It is propaganda, just like a lot of Hollywood war films. And the government loves it - censors out what they don't approve of in exchange for renting out military vehicles to Hollywood for next to nothing.

The funny thing is, I hated that the army made a video game recruitment tool. But, to be honest at least it was difficult as $&&% directly in contrast to these big budget titles that make it "immersive" (immersive as in loud noises and yelling) and easy.


>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ghark:
Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.
Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.
Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.

Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.

Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.

How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.

I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.

A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

He's a shock jock just taking a paycheck to do exactly that...shock people.

He was whining about health care being sucky too until the left wanted to actually do something about it. Then suddenly out of nowhere US health care was the greatest thing in the world and you were a terrorist for suggesting otherwise.

He's nothing more than a paid hitman. I'm sure he'd change his gears in a second if someone paid him enough.

This is what it looks like when you capitulate to terrorists.

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.

Things that go boom....
>> ^L0cky:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.
I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!
Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.
It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.
I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.
Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:
John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway
There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.
Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.
The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.
I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.
You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.
To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.
If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.
Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.

I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!

Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.

It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.

I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.

Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:

John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway

There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.

Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.

The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.

I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.

You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.

To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.

If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.

Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

Fox News are a bunch of flip-floppers. "Conseravtive media is winning.... we're hurting the president of the united states"

Where was that during the bush years?

"If you attack the president during a war, you're a terrorist" was the reply back then.. so... is Fox News really a terrorist organization? I'm asking questions here!

Oh, you're a gun owner? You must be part of a militia.

Oh, you own a business? You must be exploiting your employees with low wages and long hours.

Oh, you're a Christian? You must hate gays.

You look down the mouth of a dark alley and see three figures standing in the shadows. Since "assumptions" mean nothing, why not stroll past them while counting aloud the cash in your wallet?


>> ^Tymbrwulf:

>> ^quantumushroom:
one has to assume that most people...
Luckily we live in a world where "assumptions" aren't grounds for anything.
Oh you're buying a gun? I'm going to assume that you're going to commit a crime because you're black, so you're going to get arrested.
Oh are you a Mexican driving in a nice car? I'm going to assume you got that through ill-gotten gains, so you should definitely get pulled over and searched unlawfully.
Are you a Muslim? I'm going to assume you're a terrorist and you're gonna get your ass shipped out to Guantanamo.
(During WWII) Oh you're Japanese? Time for your ass to get into an internment camp, you're a threat to national security.
(Before Civil Rights) Oh you're black? Well you're obviously not as good as me, therefor you can't vote, go to the same school as me, and I can own you as a slave.
Oh you're Irish in England? I'm going to assume you're part of the IRA and just arrest your ass.
Should I keep going? By the way, some of the things I've said were also relatively "NEW" rights. Go figure.

>> ^quantumushroom:
one has to assume that most people...

Luckily we live in a world where "assumptions" aren't grounds for anything.

Oh you're buying a gun? I'm going to assume that you're going to commit a crime because you're black, so you're going to get arrested.

Oh are you a Mexican driving in a nice car? I'm going to assume you got that through ill-gotten gains, so you should definitely get pulled over and searched unlawfully.

Are you a Muslim? I'm going to assume you're a terrorist and you're gonna get your ass shipped out to Guantanamo.

(During WWII) Oh you're Japanese? Time for your ass to get into an internment camp, you're a threat to national security.

(Before Civil Rights) Oh you're black? Well you're obviously not as good as me, therefor you can't vote, go to the same school as me, and I can own you as a slave.

Oh you're Irish in England? I'm going to assume you're part of the IRA and just arrest your ass.

Should I keep going? By the way, some of the things I've said were also relatively "NEW" rights. Go figure.

Cheers, mate.
In reply to this comment by Crake:
*quality

Well, in a straight up war I would tend to agree with you, but this is not a war. We are not at war with afghanistan or iraq or iran or basically anywhere in the middle east. It's a "war" against terrorists. There are terrorists inside the United States too, and you wouldn't destroy infrastructure there to get to them, would you?

Attacking the infrastructure in afghanistan is hardly putting a dent in the terrorists own infrastructure since they are no more than 10.000 people anyway, we're just fucking with a whole bunch of afghanis instead.

Afghanistan was the right place to hunt for Bin Laden.. in 2001. By now the wars are obsolete. If we started to catch the flies with honey instead of bombs, we would stop the supply of new terrorists or at least stem the tide. Which arguments do you think the terrorist leaders have for the newcomers? "We're getting back at the infidels who murdered your family" etc. Taking that away by not killing civilians and destroying their homes, would help security far more than powering through, unless, obviously, we really, really power through and nuke the shit out of it, and I don't think anyone wants that. To win this war, as you say, it will have to become bloody, very much more bloody than it already is; but we don't have to win it. It's a contrived war, like the war on drugs. There's no "losing face" when people's lives are at stake - I'd rather lose face than lose a limb. Pride has no place in a politician. The people who have already died or been injured have not died for nothing, even if we stop now, they died for whatever cause drove them to fight.

We shouldn't continue a bad thing, just because we've done it so far. "I've believed in this for years, I can't change my mind now!" Yes, you can.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It isn't complicated...
1. The anti-war left is never happy when America engages in military action.
2. Obama and the Democrats heavily courted the extreme anti-war left to get elected on the premise that they were going to shut down Iraq, close Gitmo, and bring the troops home.
3. Obama and the Democrats heavily courted the pro-war right to get elected on the primise that Afghanistan was "the right war" and they would get it done properly.
4. As the actual CiC of the armed forces, Obama now realizes Bush wasn't just some neo-con crackpot and there were actually darn good reasons for following "The Bush Doctrine".
5. The pro-war right is dissappointed over Obama's failure to support the Afghan troops.
6. The anti-war left is dissappointed over Obama's failure to close Gitmo and escalating the Afghan fight.
I'm going to come right out and say it. The only way you win wars is to attack POPULATIONS and INFRASTRUCTURE. You don't win wars by killing soldiers, or taking out individual military commanders. You can certainly demoralize the enemy by killing soldiers & commanders, but if you never touch the population that produces the soliders or the infrastructure that supports them then you'll never win. It is impossible.
Yes, it is entirely possible to win in Afghanistan. But the way to do it would be so horrifying and bloody that the United States has no stomach for the process. If we aren't going to go in there to WIN this thing, then what's the point? McCrystal & the others sounded to me like soldiers who were frustrated at not being able to run a military action in a way that would be effective. That policy is being dictated to them by politicians who don't mind the bleeding of money and soldiers because that doesn't impact their approval ratings as much as would happen with a full-scale offensive or a whole-scale pullout.

If you admit the US can arguably be described as such, and you:
1. Don't condemn against its actions
2. Willingly fund its operations (tax dollars)
3. Act complacent, or even supportive

How are you not a terrorist? You don't commit the crimes personally, but you are providing both monetary and ideological support. If you hire someone else to pull the trigger, does that not make you a murderer just the same?
>> ^Stormsinger:
-We- are not all terrorists. Stack certainly was. The US government can arguably be described as such. You may be, I don't know. -I- am most certainly not.

You make 3 points. One, someone filming in a PUBLIC area is not only NOT suspect of wrong doing, it should be expected...even mores o in this day and age of gadgets. Furthermore, their own policy states that filming them is not warrant of any internal scrutiny.

Secondly, he did no inquiring about their procedures, THEY approached HIM and attempted to trap HIM into answering questions that would MAKE him appear suspect of wrong doing. He was a dude, a dude with a camera, a dude with a camera filming the goings on at an airport...that should of been the end of it.

The waste is on the TSA officials which blew a completely harmless situation WAY out of proportion. What he didn't do, which you seem to try and frame it like, is to go around filming sensitive security information that isn't in view of the public eye. Going around opening up closed doors and prying up the innards of some scanning machine to surrender its mysteries! He filmed people doing stuff in hallways, doing their normal thing. This is about as much of a security risk as a dude doing the same thing with his eye balls and a note pad...or just his eyeballs and a good memory.

While I think his child pron angle isn't completely on base, it isn't completely off base either. A person, of which has done nothing wrong being subjected to a violation of their personal body for nothing other than the chance they might catch someone trying to bring contraband on a plane is lunacy. I made a joke earlier this month about what we "really need" too keep us safe is to be strip searched as we leave our house...this is just one step closer to that Orwellian state. There is no such thing as perfect safety. The more control you give the government the less safe you are. Because not only are you being sold the illusion of safety, you also now must endure the oppression of the state. You are less safe from the police then you are a terrorist; what I mean is you are more likely going to get in trouble with the police far sooner than get blown up by a terrorist, and this should alarm you.

>> ^Nithern:
imstellar28,
Your incorrect on your idea of steroetypes being only cultural. Yes, if one says "those black people are stupid as boards and live in the ghetto cus their not smart to get out." is racists. Saying "those black people stay in that neighborhood cus they aren't bashed as they would be in the white neighborhood" is STILL, a recists comment.
For a while after September 11, 2001 (aka 9/11), people associated arabs with terrorists. In fact, those who wore a turbin were considered terrorists as well. In fact, anyone that wasn't from Europe (germanic looking), Asia (japanesse/chinesse looking) or black (from africa) were considered terrorists. Racisms often ignores facts. Part of the Middle East, is in Europe, Africa and Asia. But dont tell that to racists at the time, as would view you as a terrorist sympathizer, and hence, un-American. After 9/11, there was (and still is) a movement that says unless your pro-American (read: conservative republican), your un-Americans (like liberals, moderates and liberals).
An so, there were numerous attacks on Arab-Americans who were born in the USA, went to public schools in the USA, and love their home country of America. Racists are not often the educated sort who think on their victims. If they did, they wouldn't be racists, they'd be socialpaths, who are even worst.
While we all discriminated on things, the concept of 'discrimination' as it applies to race, takes on a different meaning. To be an American, is to accept, that those who's skin, height, weight, hair, eyes, and even gender are different from yours, they are the same as you. Those who's religion, creed, and education are different from yours, is the same as you. Its the 'Melting Pot' effect that makes Americans a very diverise lot.
Its not to say we have removed racisms. American still has it in boat loads. The things that seem to stem the tide of racism, is education. The more educated a person is, the more often they are around those who's difference also make them the same.


Generally best to ignore the swine when he's rutting.

Jealousy and small-dick syndrome can make little piggies say the darnedest things.