the racism angle, yea, yea, go for it, if it makes you feel better.

    personally, i see little redeeming factors in the arab world. It seems to me insular, sexist, racist, brutal and backward looking.

    Correct me if i'm wrong, but can you point to many democracies, equal rights for women, any real separation between church and state, any country with freedom of press, in fact, any country not really in the grip of men who's entire view point is defined by an incredibly narrow interpretation of text hundreds of years old....

    in the end, only a countries citizens can truly decide its fate. Quite simply, how long do you think the US could justify a presence in Iraq, if the entire country had just accepted democracy, not the gun? Do you really think they could still be there in any force, if there was peace....

    Of course not. But the idea of peaceful resistance in the Arab world is a foreign concept.

    Heres a classic example - Iraq won some major football match several months ago. 13 people die during celebrations from people firing their guns into the air, and the bullets killing people when they landed.

    For gods sake, if the arab world cant even celebrate a football win with out firing off their machine guns, are you seriously suggesting that all that befalls them is someones elses fault?!!?

    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:38

  • burns #71 4 years ago

    wait to the Daily Mail get hold of this

  • f01re #72 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    You're falling for propaganda that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were in some way involved in the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence for this. Let alone there not being any WMDs.

  • Skurmedel #73 4 years ago

    Neat article. And for once that doesn't spur a 360 vs PS3 flamewar, although probably some other flamewar will emerge.

    Edit: It already has obviously.

    (When did "liberal" become a negative word?)
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:45

  • DanWhitehead #74 4 years ago

    pre 9/11 i think the only interest the US had in Afghanistan was Clinton's abortive attempt to take out bin laden with a few cruise missiles.

    pre 9/11 the only time America was in Iraq was AFTER it invaded Kuwait, and was accompanied by virtually the whole of nato.....

    Seriously, if you're this ill-informed on matters of public record, you should probably just stop typing now and go and Google up some info on America's funding and arming the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets and also just who put Saddam in power, and turned a blind eye to the worst of his crimes.

    The Middle East has thousands of years of history. It's kind of depressing to see people making grand proclamations based on their subjective understanding of the last fifteen years of it.

  • canuter #75 4 years ago

    Anomagnus: "For gods sake, if the arab world cant even celebrate a football win with out firing off their machine guns, are you seriously suggesting that all that befalls them is someones elses fault?!!?"

    If weapons were legal in Europe, every football match would be a bloodbath.

    Great article by the way.

  • anomagnus #76 4 years ago

    @ danwhitehead

    i'm well aware of the proxy cold war fought there

    but how far back should we go, should we be blaming the current state of Afghanistan on the British Invasion in the 1800's?

    Afghanistan up until 9/11 was a joke in FHM while we laughed at the Taliban banning kites.

    As for Iraq, putting Saddam in power was a shambolic mistake. I've actually said SEVERAL times that SOME of the problems of the middle east were directly our fault.

    However, that mistake has now been corrected.

    The decision then, for the ordinary Iraqi citizen to take up arms against themselves however, was entirely THEIR decision, not the the US nor anyone else's.

    @f01re
    Never once mentioned WMD's. It was a stupid cause to go to war, it was clear he didn't have any.

    Their may be some confusion here, whereby i'm saying the US was totally in the right. I agree that saddam needed to be removed, it was the US's fault, their mess and it should have been cleaned up the first time around.

    What i hate, and what disgusts me, is the current trendy, liberal BS, that everything is America's fault, and that the Middle East and Arab world is the poor innocent victim in all of this.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 15:52

  • Razorus #77 4 years ago

    @anomagnus....again.

    As an Arab myself, I have to agree with SOME of your points. I can understand why the West can at times be intimidated or misunderstanding of the Arab world. Yes, we are a tad too happy firing guns in the air. Yes, women are not treated as equals, and yes, we get angry very easily. Maybe its a genetic thing. Maybe the deserts are too hot? Maybe the West has tried numerous times to unstable the region for their own gains?

    Of course peaceful resistance is an alien concept to Arabs. The British Empire couldn't conquer Iraq because we didn't take any crap. What makes you think we'd sit on our asses now? Just remember that for all your arguments (some of which are good), there is always another side to the story, one that you may never know.

    This goes for anybody here too. What you see on the news and what you are told are never as they seem. It is very easy to manipulate people, using the Force or the media. Even suicide bomb attacks are not quite what they seem. I won't go into details but anyway, there you have it.

  • DanWhitehead #78 4 years ago

    i'm well aware of the proxy cold war fought there

    Even though America's "only interest" pre-9/11 was during the Clinton era? Uh-huh.

  • f01re #79 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    "pre 9/11 i think the only interest the US had in Afghanistan was Clinton's abortive attempt to take out bin laden with a few cruise missiles. "

    Then

    "i'm well aware of the proxy cold war fought there "

    You're even contradicting your own posts now. This is pointless.

  • anomagnus #80 4 years ago

    @ danwhitehead
    @f01re

    Did you read the post? If you did, did you understand it......

    leading ON from that, i utilized the British invasion, and the ENTIRE point to say that HOW far back did you want to go?

    A proxy cold war in the 80's hardly represented :-

    1) A major invasion
    2) ANY intrinsic interest in Afghanistan AT ALL..

    My point being, Afghanistan has NEVER been of interest to the states, except when it made itself interesting, after the mid 90's bombing of the embassies in Africa (and firing a few cruise missles, tell me how, according to FO1RE's original statement that the us were near afghanistan), and in providing bin laden a training ground for his forces, which themselves came fully to light, after they decided to incinerate 3000 people.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 16:00

  • f01re #81 4 years ago

    "according to FO1RE's original statement that the us were near afghanistan"

    You claimed they'd never been there. You really are just spouting now, this is pointless.

  • miiiguel #82 4 years ago

    @anomagnus :
    The black/white thing..., again... . By not agreeing with US external politics I'm automaticaly a Muslim fundamentlist apologist ? I don't think so. Anyway, this again, turns into a choosing sides thing, as you clearly show by claiming "liberal BS", I mean world changed since end of cold war. US now loves China's comunism (heck, have you seen the welcome party Hu Jin Tao received upon is arrival in New York ? Crazy shit!), some quasi-fascist states in midle-east are US/France best friends (Saudi Arabia); etc., so this isn't a black/white thing, imho.
    Edited by 2 at 26/03/08 @ 16:10

  • DanWhitehead #83 4 years ago

    What does "intrinsic interest" even mean? It only counts if there's a ground invasion? Our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and dozens of other countries has always been political and manipulative in nature, rather than militaristic. How far back do you want to go? As far back as we need to. You can't just draw a line in history and say "After this point, it's all the Arabs fault". We broke these countries many, many years ago and helped to foster conditions where the anarchy and religious in-fighting has flourished. This isn't a level playing field, and hasn't been for centuries.

  • miiiguel #84 4 years ago

    "Of course not. But the idea of peaceful resistance in the Arab world is a foreign concept. "
    You seem to have the idea that the "Arab world" is but "Iraq" and "Afeghanistan", man... western have many friends in many creepy Arab countries (check youtube to see Bush's dance with the - deep pockets - devils...), or Sarko seling nukes to "our friends".

  • Smog #85 4 years ago

    What about Kuma War? <a href="http://www.kumawar.com/ ">http://www.kumawar.com/ </a>
    This game is so insensitive, right wing fascist propaganda about killing Iraqis based on 'real world events in the war on terror'. Jesus just look at the list of missions you can do. So wrong!
    Edited by 2 at 26/03/08 @ 16:17

  • mingster #86 4 years ago

    Why is it that americans don't accept the fact their country has bombed more other countries than anybody else.

    Since WW2 USA has bombed 22 countries and including the previous two world wars it makes a total of 40.

    All in the name of peace... hmm. I think your way more agressive than the Arabs.

  • Grom #87 4 years ago

    @lockyuk2000

    "There's no point trying to reason with the True Believers"

    Whereas you are known amongst your friends as lockyuk "Open Minded" 2000?

    "I'm going to be visiting you less and less. Articles like this rile me up"

    More of these articles then please EG!

  • Feanor #88 4 years ago

    They're not more aggresive, they just have more bombs.

  • anomagnus #89 4 years ago

    @ fo1re

    "No one ever mentions that fact that had 9/11 not occurred, there would be no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq."

    *lol* Yeah right, America had never been anywhere near those places before 9/11. Oh wait...

    my point being in the last 30-40 years, before 9/11, the US sum total of commitment had been to fire some missles into the country in punsihment for its embassies being destroyed, and to send in intelligene operatives to arm locals in their fight with the soviets.

    Since my original point was there were no troops in Afghanistan, and you countered with a denial of that, I'm explaining my viewpoint, that there were no troops anywhere near Afghanistan, nor where there likely to be, since the country held no interest.

    @Danwhitehead

    At some point you will have to draw a line. There isn't a country in Europe that hasn't been invaded at some point by another. Should Ireland have blamed its poor economic performance on the UK for so long (and bear in mind i'm a republican from derry), clearly not, since we turned it round in a single generation. Yea, we were royally f**ked over by england for a long time, but there comes a point when you have to be in control of your own destiny, and let go of the past.

    Should France be blaming its problems on Germany?

    Should we go right the way back, and pin our societal problems on the vikings?

    I know that might sound ridiculous, but I've never said the west was BLAMELESS, i'm just sick sh*t of the arab world never saying, yea, you know what, maybe this isn't the right way to do things...

    Theres an inherinet racism among the arab world, one that tells me that the way i live my life is wrong. In turn, i find myself disgusted by their way of living. The difference being, i am allowed to freely have a different opionion. Well, to a point apparently, unless of course, that makes me a racist

    @miiiguel

    that not what i'm saying at all, i even said i disagreed with some things myself! I'm actually saying MYSELF, its not black and white.

    But NOTHING is going to change, when everyone starts harping on about how everything is the States fault, and that the Arab world should take no responsibility for its actions

    As for why i keep referring to the arab world, how many foriegn fighters, fighters from Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc, are currently in Iraq right now, i wonder?

    I will keep referring to the arab world, because Al-Qeada is made up of mad men from nearly every arab country.

  • anomagnus #90 4 years ago

    @ mingster

    you're right mingster, they shouldn't have bombed anyone during world war 2.....

    they should have jsut let hitler roll over the whole of europe.

    I'm sure he would have LOVED the middle east


  • neuroniky #91 4 years ago

    Great article.

    The comment thread unfortunately is not at the same level at the article, because, as it often happens when speaking of these matters, a couple of individuals who can't understand that world is not black or white, but made by different greys, manage to polarize the conversation and turn a possibility of dialog in another exercise in antagonizing.

    I don't want to get into the discussion, cause I've not got enough time right now to write a long enough post, but I wanted to comment three random facts...

    1) About censorship and movies: Apocalypse Now was NOT censored. It was cut, but the material that was cut was left out of the movie because it made the movie too long. It's something that always happens in the process of making a movie; it's not censorship. The Redux version (while being one of those very rare case where the director's cut is better than the original cut) didn't add anything worse than what was already present in the original version from the moral or anti-war point of view. Also, one could argue that Apocalypse Now it's not even a movie about war at all, but I'm digressing.
    2) About "arabs" being this and that: a nice trip to Egypt can help understand the arab culture better; the place had thought me a lot of things about muslim and middle eastern culture, about their views on many things, and also about why we often fail to communicate. And about how much well you can go along with them if you just leave prejudice outside the door. You know, in the end: we're all people, we share the same DNA and we all live and breath in the same way. Bad people are everywhere. So are good people. Having different cultures doesn't prevent two people to understand each other.
    3) About firing guns after football matches wins: well, I'm from Italy, and I can testimony the fact that similar things happen here too. I also remember a time where people lived or died for football matches in other, now much more civilized than us on these regards, places of Europe (like England). The human race is unfortunately violent by nature.
    4) About people firing guns after 9/11: there were people celebrating for sure. I hope they never have to suffer what the families of those who died in the two towers had to suffer. But, we don't know how many people where celebrating. We don't even know if the things that were shown on TV where celebrations for that event. I've been at a political manifestation once, and it was pacific and everything went along, and then the news showed a lot of fights occurred during that manifestation. Only it was like 0.0001% of people involved in that, but it was more useful for the news to prove their point to show that instead of the masses of pacific people marching. So, in the end, don't believe the news. Use your own brains.

  • tobsen #92 4 years ago

    I didn't think I could be more ashamed of being european

    Somebody here needs psychological treatment.

  • miiiguel #93 4 years ago

    I have no simpathy for midle-east religious states, but I also strongly disagree with enforcing an universal society model. Many neo-cons were previously Marxists, and they clearly imported that idea from "the dude".

  • neuroniky #94 4 years ago

    @miiiguel: I love the Dude. Or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. :D

  • miiiguel #95 4 years ago

    Yeah..., lol! I tried oh so many times to read "the dude", but I can't..., my brain starts sweating, the guy is too ahead. lol.
    Dialetical materialism..., ffs...
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 16:48

  • smoothn00dle #96 4 years ago

    If base on the same logic, COD4 is recruitment tool, tooo..

  • marilena #97 4 years ago

    About American games being too much in favor of the Unites States, I have to say that it's not the developer bias that drives this, but the market bias. It's important for a game to sell well in America, so they will make sure Americans like it. There are even games developed in Europe that are US-centric, like IO Interactive's Freedom Fighters, while the most fair games in recent history have actually been American (the Call of Duty series - always tried to show the war from different perspectives, nut just that of all-American heroes).

  • anomagnus #98 4 years ago

    "I like the allegory here. What the United States is doing in Iraq is very similar to the idea explored in September 12. Before the invasion of 2003 there were no terrorist organisations other than Saddam's (which was supported by the US). That the US fails to protect Iraqi civilians gives Al-Qaeda a safe haven to exist in and pressures ordinary Iraqis to become part of it. Also since there is so much death among Iraqi civilians, the population becomes outraged and adopts violence as a way of speaking out against the occupation. Sometimes I think that was the original intent of going to Iraq - to create a conflict zone and attract all the Jihadis to fight the US there. As Cheney and Bush often say 'better to fight them there than here'. Perhaps they wanted to stir up this conflict in Iraq to serve their own interests?"

    Listen to the rubbish Bilal is spouting here.

    This is exactly my point. Rather than saying, do you know what guys, there were some serious issues here, because as soon as we got a chance, we started shotting the SH*T out of each other

    Instead, its much easier for him to come up with a BS master plan, whereby the US has forced the Iraqi's to kill each other. There is no mention, for example, of Syria or Iran supporting terrorists. After all, this doesn't fit in with his world view.

    And as for what bush and cheney say, i don't think i have ever seen that quoted before.

    He's no more interested in highlighting hypocrisy. He's just another another Arab, hating the west

  • miiiguel #99 4 years ago

    @lockyuk2000 :
    "They were reporting on how happy the Palestinians where at regaining control of one of the beaches previously held by Israel; they had video of people playing on the beach. But there were no women there, just men and boys."
    I think you are mistaken, I saw that, and they showed a beach that used to be used by Fatah, and now it is by Hamas. They then intervewed a woman that said the beach was much better now clean of indecent women and some other major ultra religious stuff. Then they showed the same woman going into the water completly dressed up, full burka, only the eyes uncovered.
    The same show also showed that there are ppl (mainly from Fatah) who have comon good sense, and that there is a midle-class in Palestine who are segregated by the fanatics. Ppl like us.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 16:54

  • wadgem #100 4 years ago

    Thank you, EG.

    More of this please.

  • AHiFi #101 4 years ago

    anomagnus - For what I can see, despite painting the American government in bad light, they still show just one side.

    It's kinda like embedded journalism in that regard. It has got to be hard to relate to the other side in the conflict when you're bunking with a Marine...kinda like how those movies take us alongside US troops. So despite what these movies show about the Government, they still aren't getting us involved with the opposition.

    Although, First Blood is an exception - but it's not a war movie; it's commentary on the general Anti-Vietnam sentiments.

  • Kenshin001 #102 4 years ago

    "And whilst Bilal's message undoubtedly makes for uncomfortable reading to western minds, you have to accept that he has a point about US hipocrisy. His aim, surely, is to challenge people to think about this and not just accept what their government and media choose to tell us."

    Given the diversity of media and outlooks in the US such an aim would seem ludicrous. He already stated what his aim was which is to highlight racist stereotypes in games and show how UK/US policy pushes Iraqis to join Al Qaeda, or something. As far as hypocrisy goes Bilal used a modded video game about the capture of Saddam Hussein to illustrate his point. A tad ironic given that Bilal wanted Saddam deposed, tried and failed to organise resistance and then fled to the warm bosom of American protection where he proceeded to use Al Qaeda material to show Americans' propensity "for violence, racism and propaganda". LOL. Not that Iraqis have a propensity for those things of course, I mean just look at their history.

  • stepneg #103 4 years ago

    Why didn't you ask the important questions like, "is it better than Gears?"... and what about the achievement structure? This is what will stop me sleeping at night!!1!

  • anomagnus #104 4 years ago

    @f01re

    no, i replied to your original post that America deserved 9/11

  • JJKrista1 #105 4 years ago

    Great article. Also loving the passion generated in this thread.

    Not much to add to the debate except to say there are always two side to every story. Life is not black and white and the newspapers/media/TV companies don't tell the whole truth. etc

    Aside from regurgitating platitudes, I've had the fortune to travel around a lot of the world (on business and on hols.) I've been to Europe, Asia, Africa and America. ("So what?" I here you ask, no big deal...) My point: The primary difference I've found between all the different cultures is that (more or less) people are the same, wherever you go.

    In my experience its politicial and religious ideology that brings out the worst in people.

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Peace.

    :Feels the karma rush:

  • anomagnus #106 4 years ago

    @ AHiFi

    i kinda used first blood, because of the anti Vietnam sentiment, because by extension it showed a disgust for the war in general.

    It is hard to show a war from both sides, but at least the movies didn't portray the US army in a glorious light.

  • anomagnus #107 4 years ago

    i might also add, its the best row i've had in ages

  • SEVQA #108 4 years ago

    My turn to make a game, its called 'NUKE' and only needs one button. Press START to play, and whoooof the whole of the East has been turned to glass as if by magic! Game over.

  • miiiguel #109 4 years ago

    "Thank Santa Claus we allow people such as Mr Bilal to point out the many injustices we have commited against the Muslim populus. Hopefully, after bringing this to light, we will be more sensitive to their mysodgonistic, anti-gay cause."
    I wouldn't say Santa Claus, maybe the Jacobins ?, anyway, IMO. "muslim populus" might be more than the stereotyped religious fanatic. Persepolis (both the comic books and the movie) can help in understanding, that might (just might) be more than just that.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 17:31

  • urban #110 4 years ago

    great stuff.

  • AmericanTransvestite #111 4 years ago

    Just want to say that it's articles like this that made me respect EG, aside from being good reviewers you also try to be journalists when everyone else is just putting out tabloids. I posted this on my Facebook because it is an interesting read. I play Call of Duty 2 and the like a lot and I know in the end it's a war game, and war games do lean very heavily on being propaganda (that being said I'm liking how Call of Duty 4 is handling the subject manner so far, but I'm not too far in it). Games are going to be the next big tool for propaganda, it's very obvious of that. It's easier to dehumanize a person if you also allow your target audience to shoot them in the face. We've seen the smaller groups (the KKK made a game where you kill minorities, as an example) while America is obviously treading more carefully with AA and trying to not make the subject matters too different from Counter-Strike while still being propaganda (I don't consider CS propaganda because I always viewed it as an extension of cops and robbers, which I assume we all played as kids, while AA is meant to try to glorify the military and what they're doing).

    As a gaming topic, I really don't see anything offensive about it. Shooting Americans is no more offensive than shooting Arabs, in my books. In the game they're generic enemies, hell you could reskin the enemies to be Klingons and all the posters to be Federation related and it could be one of those time traveling episodes of Star Trek. I think that's probably part of the point he wants to bring up, games that do deal with real war and conflicts are, to an extent, automatic propaganda on the basis on the fact that they dehumanize the enemy. EG bashed the new Soldiers of Fortune game for being simply propaganda so I like they wrote this article to show the other side of the coin; too see how someone who has seen both sides thinks.

    As a political topic it's important too, without a doubt. North America is willing to give up freedom for security, and that never ends up well. At best it's a momentary craze that goes away. At worst it's just fascism in disguise. I'm not sure how things are faring in Europe, I can only hope you people have learned the dangers of this situation already but people are dense.

  • SirClive #112 4 years ago

    Superb article. Well done EG for sticking it on the front page.

  • Madlax #113 4 years ago

    Ahh...quiet an interesting read, thanks Eurogamer for such a good article

    haha...you know, humans are very simple minded creatures. self-righteous/self-delusional easily swayed....and i still dont/cant understand what for.

    Been an iraqi myself, and having lived in iraq through both sadam days and through the war. i can say that iraqis and arabs in general are agressive, i hate to steoreotype people using such statements but this is what i have generally observed and its not race-related, there are multiple-reasons behind this, due to cultural/religous and even geographical reasons (the arab-world is the biggest desert in the world)

    Arabs historically were just nomadic tribes living in a desert that is currently known as (Yemen) and (Saudia arabia), the lack of resources meant competition on resources would give birth to an aggressive culture where the sword rules above all, which in-turn gave birth to an aggressive religion (islam), a religion that is based on this (nomadic) culture, you see (islam) itself is a religion that was meant to help/organize people to live and survive in a harsh enviroment where there are few resources, and this requires unity to survive, unity that can only be achieved by the force of the sword as the laws of the desert would require. and Mohammed did exactly that.

    It is then not surprising to see that the islams version of the Bible, the (Koran) has mentioned the word (Kill) and its derivative more than any of the 3 major religions, and most historical laws for that matter.

    However, the level of ignorance in some of the comments here amuses me, the problem is not in the (arab) race. the Arabic race itself has melded with the many other races it has devoured, you can today see arabs in different 'versions' from Black/bronze to blonde and white. heck...there are christian arabs and jewish in israel.

    The (main) problem and i say (Main) but certainly not the only, is this static ideology that is islam, the Koran contradict itself so much that anyone can pick it up and find a 'verse' that allows him to label anyone as a blasphemer. the Koran sais 'everyone has the right to have own religion' but in another verse in the same book it encourages killing and enforcing truce terms on all non-muslims. so you can pretty much use it to label anyone with 'blaspheming'.

    haha...i hope i didnt get too carried away and went off-topic, i simply wanted to send a message to some of the ignorant posters in here. everything runs in accordance to 'cause and effect'. violence will only fuel more violence, i have seen it myself...kill one 'terrorist' and the second day you have the entire village rising on you.

    and how does this article prove my theory that XBL is crap ? ;)










    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 18:24

  • Ciaran #114 4 years ago

    Very late but...

    Great article. More of this stuff!

  • GitSomE_UK #115 4 years ago

    Good article EG, very interesting.

  • vegard #116 4 years ago

    uh...let freedom ring with a shotgun-blast?

  • AmericanTransvestite #117 4 years ago

    anomagnus
    "this is just one more arab pissed of at the west, trying to dress it up as art."
    Fine, you can think that but look at history. You would be pissed at the West if you an Arab too. That's the idea, putting yourself in someone else's shoes. This isn't some freedom hater from the sounds of it, but rather someone trying to use our freedoms for the exact purpose we have them, to provoke discussion and such.

    James173
    "Good article. No reason this kind of writing can't fit in alongside "funny reviews and news for games"."
    Critical thought makes some people hurt their noggin.

    Kenshin001
    "I seem to remember Al Qaeda slamming two planes into a couple of buildings resulting in the deaths of thousands of American civilians. Odd that the US government doesn't want an Al Qaeda propaganda game being shown then.

    Anyway I'm sure we are all looking forward to the game where you can play a jihadi and blow up London busses. It will surely be thought provoking and interesting and prove some kind of point."
    Funny thing about BOTH the US and UK terrorist attack. On 9/11 the military could not respond because a training exercise made it too confusing to figure out which blips were real and which were fake. In that London subway incident there was a training exercise too that day which made it hard for there to be any quick and real response. What's next, Congress or your House of Commons being lit on fire?

    anomagnus
    "Oh, you must mean films like Platoon, Apocalypse now, Rambo (first blood!), etc, which were lovely and shiny happy propaganda films
    Those were also released after the conflict in question was over.

    JSPOOLE
    "Let's all make a holocaust game where you play as the germans and wipe out the jews!"
    Because there are countless similarities between shooting armed soldiers and shooting unarmed people in the back of the head. Would I object to that game being created, well yes on a moral basis, but freedom of speech and all that.

    And to anomagnus in general, go read history books before commenting on this. There is a reason the fund terrorism. We have trampled on them. Just like we have trampled on Africa. Just like how for years South America was a pawn of American foreign policy. Go, expand your views, and then come back. This is complex history and not something that can be simply summed up in one little paragraph. Close minded world views like yours are bringing the world into another Cold War, it seems. If you view the Arab world as one entity it just proves your ignorance. You know the Bush Axis of Evil? Well Iran and Iraq (under Saddam) would not be part of the same Axis. Both may not like America but neither would ever work together thanks to the leaders of both belonging to different sects of Islam that, traditionally and even more so today, do not get along. What a lame axis is the three countries aren't even friendly with each other. The Arab world is not one entity, it's divided by religion and politics, just like any place else. Any goal they all share is minor when you compare the violent histories that seperate them and that they're still living. The Arab's are as much a singular entity as the rest of the world is. That is to say, very simply, they are not united. They see eye to eye on some ideas but, well, they still have a lot of problems brought about by the fact that we keep corrupt leaders in power (Saudi royalty anyone) and the masses have nothing because of that. Oh, and Bush would have found a way in Iraq. After all, Saddam and Osama would not have been the types to talk to each other (religious differences again would supercede the America-hating) so Saddam had nothing to do with the two towers other than the fact his skin color is the same as those who flew the planes.


    Skurmedel
    "(When did "liberal" become a negative word?)"
    I imagine it has to do with the fact that the conservatives took words like "family" and "God" for themselves and made the liberals out to be family hating heathen (and baby killing abortionists) and we just stood-by and let it happen.

    smoothn00dle
    "If base on the same logic, COD4 is recruitment tool, tooo.."
    Well as mentioned CoD4 does not paint any particular side in good light.


    Anywho, long post and I'll let others making comments because, well, neither side will see eye to eye.

  • evilboo #118 4 years ago

    good thread. it's refreshing to see people getting worked up about something that's actually important.

    it's not good enough army of 2 or gears claiming to be 'satirising' warfare. They're very obviously celebrating it - creating a version which is fun and exciting. Too many games require players to adopt the pose of violent morons for my liking. so, whilst I agree with a lot that anomagus said I am also totally in favour of games like this because they are trying to do something different / challenging.

  • miiiguel #119 4 years ago

    "it's not good enough army of 2 or gears claiming to be 'satirising' warfare. They're very obviously celebrating it "
    Have you played Army of Two ? If that's not "'satirising' warfare", I don't know what a satire is..., I mean "why do you want to do the right thing? It's all about the money man!"; "I'm beeing accused of murder?! I never killed anyone!"..., and in the end the "bad guys" tend to be the ones on "this side"..., I mean, I think it's obvious it makes fun of itself. Both protagonists are so bluntly pathetic that I realy thought nobody saw them as a role model. And the game is fun.
    I don't know about Gears, never played it.
    Edited by 2 at 26/03/08 @ 19:10

  • eepic #120 4 years ago

    cant believe some of you people are defending the moslem terrorists.. are you guys that pathetic and afraid? i say fucking nuke them all, saudi-arabia, iran and all other arab states. they are nothing but trouble, truly subhuman cultures. it would be MUCH easier for mankind to progress if we didnt have to deal with these totally insane peoples and their disgusting religions. and dont call me a racist, im just a REALIST. we all know what the truth is about islam, some of us are just too scared to admit it. maybe when a moslem sandnigger piece of shit terrorist blows up a bus explodes near your home you will finally see..

    ohh and btw, dont you guys just love slashing moslem fuckers with a sword or knife in assassin's creed? ;) my favorite game of all time hehe.

  • miiiguel #121 4 years ago

    "ohh and btw, dont you guys just love slashing moslem fuckers with a sword or knife"
    You should email each other, you seem to share the same interests.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 19:20

  • squarepusher #122 4 years ago

    Great article and a genuine piece of journalism.

    eepic: Fuck off you dopey cunt.

  • eepic #123 4 years ago

    you hate me because im right

  • miiiguel #124 4 years ago

    "Both protagonists are so bluntly pathetic that I realy thought nobody saw them as a role model. "
    I take that back, after the "eepic aka-NaziPunks are not dead" post...

  • eepic #125 4 years ago

    im a nazi now? not really.. i hate nazis. i think jews are one of the most intelligent races on this planet. whites, jews and asians. hitler was wrong.

  • squarepusher #126 4 years ago

    i can't believe eepic is for real...

  • TheNinkyNonk #127 4 years ago

    The west promotes/condones depicted violence against what it views to be eastern terrorists. The west is conducting an illegal occupation in the east where now almost 50% of a nations people have lost a close relative since the start of said occupation. Why can't the east promote/condone depicted violence against what it views to be western terrorists?

    In short: neither side is innocent enough to take the moral high ground.

  • miiiguel #128 4 years ago

    " im a nazi now? not really.. i hate nazis"
    You hate a lot. Talk to Al-Qaeda, they dig that. We don't.

  • squarepusher #129 4 years ago

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=2o-G_s_uKlo
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=2o-G_s_uKlo
    [/link]

    Simplistic but funny/scary :¬O

  • Kaparen #130 4 years ago

    Z0MG! GOTY shocker!!!!!

  • anomagnus #131 4 years ago

    @AmericanTransvestite

    no prizes for guessing what side of the fence you fall down on, apologising and groveling to everyone that might ever have been offended in the past.

    As for reading history books, i've stated over and OVER that that some of their problems have been caused by the west.

    So, for the final time, in big letters, so you can grasp the point i'm saying the Arab world needs to take responsibilty for its own actions as well.

    To simply pin the blame on the west is a cop out, and ultimatly, does the arab world no favours.

    There no one american right now forcing ANY iraqi's to shoot each other.

    As for the rest of your arguements, and the idea of the Arab world, when one of them actually tries doing something different from the rest, maybe i'll not lump them togeather.

    As for putting myself in others shoes, please, take your moralistic high horse some where else, i dont see many arabs putting themsevles in their wives shoes, or the locals thieves glove. note the singular.

    That part of the world will continute to blame the west, and NEVER confront the real issues, as long as people like you validate their continued whining.

    Christ, missed your point about africa, wondered how long before that old chestnut was thrown out.

    Again, Africa at this stage has been given every chance, and f*cked it away.

    And dont even get me started on the slave trade, lest we all forget that slaves were bought FROM african, and guess what ARAB, slavers.......
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 20:08

  • captain_cupcake #132 4 years ago

    "There no one american right now forcing ANY iraqi's to shoot each other.

    As for the rest of your arguements, and the idea of the Arab world, when one of them actually tries doing something different from the rest, maybe i'll not lump them togeather. "

    They must believe they have differences, even if you don't ;) By extension, why not just lump humanity together?

  • miiiguel #133 4 years ago

    "As for the rest of your arguements, and the idea of the Arab world, when one of them actually tries doing something different from the rest, maybe i'll not lump them togeather. "
    You mean like Dubai; or Qatar or Kuwait ? Or Arab wold = poor countries, the filthy rich are "different" ?

  • miiiguel #134 4 years ago

    " Dubai's Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktum (popularly known as "Sheik Mo";), ruler of the freewheeling city-state, which is part of the United Arab Emirates. The ports deal is just one of a series of recent purchases by companies he controls.

    Other acquisitions include a $1 billion portfolio of 21,000 apartments in U.S. Sun Belt cities; a 2.2 percent stake in the automotive giant DaimlerChrysler AG that cost another $1 billion; and a Manhattan landmark building, 230 Park Ave. The emirate also made major purchases in other countries over the past year, notably a $1.5 billion takeover of Britain's Tussauds Group, which owns the famous waxworks, along with theme parks, roller coasters and other entertainment-oriented businesses."

    This guy ain't arab..., although he has different women to wash each foot he must respect them, why? he has money, and the civilized world loves money.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 20:41

  • Laika #135 4 years ago

    @ Turambar: Arabs are NOT a race. *Biological fact* There are three races: European/Americas, African, Oriental. Something about facial bone structure I believe.

  • Razorus #136 4 years ago

    @Sofalover who said "fuck Islam!"

    I don't know what to say other than go fuck yourself, you cunt. We're having a decent debate here and you come in here with your bullshit and accuse me of having 6th form views?! I'm at Uni for your information. Only a retard would resort to racism like you have. Get the fuck off this thread and shoot whoever you like. I hate making empty threats, but if I were to ever meet you in person, I would break your fucking legs.

    And @Laika who said "Arab is not a race" and "Europeans/Americans are". Wow, great information. Let me perform the Education Jutsu on you: the three main proto-races are Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Which very basically means white, black and yellow. Yes, it's to do with cranium but these three races branch out into sub-groups. Arab (or Semetic) being one of them. Note that Semitic doesn't mean Jewish.

  • evilboo #137 4 years ago

    @miiiguel

    no i haven't played AO2. i think i meant that there's a contradiction in the idea of something satirising something while simultaneously revelling in it. If a porn film tried to be really clever and take the piss out of itself people would still jerk off to it.

    I have played gears and it is definitely 'war porn'. I think i may be mixing up my analogies a bit in this post.

  • miiiguel #138 4 years ago

    @evilboo:
    AoT doesn't glorify war, or war-people, it ridicules it/them, and at the same time throws some ironic line is the likes of "fuck dogmas, we want the money". At it kinda succeeds if a tad simplistic, while being somewhat fun in a pixelated-violent way.
    I don't believe anyone would want to be Salem or Rios.

    Edited by 1 at 26/03/08 @ 22:15

  • beep #139 4 years ago

    I love how you can ignore posters on EG.

  • tinners #140 4 years ago

    Right¬¬¬ time for EA not to be so half arsed with AO2 and make a proper Religion Killing FPS, no religion left unturned bring them all down!!! this is the only way one religion is not left in the minority and equality is once again born \o/

    So many strong opinions i just hope they are based on peoples own views not from someone else trying to exploit the truth which in turn makes money for there own personal gain. There is money to be made in every facit of this world and religion is no exception, so if you want to believe in the conspiricy side of all this like i have done in the passed your giving your money away to the opportunists of this world and there are as many as them as there are (so called) terrorists.

    right
    *off to play cs* :p

  • Mindstorm #141 4 years ago

    Sonofalove if you like shootinng muslims, muslims will probably like shooting you. That will make everyone happy... or not.

  • JediMasterMalik #142 4 years ago

    Excellent article, I love the idea of promoting political discussion through this medium, though I do wish people would read the article and realise that is what he is trying to do as opposed to trying to promote the idea of killing the president of the US.

    Islam is enormous in the US and Europe, as far as devotion to the religion it self it may well be even bigger (though it's hardly measurable) than Christianity or Judaism. Only a complete moron would think that the problems of the middle east would be eradicated by getting rid of Islam, and even more so of an idiot if he thought "nuking" the lot would solve anything. It's also ironic that the guy who said it seems to think there's such a big difference between Islam and Judaism, they're very very similar religions, the conflict which exists is partly down to the similar ideologies though mostly with the Israeli and Palestinian conflict (on which both sides are going about it in the wrong way). My version of Islam has always been peaceful, pacifist even. Our slogan is "love for all hatred for none", which I think is something the whole sane world can get behind. (JOOOOIN USSSS! ;))

    I think some of the posters in this thread demonstrate the ideology that the West likes to spread about Islam, and the effectiveness of the way it has been spread into the minds of people. The simplistic view of "If you like this article you're a moslem fundamentalist sympathiser" (It's Muslim btw) shows how easily people can stereotype people they know nothing about, and how easily these thoughts can be spread and reinforced by the media and powerful organisations (whether they be governments or a terrorist organisation).

    I think something which people seem to be missing, is the idea that killing is wrong full stop. Why is it "ok" to hunt down Saddam but not Bush? Even from an Islamic point of view, both are very wrong. Human life is sacred correct? Does this change when you don't agree with some of the things people have done?

    And anyone who thinks the Iraqi's are better off now than they were before must be having a laugh. I really don't see what advantage the invasion, or the war (official or unofficial, it's really still going on, only the enemy has morphed), has brought to the people of Iraq, or indeed that region in general. Is it not ironic that after setting up democracy in Palestine, the US refuses to negotiate with the elected Palestinian leaders? (btw, I'm not endorsing Hamas here, they're not exactly good at taking care of Palestine themselves)

    I do think that the middle east has many many inherent problems within themselves, but I also think that the US is very much hurting the peace process as opposed to helping it. What he said is very true about America's presence in the middle east, it is being used as a recruitment tool for terrorist organisations, the US foreign policy in general has been used by Al-Qaeda for many many years, well before 9/11. Though of course because of 9/11, foreign policy has changed, some would say, as I do, that it has simply fuelled the cycle, making the terrorists stronger in the process.

    I expect some fun, and probably angry responses.

  • eepic #143 4 years ago

    JediMasterMalik: go read your holy book the koran, it does not say "love for all, hatred for none". im pretty sure of it.

    and who gives a fuck if its muslim or moslem, we dont need your pathetic arab scum religion in europe.

  • JediMasterMalik #144 4 years ago

    I said it was our Slogan, said nothing about the Koran. Where did you learn to read?

  • eepic #145 4 years ago

    JediMasterMalik: oh, so your man-made "Slogan" is more important then the Creator's word in the koran? you seem like a real muslim......... not.

  • JGreene #146 4 years ago

    think we should be careful how we react to such things. There is no doubt that there are some Muslims that have, shall we say "interesting views" on the world, but as you yourself have said, we shouldn't judge every Muslim according to the acts and behaviour of some.

    Take for instance the stupidity of the cartoon controversy. No doubt that the images were offensive, and Muslims had very right to protest. And the fact is that over 99% of the protests demonstrations were entirely peaceful and constructive. But this is not what it seems when we watch the news or read the papers. Every time the news channels showed the demonstrations, it would be accompanied by clips and videos of flag burning, and violent scenes and offensive banners, and their like. Which is wholly irresponsible as less the 0.01% of the people involved in such demonstrations were actually involved in such things. But the damage was done by the media, whether intentionally or not, giving the impression that what they were showing represented what really went on. Many people started to then wonder why it was that a religion that preaches peace could end up being so violent. The media representation was the real reason behind this, not the actual truth.

    Similarly, what we get to read and see in the news about the muslims, Islam, and the so-called war or terror, is just a very brief, and often skewed glimpse of what is really happening in the world. Like it or not, unfortunately, we do not live in an entirely free or civilised society, and more often that not, what we see is only what others, with certain agendas would like us to see. For instance, as you have said, why do Muslims hate the west when we help them so much. You are correct that we do appear to help them, in terms of trying to sort out the problems in the middle east, and giving aid in times of natural disasters. But again, things are not always as they seem. If we remember what happened in the eighties, especially with Ethiopia, where so many were starving and we gave very generously to them, and people were very proud of what we had achieved. But look now and we see that the African nations are still repaying back just the interest of what they owe. They have already paid back the original loans more than 4 times over! And the amount they are paying in interest alone about 5 times more than they spend on health and welfare in their country. You can see how in fact, the generous loans are now still being used to fatten our (and by 'our' I mean the corporate elites, and not the common people like you or me) pockets with no regard for what destruction they are causing to other people in the world.

    It's no different with the recent natural disasters. And if you look at what our governments in the 60's did to Indonesia, we can see why there is so much hate for the west there. Back in the 60's Indonesia was seen as the jewel of the far east. It had the most resources, including gold, copper, bauxite, etc. The government of Indonesia had rejected the Western government's approaches for loans and for western help, because they had seen what it did to other countries in the world (i.e. mess them up financially and make them hugely indebted). But our governments did not like to take no for an answer and actually overthrew the original government (headed by a chap called sukarno) and replaced him with a not so nice guy called Suharto. As soon as Suharto came into power he immediately called a meeting with major corporations from our countries and systematically divided up the whole of the countries resources to each of our governments. So some of us were in control of the copper, others got the bauxite, etc. And for 30 years, Suharto ruled with an iron fist. He killed, again with western backing, over 1 million people. And NO ONE in the west would report it. Instead, Suharto was lauded by many in the west as being the model of rulers. Some even though he should receive a Nobel prize!! But then in the 90's when he started acting independently of the west, suddenly they discovered what a brute he was, and suddenly we started hearing about the million people he had murdered. By that time however, Indonesia’s economy had hit rock bottom. Even prior to the tsunami Indonesia was the most indebted county in the world.

    The above is one example. The same is true also of other countries such as Iran, and Iraq. The parallels of saddam and suharto are very similar in fact. Both were installed by us and were our friends when they agreed to play by our economic terms (and their many atrocities, which they carried out with our help and blessings, were hidden), but as soon as they showed some independence, they suddenly became monsters and their atrocities suddenly came to light. Same with the Taliban. We actually helped the taliban gain power and take over kabul in 1996, because they promised they would help build an oil pipe from Tajikistan to Pakistan. No one cared about they treatment of women then. When they suddenly refused to do so, they became our enemies. And then they were monsters.

    This is happening all over the world. That it seems to be mainly muslim countries is probably a coincidence. But the frustration that these people feel is entirely understandable. Many have had their entire livlihoods destroyed by us, their families massacred, their children left as orphans. Just imagine what we would do if that happened to us. Most of us go into fits of rage when someone cuts us up on the road. What would happen if our entire lives were destroyed?

    Now that does not mean they it is right to kill innocent people. Absolutely not, as they had nothing to do with it. Understand that most people in the developing nations (not just muslims) do not hate the average american joe or the british Tim. But you cannot blame them for hating our governments. In truth, we ourselves are victims of our governments (although not in the same was as the people of other countries). They feed us crap about us being the most moral in the world, and the beacon of democracy and the champions of truth and justice, when in fact our countries have perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity imaginable. But we rarely hear about that. Only what THEY do to US. When we do it, its called morality. When they do it, its called terrorism.

    I hope that this has shed some light as to why it is we (as in our governments) are hated by many muslims. Of course, these are just small examples. There is so much more that we have done. If you want to know more, read the excellent little book called "Media control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda", by Noam Chomsky. It is small but very well written. It will change the way you see our governments and their policies.

    I don't blame anyone for feeling aggrieved at Muslims. It is also difficult not to for many of us who have some insight to the blatant lies and propaganda that emanates from our governments. The bottom line is that most (and I mean 99.9%) Muslims are not crazy and hell bent on killing us all. They are just normal people with normal hopes and expectations of life. But we can't keep expecting them to take abuse and not get upset. It's like what a black man once said during the apartheid in South Africa. He said something along the lines of, "the white man, he doesn't just oppress us, he also tells us how we should react to being oppressed".

    edit:spelling
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 00:59

  • JediMasterMalik #147 4 years ago

    Again, learn to read fella. I never placed any measurement of importance on our slogan. Are you going to continue to make yourself look like a bigoted, racist, moron? Or will you shut up now?

  • Nithron #148 4 years ago

    I gotta say, I do hate it when people confuse religions with races. But know what else i hate? When debates/arguments turn into slagging matches. Anyone feel like just sticking to the points and leaving the insults alone for a while?

  • eepic #149 4 years ago

    ISLAM IS FOR NIGGERS.

    peaace and science and progress and prosperity on the other hand is a european, WHITE phenomenon, a trend you might say.

    so FUCK islam and the insignificant litle brown people who support it. GO BACK TO BEING POOR AND OUT OF SIGHT.

  • eepic #150 4 years ago

    why are we even talking about islam???????? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EUROPE!!!!

    NO ONE ASKED YOU TO COME HERE AND PREACH YOUR FILTHY DISGUSTING BARBARIC RELIGION!

  • 3william56 #151 4 years ago

    No-one asked you to waste our time with your ignorant prepubescent hatred. But still, you're here.


    Historical note: yes, there were no American troops in Afghanistan before 9/11, because the US were funding and arming a jolly band of local pro democracy anticommunist freedom fighters, known as, er, The Taliban (prop. O Bin Laden). While they were also funding and arming a jolly pro democratic anti Islam government in Iraq (prop. S Hussein).

    Historical Note 2: A large reason that places like the Middle East and Africa are so f**ked up is that the cold war superpowers funded, armed and supported any psychotic, brutal dictator as long as they (a) opposed the relevant other superpower, and (b) kept resources like oil flowing back to said superpower at cheap prices. Whether they abused and brutalised their people wasn't high on the priority list. And gee - how those self same people are all p*ssed off at us, who blindly voted for governments who supported their oppressors. Who'd have guessed?

    Good article (though if EG really wants to be brave, host his game!). See, there are ways of boosting the hit count without resorting to 360 v PS3 tardbait. You can just use USA vs rest of world tardbait. Hurrah for common sense!

  • Kenshin001 #152 4 years ago

    In the interests of objectivity I'd like to see EG interview the maker of the original game. Can't see that happening for some reason. See the problem is with all this talk in the comments about one sided media, alternative views etc the article only presented one side.

  • MGG #153 4 years ago

    @anomangus:

    "Do you know what i remember most from 9/11, the video footage around the middle east, of crowds celebrating in the streets, the same scene repeated over and over and over, of seeing kids running around firing guns in the air celebrating.

    I knew, it could have been any western country, and they'd still be celebrating. "

    Bravo. Well done. Keep that American lie running. Do you want to check your facts before posting? That video footage *was* shown after 9/11 but *had nothing to do with 9/11". Some American news corps "heard a rumour" that this had happened, but had no video. So instead of you know, relying on the truth, they re-used some old video relating to something else entirely.

    But bravo for helping to push the Fox News angle, Mr Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield will be proud of you.

  • immateriaux #154 4 years ago

    Very good, mature article that Eurogamer - really pleased to see it here.

    Though it has unfortunately dragged some of the pond life out of the primordial soup*, at least "ignore poster" can get rid of the worst of these impotent, militaristic morons. If only we could have done that to Bush too, the world would likely have been (a slightly) better place.

  • DoomedSeraph #155 4 years ago

    I agree fully with all the anti-war and anti-regime statements in this piece, also that racism and cultural ignorance and stereotyping is rife within both America and most of the Western World. Also I'd like to thank Bilal for his art as it's one of the most relevant and seminal works on the subject. However, I do not agree that the simple matter of content here is anything other than obvious, just because it now applies to our favorite medium does not make it any more pressing ... just more relevant. A book is a book, yet Mein Kampf is controversial and , say, Pride and Prejudice is not. This is the way of things, ergo; nice interview, but this is nothing new. The thing that needs to be done is to educate the ignorant and mailable masses which is what I believe is most interesting in this piece (rather than the strained point about the medium) that the work was closed down and condemned as it was.

    (I'd go on but I'm hitting some golf on Tiger Woods. Take from that what you will.)

  • Putty-Man #156 4 years ago

    I haven't had time to read all the previous posts, so sorry if this is already off topic but...

    ..great article. The sooner we see COD5 where your an elite Al-Queada Op or Splinter Cell 6 where you infiltrate the whitehouse and stop another war somewhere the better.

    I'd buy this guys game even tho I don't have a PC (on a Mac here).

  • kangarootoo #157 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    Seriously man. I don't want to get on your case, but you REALLY need to inform yourself a little before commenting.

    To suggest that the US had no interest in Afghanistan pre 9/11 is ludicrously off the mark. The US practically put the taliban in place in Afghanistan. I mean seriously, this is the internet right, so information is at your fingertips. Here is a starter.

    [link url=http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Ori...[/link]

    As for Saddam, the US again supported him during the Iran/Iraq war. Yet again, this information is freely available and undisputed.

    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sup port_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
    ]http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._suppor...[/link]

    I am not suggesting Wiki is the source of all knowledge, but its a good start, if you are actually inclined to actually inform yourself about the subject that is. If all you comment without any factual basis, you make yourself look a bit silly at best.

    @eepic

    People aren't defending terrorists you muppet. You utterly miss the point. And if saying "you hate me because I'm right" makes you feel better then you go for it. Saying it doesn't make it true. I don't hate you as it happens, I just think you need to slow down your anger and actually read and digest both the article and the comments on this thread before spitting bile.

    Actually, edit to that. I just read further down the thread and got to your racist shouting hissy fit. You are broken in the head mate. Maybe I do hate you a little bit, or perhaps I pity you. I would guess you are a product of a difficult background. Not enough love, locked in a cupboard as a child, a mouse for a best friend, something like that. I suppose that is kind of pityful. Ok then, I'll pity you. Deal?

  • Dermoth #158 4 years ago

    Fabulous article - EG at its best.

    Sadly, it's also brought out the worst in the comments, but no-one's surprised by that, are they?

    Personally, I'd quite like to see a version of thisgame where all the terrorists and Americans are replaced by reactionary know-nothing Mail readers. We could call it "Call Of Gene Pool Improvement"

  • AbyssUK #159 4 years ago

    Great article.

    The real answer is there is no real answer, people will always be different and that is what makes us human.

  • Razorus #160 4 years ago

    So I'm confusing religion with race am I? So when someone insults my religion, what is that? Religionism? You know exactly what I mean, why act like a child (as you keep accusing me of being) and just come up with useful debate points. Oh, and Sofalover, you haven't met me, but I'm very sure I can break your legs.

    And as for the twat that was going on about Europeans and science, progress etc. If it weren't for the advent of Islam, science would have been much slower to appear in Europe. There were scholars and scientists in the Middle-East when England was still in the Dark Ages. Granted, the roles seem to have been reversed somewhat. But anyway, the point is, fuck off.

  • Eurolamer #161 4 years ago

    Excellent article EG, an intelligent and well balanced look at how these games we all play might just have a bit of cultural relevance.

    Nothing like a slightly touchy subject to bring out the bigots, eh eepic?

  • Double0_Jensen #162 4 years ago

    @ eepic:

    You said earlier "don't call me a racist, I'm a REALIST".

    You then followed that up with "peaace and science and progress and prosperity on the other hand is a european, WHITE phenomenon, a trend you might say. so FUCK islam and the insignificant litle brown people who support it..."

    Wow. Not only a racist (how can you claim that you're not racist when you use words like "insignificant little brown people"?) but a xenophobe (look it up. You'll need a dictionary) too. That's quite impressive, although completely disgusting.

    Edit for spelling!
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 10:19

  • bitesize #163 4 years ago


    ^ i've never heards the words "i'm not a racist, but..." coming from anyone who isn't in fact a racist. it's generally a clear indication...

  • NthSimulachum #164 4 years ago

    Eepic is living proof that no matter their nationality, race, gender, or sexuality, some people are just ignorant cranberries.

    The simplistic mindsets of many of the more reactionary members of this board are atrocious; you talk about imaginary countries like "America" and "Iraq" which have their own personalities, and in which all the people act in unison and share exactly the same characteristics. You label your critics as 'liberals' and construct ridiculous straw men to beat them ineffectually to death with. Well, I've got an ugly little word for you: "Nationalist". One who believes in nations, that the membership of a nation is one's most important characteristic, and who seeks to secure the political, economic and philosophical primacy of their nation over all others. One who denigrates or celebrates people due to their membership of a nation, real or imagined.
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 11:00

  • Kami #165 4 years ago

    I'm an atheist. But tolerant of religion - what you believe, as long as it doesn't directly make my life a living hell, is your choice and makes the world a more diverse and interesting place to be.

    So, I kindly ask those of you who are being total idiots to shut up. If you come onto the internet to stir shit over someones religion you're just as bad as any extremist, hiding behind the curtain of anonymity with your small-minded narrow viewpoint, unable to provide a reasoned or balanced debate or discussion and compensating by being an absolute twit about it. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What ever happened to being nice? Manners? Respect for other people? Oh yeah, anonymity. Free licence to act like a monumental cock. Yes.

    We don't need that around here thank you and hope to see you guys banned very soon,

    Kami.

  • kangarootoo #166 4 years ago

    @NthSimulachum

    Well put.

  • Lutz #167 4 years ago

    I've just had to ban 3 people from the site because of this comments section.

    By all means argue your case either for or against or whatever, but keep it clean. Remember attack the post, not the poster. Name calling is also frowned upon. This goes for everyone one on both sides of the fence.

    Any complaints about other users can be sent to me via PM.

  • BillyBrush #168 4 years ago

    correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Call of Duty 4 fiction and not based on real life murders?

    you're wrong, it trades it's name very much on real conflict, presicely world war 2 and the war in iraq (but yes Captain Price is all made up, and Iraqi squads don't respawn and come in the exact same numbers as ze germans did either, but it uses real conflicts as the basis for it's entertainment)

  • Hypercube #169 4 years ago

    Interesting article, more like this please EG! It's this sort of direction for games that I think is leading them toward being what you might term 'true art', with people trying to use them as means of communication and discourse.

    It's also very illuminating at seeing what crawls out of the woodwork on the comments. There are some very loud yet singularly un-educated people here...

  • miiiguel #170 4 years ago

    This is still going? cool..., I guess.
    I couldn't continue to read eepics (aka Dead Kenedys nemesis) posts, so I "ignored". And although I already posted my somewhat liberal (oh my god! he's a commie!) views, I, at the same time, believe that the US Army are entitled to promote whichever games (or other propaganda) they want to, and I don't need some guy (briliant or not) to show me what's propaganda and what isn't.
    I also praise the media (while not telling lies or hiding facts) that take sides (although explaininf why). Spain newspapers do that, UK ones also (I think), and US certainly do that too (in US it's very funny because most times are the right wing people that complain about this, but what do they want? leftists tend to be funnier...). Portuguese ones sadly don't (one has to read inbetween editorial lines, which I think aint fair play).
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 12:09

  • kangarootoo #171 4 years ago

    @Lutz

    "Remember attack the post, not the poster."

    This is true, and I'm guilty of that. I tend to get tetchy around bigots, but point taken all the same. Losing control is not dignified.

  • Nithron #172 4 years ago

    Razorus: So, because you think the word "Religionist" sounds a bit silly, that must mean that the real word is "racist", right? Because you hear that all the time?

    No. The key difference between a religion and a race is that you are born into a race and cannot escape it. Anyone discriminating against you for being in that race, is punishing you for something that is not your fault, and you have no control over. It's like putting people in concentration camps because they're too tall.

    You are quite often born into a religion, but you can leave it. Being in a given religion is your choice. Therefore if someone does not agree with your beliefs, they can quite freely criticize you for your religion, because you chose to be in it, the same way someone earlier in the comments thread criticized Daily Mail readers, because they choose to read that pile of crap masquerading as a newspaper.

  • JediMasterMalik #173 4 years ago

    That doesn't make it any more correct.

  • kangarootoo #174 4 years ago

    @Nithron

    You seem to be confusing a person with their religion.

    Levelling critisism at a religion is fair, freedom of speech and all that. But acting negatively toward someone or discriminating against them because they follow a religion that you don't like is bigotry just like any other kind.

    You talk of racism being bad because it is "punishing you for something that is not your fault", which seems to suggest to me that you think "punishing" someone over their choice of religion is ok. Again, that is just bigotry of a type and is not acceptible behaviour (which is why there are laws in many countries, including the UK, prohibiting it).

  • Nithron #175 4 years ago

    Okay, I think i've been slightly misunderstood.

    I meant that disliking someone's religion and being racist weren't the same thing.

    Also, I've never disliked someone because of their religion. However, I don't think that labelling something as a religious belief should make someone immune from criticism. For example, if someone is homophobic, or racist, or sexist, then most people would have no problem criticizing them for such beliefs. However, label it as part of their religion, and suddenly any criticism of them becomes racism.

    This is plainly wrong. If someone chooses to believe something that you do not agree with, it does not matter if it's religion or just something they thought up yesterday, disliking them or their religion is not some kind of racism or bigotry any more than disliking someone for being in the BNP is.

    However, when it comes to the world's major religions, not everyone in them is racist/sexist/homophobic/anything else, so obviously, disliking everyone of a given religion is, as you just said, bigotry.

    I hope that clears it up
    Edited by 1 at 27/03/08 @ 18:23

  • immateriaux #176 4 years ago

    @ kangarootoo
    "You seem to be confusing a person with their religion. Levelling critisism at a religion is fair, freedom of speech and all that. But acting negatively toward someone or discriminating against them because they follow a religion that you don't like is bigotry just like any other kind. "

    I'm a bit puzzled by that. There's nothing special about religion, it is just a life style choice. So, by extension, if a person is (say) a fascist by choice, can you in the terms of your own argument not dislike the person for choosing to be fascist but only dislike, and critique, Fascism as an ideology?

    Obviously my use of "Fascist" here is a bit emotive but it is a bit more focused than saying an American Imperialist, Christian Fundamentalist or Islamic Fundamentalist, etc. Essentially, the argument that occurred to me reading your post was that if the ideology itself is suspect, totalitarian, anti-human, then the person that chooses to freely embrace that creed surely is suspect in some way too?

  • DanWhitehead #177 4 years ago

    Arab is a race, Islam is a religion. Not all arabs are muslim, and not all muslims are arabs. Problems arise when ill-informed people fail to make that distinction and make sweeping generalisations based on ignorant assumption.

  • AmericanTransvestite #178 4 years ago

    "apologising and groveling to everyone that might ever have been offended in the past."
    I'm not apologizing and groveling, I'm simply saying that the west shares a blame concerning the shitty state of the world. Sorry, I suppose taking the view that past affects the present is just so terribly leftist or some shit, right?

    "So, for the final time, in big letters, so you can grasp the point i'm saying the Arab world needs to take responsibilty for its own actions as well."
    Did I say they shouldn't?

    "There no one american right now forcing ANY iraqi's to shoot each other."
    Yeah, I mentioned this by mentioning the state the Middle East is in is because of Western influences, various age old conflicts, and religious problems. I suppose you didn't see that admist my apologies and your skimming.

    "and the idea of the Arab world, when one of them actually tries doing something different from the rest, maybe i'll not lump them togeather"
    So what are basing this little opinion on? Now you make it sound like the whole Arab world is one like and single minded entity out to kill the West. I suppose the Arab bigots view the West in like terms though. So you really are no different than those dirty Arabs, eh?

    "As for putting myself in others shoes, please, take your moralistic high horse some where else, i dont see many arabs putting themsevles in their wives shoes, or the locals thieves glove. note the singular."
    The extremists minority, and it is a minority, does not justify those views. Is sexism and cruel punishments like that a lot more prevalent there? Yes, I will not deny that. Why is that though? Well because for a long time Arab states have tried to isolate themselves from the West. Why is that? Well Christian nations have a nice little history of trying to kill their culture. We owe this culture a lot but we still tried to kill it. Perhaps if we didnt try to kill their culture, religion, and peoples in the past they would have been exposed to the ideals of the European enlightenment.

    "Again, Africa at this stage has been given every chance, and f*cked it away."
    I cant blame them. Until the late part of THIS century they have been a political minority within their own lands while the racial minority enacted racist policies against them. Would you be so willing to trust whitey 20 years after? 40? How long until you were convinced that, perhaps these people mean to do some good?


    Seriously, go read about the history of the Arab and African countries, go read about what we are still doing in these nations today, and ask yourself would you trust European or North American countries? I can bet you wouldnt. Keep in mind that until the late part of the 20th century blacks were a political minority in their own land and there was still a white minority running the country and treating them as inferiors for no other reason than that. If you were African you might be a bit paranoid as to whether there are any strings attached to that hand-out the West is giving you. If you were an Arab and your country had been many refugees from Palestine you would be mad at Israel too, you would be mad at Europe for deciding it had the right to displace those people, and you would be mad at America for supplying weapons to Israel. So stop being a xenophobic twat and perhaps consider the reasons behind this seemingly irrational hatred of the West. Its deeper than "their women dont wear viels".

    You seem to consider Islam a bit of a barbaric religion, but keep in mind it is heavily influenced by Judaism and by Christianity, albeit its a bit of a spin of both religions. However you go and read some of the books of the Bible and tell me that there is no sexism. You tell me that the Old Testament doesnt condone slavery. Hell the New Testament tells slaves to only try to gain freedom if lawfully possible and otherwise to just do their good old slave duties. You seem to consider Islam as a bit of a barbaric religion, well its no more than its sister religions.

    Or just stop breathing. Either way really works.

  • dahsif #179 4 years ago

    What are you doing, EDGE? I'm Still waiting on my May issue!


    Edited by 1 at 28/03/08 @ 08:41

  • kangarootoo #180 4 years ago

    @Nithron

    That is clearer.

    "For example, if someone is homophobic, or racist, or sexist, then most people would have no problem criticizing them for such beliefs."

    Absolutely, but what we appear to be talking about there are actions. A person should be accountable for their actions. I think it is fair to say that believe is rarely cast in stone. To take the current example of Islam, not all Muslims agree about various aspects of the faith (just like not all Christians or Budhists agree about various aspects of their own). So it is not reasonable to discriminate against a Muslim just because you don't like some apparent aspects of the religion they follow. If their actions are questionable, they can be brought to account (and lets be sure, throughout history people of all faiths have done some pretty questionable things), but if their actions are fair they should be treated fairly.


    @immateriaux

    I think the key thing is to seperate beliefs from actions. If as in your example someone said "I'm a facist and believe in facist ideals", that is no the same as acting in a fascistic way. Its a tough issue though I agree. I find it hard myself to stick to the principals of freedom of speech sometimes, when confronted by someone with what I consider to be abhorent views.

    To take your example, lets say someone idolised General Pinochet. If they go around being abusive toward anyone who critisised him, that would be unacceptable behaviour and you could sack them for that. You could not sack them however simply for liking the man. Equally it would be wrong to sack someone for holding facist beliefs, but if they exercised those beliefs toward others in a way that was unacceptable, then sacking them would be fine.

    Its no straight forward. I find it uncomfortable to appear to defend fascism in any way, so I hope you get the point I am making. In summary, a person's beliefs should be free, but their actions (perhaps driven by those beliefs) can and sometimes should be questioned.

    "If the ideology itself is suspect, totalitarian, anti-human, then the person that chooses to freely embrace that creed surely is suspect in some way too?"

    It is reasonable to make the supposition, but is it safe to declare the supposition as fact and actively discriminate against the holder? I'm not so sure. I'm not perfect, I would probably feel the same way about such a person, but I try not to let that undermine the principal.


    Good discussion. Glad it calmed down a bit.

  • kangarootoo #181 4 years ago

    @AmericanTransvestite

    Good post.

  • mudders #182 4 years ago

    i'm lost here, what has iraq got to do with 9/11. Saddam and Bin Lid wernt exactly on each others xmas card list you know ..

  • Snidesworth #183 4 years ago

    Alot of people are taking the article and the interviewee's apparent intent the wrong way. The point being raised isn't "America BAD, Islam GOOD" but that both the original game and the re-skin are almost identical, the only difference being who you are shooting. It's trying to nudge people away from thinking that one side is in the right and the other side is evil, away from the black and white views that many people in all camps hold. There's a number of rabid, fanatical people in the Islamic camp, yes, but there are people just like that in the Western camp as well. Some people celebrated when 9/11 happened, other celebrated when bombs started getting dropped in the Middle East. The main difference between the two camps is that the vast, vast majority of death is in the Middle-East. Look at the sort of reactions the Twin Towers incident provoked. Now imagine that every week the death toll in your country ticks up another notch or two, that you live in fear that a family member may not make it home from work or that you'll be obliterated in the night by an explosion. How would you react to all this?

  • Krun #184 4 years ago

    Its entirely possible that there is no war on terror and that the whole thing is a construct of our own governments to give us an enemy hate figure. Read 1984.

    Sure I think the "terrorist" believe they are terrorists, it's fairly hard to convise huge groups of people to become your ememy if they don't believe it., but I wonder if our governments are occasionally turning a blind eye to it all or even funding some of it, or selecting policy to breed it.

    On 7/7 the Day of the bombings in London, by an amazingly unbelievable coincidence, our services where doing a mock rehearsal of a terrorist attack at exactly those train stations. The confusion this caused when the attack happened, delayed action.

    The CIA gave money to a terrorist group and provided them with a bomb to blow up the world trade centre years before the planes hit the twin towers. That attack failed (obviously). Is it possible they helped, or just didn't stop that second successful attack?

    History is full of "events" that start wars. More often than not these events are staged. Your government wants you to hate something, to give you a common enemy and a sense of fear. Once they do this they can remove your freedom to protect you from this fearful thing.

  • anomagnus #185 4 years ago

    @AmericanTransvestite

    "So, for the final time, in big letters, so you can grasp the point i'm saying the Arab world needs to take responsibilty for its own actions as well."
    Did I say they shouldn't?

    how does that correspond with

    If you were an Arab and your country had been many refugees from Palestine you would be mad at Israel too, you would be mad at Europe for deciding it had the right to displace those people, and you would be mad at America for supplying weapons to Israel. So stop being a xenophobic twat and perhaps consider the reasons behind this seemingly irrational hatred of the West. Its deeper than "their women dont wear viels".

    You're basically saying that, yea, it is right for them to take responsibilty for their own actions, while at the same time they should be given a pardon because of being trampled on in the past.

    What happened in the past is becoming a bullshit reason to excuse tin pot dictators, failed countries and extremism in religion, thereby freeing the comfortable west from having to do the hard work that is required.

    Should the UK be bitching at Rome over the Roman invasion 2 thousand years ago? Should we be excusing all our crimes because the vikings raped their way across the UK and Ireland? Should France have told Germany to go and f**k itself over being invaded TWICE in the last 100 years? Should the UK and France have even attempted to say hello to each other?

    You're just totally prepared to forgive any crime, tut, and shake your head and say 'well, thats whities fault, and we should all be sooooo ashamed'

    We do no one, and i mean NO ONE in Africa or the Middle East by continually saying 'This is our fault'. There comes a point when we have to draw a line in the sand and say 'Fix this Now, or we'll fix it for you'

    But of course, to even SUGGEST that, is of course to leave me open to the unimagintive rant that i'm racist. Fine, if you want to put it like that, go ahead, makes no difference to me.

    But lets be honest here, Africa is a train wreck despite 50 years and trillions of dollars of aid. The Middle East declines in to chaos, and they never do a thing to halt it. Oh sure, you might get some leaders who REALLY try and push for peace, but bottom line, their clerics stir up trouble, and away they go. Same pattern, spread over every single Middle East hotspot.

    But, look, bush will be gone in less than 12 months, we'll probably have some limp wristed democrat, and gordon brown will lick the shit from their ass, the west will extend the olive branch and probably get its hand cut of in the process, and the circle will continue.

    HOO RAH

    Oh, and as for stopping breathin, go f**k yourself, you dont like my view, too bad.

    And as for the c**t W0OT calling for my ban, too bad shit head, its not racism, its simply called telling the middle east to wake the f*ck up and and fix their goddamn problems, i.e. the fact their nutball clerics control the entire country, either directly or indirectly.

    And as for the bible arguement, thats weak man, really weak.

    Are you even SERIOSULY suggesting that the church holds even a TENTH the power that muslim clerics hold? Theres a huge, and FUNDEMENTAL gap between our church and our state.

    Personally, i actually like religion, it serves a purpose, but it must be a PART of your life, not your whole life, other wise you get fuckers who think its GREAT fun to tell hopless kids to strap 6 pounds of C4 to their chest and say hello to the local cafe.

    Are we even beginning to see what i'm saying here yet, or am i too racist????????????????????????????????
    Edited by 2 at 29/03/08 @ 12:20

  • anomagnus #186 4 years ago

    Another fascinating arguement that i love seeing as well, is the US supporting Saddem.

    Yes, they did, think you for the lesson in the obvious. Clearly though, the man went apeshit bugaloo, it was there fore the duty of the states to fix that mess.

    It should have been done the first time round after the invasion of Kuwait, and thats a fuck up that George Bush SR deserves the beating for.

    They've fixed the problem. However, during a quote after the second invasion, i remember an arab saying 'He was the best dictator the middle east!!!' I seriously doubt the US could have planned for a national wide outbreak of f**cking insanity among iraqis, as tehy decided, hey, rather than a fresh start, lets kill each other, cause thats soooooooooo much f**king better than a hopeful future.

    Bottom line, US fixes previous errors, Iraqis respond by going mental.

  • kangarootoo #187 4 years ago

    @anomagnus

    Yet again you fail to really research the things you discuss. If you think the west has helped African more than hindered, just because we sent a few quid of aid from time to time, you are living in a bubble. I say again, the internet is at your fingertips, so you can do your own hunting this time, if you can be bothered.

    I'm going to leave it there. Clearly you aren't interested in discovering new information, as to do so would reveal to you just how misinformed you have previously been. Honestly, you are the only person here who thinks you actually know what is going on in the world. Does that not ring any alarm bells at all? Do you genuinely believe you are the most informed person writing on this thread? Or do you not really care either way, because it was never actually about being right so much as feeling right?

  • kangarootoo #188 4 years ago

    "I seriously doubt the US could have planned for a national wide outbreak of f**cking insanity among iraqis"

    Yeah, who would have thought it, the greatest military minds in the world and they never expected nationwide hysteria.....

    And did you not, at any time, think "how can an entire nation apparently go insane"? Did it never occur to for you a single second that they hadn't gone insane, that in fact they were telling the truth. That although Saddam was an evil man, life had got worse since his removal, because in the process their country had been levelled to the ground?

    Have you seen Team America. The scene where the puppets level Paris and then say "No, don't thank us, it was our pleasure"? Ring any bells?

    Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed. Water and electrocity in many areas is STILL not working properly. I know we get used to water and electricity, but we would all be in trouble pretty quickly if both simply switched off. The contracts to rebuild that infrastructure, instead of going to Iraqi companies that could use the income and provide employment, are instead going to US companies (who are in fact charing loads more than the Iraqi companies would). Well call me a cynic, but isn't there something wrong when US companies profiteer from a US invasion, whilst Iraqi companies and Iraqi employees (who were apparently being saved) starve? If by being saved, you end up dying, does it really still count as being saved? I mean being dead... you don't get much more unsaved than that, right?

    Check the following link.
    [link url=http://www.washingtonpost.co m/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
    ]http://ww w.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...[/link]

    "A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."

    Inform yourself. Its relatively easy. I don't know where you get your news, but you need tyo broaden your horizons a bit.