bit-gamer.net

Defence Secretary disgusted by MOH

Defence Secretary disgusted by MOH

UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox is deisgusted by EA's Medal of Honor.

UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox has expressed disgust at Electronic Arts' upcoming FPS reboot, Medal of Honor, because of the way it allows players to take the role of the Taliban against British troops in multiplayer games.

"It's shocking that someone would think it acceptable to recreate the acts of the Taliban," Fox said in a comment to Yahoo.

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.

"I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game. I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product."

A spokesperson for EA told the Sunday Times that the game is merely reflecting the fact that there are two sides in the war.

"We give gamers the opportunity to play both sides. Most of us have been doing this since we were seven: someone plays the cop, someone must be robber. In Medal of Honor multiplayer, someone's got to be the Taliban."

The idea isn't new, obviously; Counter-Strike had terrorists planting bombs, for example.

Fox has urged shops not to stock the game, presumably because he's unable to call for an actual ban on the grounds that he finds it distasteful.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

171 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Phalanx 22nd August 2010, 20:57 Quote
Right, but leading an attack on an airport as an Ultranationalist Russian terrorist cell is OK? It's subjective. People need to realise that they are not forced to buy something they don't like. Likewise, they are not forced to play something they don't like.

Freedom of speech seems to be an "as long as it's our speech" version in the UK and most of the developed world.
Gunsmith 22nd August 2010, 21:02 Quote
id like to think that the majority of pc gamers are mature enough to not be offended by what side they play.
DragunovHUN 22nd August 2010, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Right, but leading an attack on an airport as an Ultranationalist Russian terrorist cell is OK?

But that was a Russian airport. Fairly sure the Russian government didn't appriciate that too much either. It's mostly just the politicians trying to score +rep with the ignorant crowds.
Canon 22nd August 2010, 21:14 Quote
Just because a team is full and I have to join Taliban means I am a bad person? Fair enough if I get a kick out of it, that's a bit iffy, but I should be able to make my own decision.
Phalanx 22nd August 2010, 21:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
But that was a Russian airport. Fairly sure the Russian government didn't appriciate that too much either. It's mostly just the politicians trying to score +rep with the ignorant crowds.

It was, but it was blamed on the US because of the setup.
lp1988 22nd August 2010, 21:41 Quote
Quote:
At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.

If I am not mistaken the same thing can be said about the British troops, and any soldier from any country. (the Danish troops are in the same area)

Wars are not purely fought by men without family. Taliban has wives and children as well.
Fulzo 22nd August 2010, 21:45 Quote
This guy is just butthurt because his wife won't let him pre-order the game..

"If i can't have it, nobody can!"
Archtronics 22nd August 2010, 21:56 Quote
Just politions scoring brownie points from the masses
The_Beast 22nd August 2010, 22:11 Quote
It's a VIDEO GAME not real life, when will people realize this
sleepygamer 22nd August 2010, 22:15 Quote
Is it normal to not give a ****?

I mean, seriously, games have been portraying more-or-less nameless and faceless enemies that are clearly based upon the Taliban for years. Why should anything change now that a game developer has decided to cut out the middleman, as it were?

Either way, I really couldn't care. If the game appeals to me, I'm going to buy it and play it. Hell, I might even play the Taliban side online out of choice, who knows? If they have equipment and natural map advantages that lead me to prefer playing them, then so be it. If the differences are purely cosmetic, then I might choose them because I prefer how the stock gun sounds. That's how I chose to play the Allied side in Enemy Territory. The infantry gun had a more satisfying sound as I shot. Hooray? Never mind that the Allied side sometimes sucked to play on, i chose to because I didn't like the sound of the Axis gun.

Plus I played the Allied side so much, I ended up shooting the Nazis on sight out of reflex, and ended up TK'ing a lot.

Notice how at no point during my preferences did I say "I want to kill people who may have existed in a battle that happened fairly recently"?

Bah. It's not like I was planning on buying it. I might just buy it because people are complaining about it now.

Damn politicians making me spend money on games I don't want.

*Grumble*
lp1988 22nd August 2010, 22:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepygamer
Is it normal to not give a ****?

I mean, seriously, games have been portraying more-or-less nameless and faceless enemies that are clearly based upon the Taliban for years. Why should anything change now that a game developer has decided to cut out the middleman, as it were?

Either way, I really couldn't care. If the game appeals to me, I'm going to buy it and play it. Hell, I might even play the Taliban side online out of choice, who knows? If they have equipment and natural map advantages that lead me to prefer playing them, then so be it. If the differences are purely cosmetic, then I might choose them because I prefer how the stock gun sounds. That's how I chose to play the Allied side in Enemy Territory. The infantry gun had a more satisfying sound as I shot. Hooray? Never mind that the Allied side sometimes sucked to play on, i chose to because I didn't like the sound of the Axis gun.

Plus I played the Allied side so much, I ended up shooting the Nazis on sight out of reflex, and ended up TK'ing a lot.

Notice how at no point during my preferences did I say "I want to kill people who may have existed in a battle that happened fairly recently"?

Bah. It's not like I was planning on buying it. I might just buy it because people are complaining about it now.

Damn politicians making me spend money on games I don't want.

*Grumble*

A nice piece of logic too often lacking in this world. +1
wuyanxu 22nd August 2010, 22:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
It's a VIDEO GAME not real life, when will people realize this
for those politicians speaking on the news: never.

or when our generation gets into parliaments. but then, we'll start complaining about reality simulators too real?
Fiyero 22nd August 2010, 23:59 Quote
I think politicians should on the most part be banned from publically airing their opinions on video games, and popular culture in general.
They have no understanding of it, but they still pander to the ignorant masses.

Unless you're educated on both sides of the story, it's best to shut up or risk looking a total arse.

Yet again, a politician has opted for the total arse option.
EvilMerc 23rd August 2010, 07:44 Quote
Next he'll want to ban the SAS skin in CS:S because terrorists are killing a British person. Alas, this isn't the case, it's a load of god damn pixels which I have no feelings for. (Even though I do think the real life SAS are awesome)

The Taliban and soldiers are easy to distinguish between, thus are good choices for teams, they don't represent 'sides' in an argument.

Unfortunately, that prat of a politician is the one who was elected in the constituency I live in too, grrrrr.
reggie50 23rd August 2010, 08:45 Quote
That gives you the perfect opportunity to yell at him directly :D
CardJoe 23rd August 2010, 09:05 Quote
And in Afghanistan they'll probably ban it because you get to play as British troops killing...

Perspective is everything.
Zinfandel 23rd August 2010, 10:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Right, but leading an attack on an airport as an Ultranationalist Russian terrorist cell is OK? It's subjective. People need to realise that they are not forced to buy something they don't like. Likewise, they are not forced to play something they don't like.

Freedom of speech seems to be an "as long as it's our speech" version in the UK and most of the developed world.

Yeah man, Foxxy must be alright with gunning down Civs in airports with a heavy machine gun.
UncertainGod 23rd August 2010, 10:38 Quote
Next they will call for Civ V to be banned simply because I will try to start a nuclear war with France every single game.
Zinfandel 23rd August 2010, 10:40 Quote
My friend told me about this book once where a man force a man at gunpoint to have sex with his own daughter then murdered them both to make it look like a murder/rape and a suicide.

BAN EVERYTHING!
scott_chegg 23rd August 2010, 10:50 Quote
So the Defence Secretary is more concerned about what is happening in a video game than what is happening in the real life conflict in Afghanistan. Typical.

I imagine this game is an 18 certificate so as we are adults who are able to make our own decisions as to what media we are exposing our fragile minds too maybe he should get on with his job and not waste taxpayer money on this kind of pointless PR exercise.
Pieface 23rd August 2010, 11:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_chegg
So the Defence Secretary is more concerned about what is happening in a video game than what is happening in the real life conflict in Afghanistan. Typical.

Where does it state that?
G0UDG 23rd August 2010, 11:27 Quote
Hello anybody there when are people gonna learn this is a game NOT REAL LIFE How come some folks out there cant tell the difference its not rocket science:(
Fingers66 23rd August 2010, 11:45 Quote
No one ever complained (to my knowledge) about people playing Iraqi's (and killing US forces) in Battlefield 1942: Desert Combat did they?

No one ever complained (to my knowledge) about people playing German/Japanese forces and killing US or Brit forces in the innumerable WWII games have they?

Do these politicians not have enough to do? Have they missed their media attention quota for the month?

Like Joe says, persepective is everything.
xaser04 23rd August 2010, 11:46 Quote
News just in: I can play as the Chinese in BF2 against the british. A game which is a few years old now

Keep up Liam, Keep up.

Actually more to the point, given the Defence budget review shouldn't he have more important thinsg to be doing than talking about a computer game?!
Hustler 23rd August 2010, 11:49 Quote
I didnt think the British were even in this game.....

AFAIK, its soley about US special forces, not seen British forces mentioned once by EA in the promotional stuff so far...

???
Frohicky1 23rd August 2010, 11:52 Quote
Un-British is it Mr Fox? Do I smell the rebirth of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in a British guise? Is his middle name McCarthy?
Spiny 23rd August 2010, 11:53 Quote
Dunno anyone else but playing as the bad guys is a great mickey take. I always deploy a comedy allo allo accent when playing as axis in wolfenstein :)
muther trucker 23rd August 2010, 12:01 Quote
"Good moaning"
All this media attention will just give the game a boost in sales!
People will want to see what the fuss is about, (like MW2) and end up loving the game for is graphics, fighting style, or whatever.

It'll probably get a few more people complaining about it before it comes out, but so what?
I doubt it will affect the majority of people who wish to buy such a game!
rjkoneill 23rd August 2010, 12:05 Quote
i watched a film once that had a villain in it...
DriftCarl 23rd August 2010, 12:20 Quote
end of the day, its red vs blue
Morlok 23rd August 2010, 12:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
I didnt think the British were even in this game.....

AFAIK, its soley about US special forces, not seen British forces mentioned once by EA in the promotional stuff so far...

???

Is this yet another politician going off half-cocked? Wouldn't be the first or last time someone has not let the facts get in the way of a column inch or 6.

Like many posters, I'll make my own opinions thanks very much Mr Fox.
Yemerich 23rd August 2010, 12:34 Quote
"War never changes"

Didin't the argentinians razed by the british army in the malvinas back in the 80's? They too have wives and kids...

Not expressing any love for the Taliban, but i find funny the hipocrisy in that statement.
Cyberpower-UK 23rd August 2010, 12:35 Quote
Somehow I don't think all this controversy will hurt EAs bottom line!
DragunovHUN 23rd August 2010, 12:37 Quote
Wow, Joe ninja-edit. I feel honored.
liratheal 23rd August 2010, 12:39 Quote
Yay, another politician shows the "I've read the title and bumf on the back, and formed an opinion" gene!

Not that I care much, I wasn't planning to buy MOH anyway, looks like someone rubbed MW2 on BC2 and used the blur tool in Photoshop.

If politicians want to moan about games, they ought to damn well moan about all of the games that offend their sense of taste, otherwise it's just irrelevant grumbling.

Show support for our troops? Shouldn't he be working on removing them from the field?
Ending Credits 23rd August 2010, 12:46 Quote
But killing the taliban is OK? I'm not sure anyone realised but the taliban are people too, even if they're not on our side.
murraynt 23rd August 2010, 12:50 Quote
This is just being childish, Is not as if they are protraying the U.K of being worse than a different country.
Also is only a game.
r3loaded 23rd August 2010, 12:50 Quote
I like the "cops and robbers" analogy. Instantly strikes down these morons.

Funny thing is, if Liam Fox had kept his mouth shut, I would have had an "he's an ok guy" opinion of him today.
sotu1 23rd August 2010, 13:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
I think politicians should on the most part be banned from publically airing their opinions on video games, and popular culture in general.
They have no understanding of it, but they still pander to the ignorant masses.

Unless you're educated on both sides of the story, it's best to shut up or risk looking a total arse.

Yet again, a politician has opted for the total arse option.

Well said ;D
SlowMotionSuicide 23rd August 2010, 13:15 Quote
"Gaming Community Disgusted by Populist Secretary."
BRAWL 23rd August 2010, 13:32 Quote
What a tool...

Crusade against people like this people? Space Marine style crusade if you will?
Xir 23rd August 2010, 13:43 Quote
Turning this around, he minds Taliban killing British...he doesn't mind Nazi's or communists or Iraqis, killing british...all in videogames, of course.
So he's to be considered a Nazi-communist-iraqi friend (in videogames)?
frontline 23rd August 2010, 13:55 Quote
Quote:
An Electronic Arts spokesman said the game "does not allow players to kill British soldiers".

"No British troops feature in the game," he said

Looks like Daily Mail BS strikes again...
memeroot 23rd August 2010, 13:59 Quote
lol
eddtox 23rd August 2010, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp1988
Quote:
At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.

If I am not mistaken the same thing can be said about the British troops, and any soldier from any country. (the Danish troops are in the same area)

Wars are not purely fought by men without family. Taliban has wives and children as well.

I agree.

This is yet another douchebag in an endless stream of douchebags publicly talking about things they have no knowledge or perspective on. Shame on you, Mr Fox
Stelph 23rd August 2010, 14:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp1988
Quote:
At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands.

If I am not mistaken the same thing can be said about the British troops, and any soldier from any country. (the Danish troops are in the same area)

Wars are not purely fought by men without family. Taliban has wives and children as well.

+1. Poor choice of words by the Defence Secretary since going back even further how is this any different from WWII games and the like playing as the Nazi's.

If anything I would say games like this are a good thing as it promotes discussion and thinking into the subject, as with COD the airport level involved shooting civilians but you could complete the level without shooting the civilians, the developers found that the majority of people fired anyway which was an interesting discussion point.
Phil Rhodes 23rd August 2010, 14:13 Quote
I would buy a flight sim that allowed me to play as a Tornado pilot if I could.

But there isn't one.

(Ace Combat doesn't count)
Invictus. 23rd August 2010, 14:34 Quote
This will just add to the persona of "all games are evil".. As the EA guy said someone has to be them.. it cant be the Coilition vs fluffy bunnies as it just wouldnt work as they are aiming for a semi realistic aim with the storyline of which needs to be carried over to online.
Bazz 23rd August 2010, 14:41 Quote
Gonna buy 2 copies now, just for fun.
mattbailey 23rd August 2010, 14:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncertainGod
Next they will call for Civ V to be banned simply because I will try to start a nuclear war with France every single game.

Let me know when and i'll co-op a game with you and i'll be the US and launch some too! ;)
memeroot 23rd August 2010, 15:25 Quote
When I play Civ I always play as the US and after advancing them for a bit ensure they starve due to smog, desertification and a small tribe killing their tanks with arrows.
LightningPete 23rd August 2010, 15:38 Quote
I think the politicians and people whom call this 'videogames' should understand one thing. There games. There Fictional, just like books are, just with more visuals. And as such should clearly 'do one' and concentrate on more important issues.
Who agrees?
I mean i know many fictional novels that have violence, nazis, zombies, explosions, murderers, psychos etc. But why dont these have ratings? I think many people need to realise that a video game that plays as the taliban is a good thing. It gives us a better understanding of what if anything its like to be a person living in a harsh environment and people landing on their doorstep coming to kill them... I mean im all for the British and winning in the afghan conflict (its not a war btw). But howay its a game, and at least we can somewhat understand the conditions the taliban are facing.....

Next thing is David Cameron will be telling us that we have pakistan born people playing the taliban side of this game as training.....

I wonder why we even vote these days, for idiots who think there great students or those with zero brain cells... or both.
tejas 23rd August 2010, 15:45 Quote
An un British game you say...

Count me in for a day one purchase!
maximus09 23rd August 2010, 15:51 Quote
wow, this has to be one of the top-all-time-most-stupid things I have heard from a politician....seriously man, does this guy even use his brain before spurting out rubbish? AND he is the Defence Secretary!!

Surely this guy realises that the war genre format whether it is in a film or a game has two sides, good vs evil, and it is completely subjective. This means even less for gamers who just want a good game and who don't care which side they are on! We may as well all play in teams of faceless "Freemans". If someone plays on the Talibans side, please don't think they are a terroist Mr.Fox, they just like the sound of an AK47!

Mr. Fox must be so unconnected to society that he doesn't even realise that war films and games are all about the Allies Vs the Nazi's, or the US vs Russians, now (shock/horror) also the Allies Vs Talibans (or some assortment of middle-eastern peoples). SUPRISINGLY the Defence Secretary didn't realise that war films and games follow actual wars *duh*

I haven't felt like having a complete moment of dumbness, for a long time... thanks Mr. Fox....please don't bomb London, it isn't located in the middle-east!!!
Orderoftheflame 23rd August 2010, 15:53 Quote
British politician in retardedness shocker!
Hovis 23rd August 2010, 15:55 Quote
Politician fishing for the Daily Mail outraged of Tunbridge Wells vote. I'm more disgusted about the fact that literally nobody voted for a Tory/Lib Dem coalition yet suddenly we have to put up with clowns like this bloke in positions of power.
Ph4ZeD 23rd August 2010, 15:59 Quote
Because I'm sure no Afghan children have lost father or mothers as a result of British military action, right?

Right...
HandMadeAndroid 23rd August 2010, 16:04 Quote
Its just reinforcing social memes, keep swallowing the blue-pills, everything will be ok, there, there, there.
BRAWL 23rd August 2010, 16:26 Quote
I just had an argument in the office with someone about this, he played MW2 and didn't have a problem. My response was simple...

"Please, get a grip"
Toploaded 23rd August 2010, 16:42 Quote
I bet EA where happy about this free publicly.
Faulk_Wulf 23rd August 2010, 16:43 Quote
To play devil's advocate for a second. What do any soldiers think about this? If we have any in these forums. I think it might almost be "Too Soon" to do this. But then again, Arma II has enabled you to play as OpFor for ages and one look at the modding community and a lot of it is Afghan and Baghdad mods.

Six of one half a dozen of another? (It's only getting flack because it's tied to the MOH name?)
Stewb 23rd August 2010, 16:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faulk_Wulf
To play devil's advocate for a second. What do any soldiers think about this? If we have any in these forums. I think it might almost be "Too Soon" to do this. But then again, Arma II has enabled you to play as OpFor for ages and one look at the modding community and a lot of it is Afghan and Baghdad mods.

Six of one half a dozen of another? (It's only getting flack because it's tied to the MOH name?)

The BBC had 40s of responses from troops that was on the British Forces Radio, most were against it (4 vs 1), however the only information they seemed to have was what Liam Fox had said...

EDIT: And the person who didn't care was teh onyl person who actually had some form of argument
sear 23rd August 2010, 16:55 Quote
How dare they make a game which portrays white people being killed? It's obviously fine when it's those Godless towel-headed darkies being slaughtered by the boatload, they're not even really human, but our good boys? Never!

I wonder what the world would be like if there weren't so many overt racists in the military and government.
UrbanMarine 23rd August 2010, 16:58 Quote
It's a video game. Fiction.

What's sad, is the fact that they care more about image than their actual soldiers. I'm sorry but most soldiers, marines, sailors etc don't ****ing care. They care more about getting their pay, food & equipment which the Government doesn't fight to get. Protect their lives not their feelings...

Topic: The MOH beta was ****, so I wouldn't of bought it anyways.
sear 23rd August 2010, 17:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanMarine
It's a video game. Fiction.

What's sad, is the fact that they care more about image than their actual soldiers. I'm sorry but most soldiers, marines, sailors etc don't ****ing care. They care more about getting their pay, food & equipment which the Government doesn't fight to get. Protect their lives not their feelings...

Topic: The MOH beta was ****, so I wouldn't of bought it anyways.
I'm sorry, are you saying that the lives of soldiers are more important than a politician's poll status? What's wrong with you?
Ergath 23rd August 2010, 17:51 Quote
I agree with Fox - playing at being the Taliban's completely unacceptable. Whereas playing as the Nazis in any number of other games is completely fine - because they didn't kill anyone or commit any atrocities or anything.... oh, hang on...
m0ngy 23rd August 2010, 19:02 Quote
The Defence Secretary has the GAUL to talk about dead fathers and brothers, when our troops kill women and children daily, the press casually referring to these innocents as 'colatoral damage'. It's 2010 and I guess it's still OK to bomb the sh!t out of little brown people, just like Vietnam 40 years ago. The Taliban are defending their homeland against foreign imperialist invaders.

Prove they had anything to do with 9/11, not even the CIA can draw any real conclusion. Are you really telling me a guy in a cave with a satellite phone brought down NORAD? A guy in a cave?! Impossible! For decades US domestic flights have been regularly queried by NORAD and intercepted/escorted by fighter jet, for the smallest deviation from their flight plan. Yet on 9/11 they missed 3 planes in one day, even after one had flown straight into the World Trade Centre... how was this possible?

How do the Taliban oppress us? How do they infringe on our civil liberties? They don't tell us how to live. Yet we send special forces into their homes at night and kill entire families on a regular basis. Our forces drop cluster munitions on wedding ceremies, killing dozens, sometimes hundreds of civilians. Dropping bombs on people from 20,000 feet is gutless, this is a dirty, gutless war. The Taliban are a rag-tag army, brothers, fathers, and old men, with AK's and RPG's fighting the most technologically advanced fighting machine of all time. That, my friends, takes BALLS. Any one of us with any BALLS would do the same if England, Australia, ot the US were invaded.

I am PROUD to play the Taliban in any video game.
Pookeyhead 23rd August 2010, 19:20 Quote
Quote:
UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox has expressed disgust at Electronic Arts' upcoming FPS reboot, Medal of Honor, because of the way it allows players to take the role of the Taliban against British troops in multiplayer games.

But it's absolutely fine for British troops to shoot theTaliban huh?

It's a game.
m0ngy 23rd August 2010, 19:25 Quote
It's not that I don't empathize with the families of dead soldiers, I do. However, our troops are NOT conscripted, they join the army knowing the risks involved. People living in remote Afghan villages did nothing to us, yet we raid their home at night killing women and children. You think special forces knock on the door? No, they lob nades in first and ask questions later, this is war. How would you feel if the government smashed down your door in the middle of the night and threw explosives into your lil sisters room? We'll never win because the people HATE us, and the corrupt regime we support. Poppy production has exploded since the US/NATO invasion, because we're supporting the warlords who use herion to support their armies. Why are we there? Better have them dying in their beds overseas than another bomb on a bus? There's no correllation, it's a myth. The endless 'War on Terror', where our civil liberties are being quickly eroded so that fat cat politicians might save us from a peril we will never understand.
stuartpb 23rd August 2010, 19:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Prove they had anything to do with 9/11, not even the CIA can draw any real conclusion. Are you really telling me a guy in a cave with a satellite phone brought down NORAD? A guy in a cave?! Impossible! For decades US domestic flights have been regularly queried by NORAD and intercepted/escorted by fighter jet, for the smallest deviation from their flight plan. Yet on 9/11 they missed 3 planes in one day, even after one had flown straight into the World Trade Centre... how was this possible?

So the videos where Bin Laden claimed victory for 9/11 were manufactured then? All the intelligence that subsequently showed us how they managed to pull off the attack was just a fake? Are you implying that the US government manufactured the attack to justify the invasion? Or that they were complicit by not taking action against a "known" attack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
How do the Taliban oppress us? How do they infringe on our civil liberties? They don't tell us how to live.

No but they sure as hell run Afghanistan in a manner that would literally and absolutely scare the hell out of any other civilised populace. Murders due to petty "crimes", beatings for not doing as one was told, mass murders against those who spoke out against them, all in the name of Allah. Sure they were doing a great job of running the country...not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Yet we send special forces into their homes at night and kill entire families on a regular basis. Our forces drop cluster munitions on wedding ceremies, killing dozens, sometimes hundreds of civilians. Dropping bombs on people from 20,000 feet is gutless, this is a dirty, gutless war. The Taliban are a rag-tag army, brothers, fathers, and old men, with AK's and RPG's fighting the most technologically advanced fighting machine of all time. That, my friends, takes BALLS. Any one of us with any BALLS would do the same if England, Australia, ot the US were invaded.

I am PROUD to play the Taliban in any video game.

If you are that proud why not go and fight for them. Seriously, you seem to hold them in some regard, and seem to think the Taliban are just the common or garden "freedom fighters". What about the mass intimidation of their own countrymen, and all the murders, torture and beatings carried out on their behalf? Then there's the fact that the Taliban control a massive share of the opium production for the whole world (something like 75% or more iirc), and use the drug heroin to attack the west's way of life, and do so with a fair amount of impunity. Yeah aint the taliban just great.

EDIT: as for the poppy cultivation explosion, this is due to the crop yielding much more than traditional crops do. For the coalition forces to reduce the amounts grown would mean having to physically destroy the crops, resulting in families starving due to having no produce to bring to market. This would have the further negative effect of alienating those who the coalition forces are trying to give some sense of security to, and make the job 100% harder. The taliban are acutely aware of this problem and do take measures to ensure it stays the same. The British Armed Forces have been actively trying to encourage farmers to grow traditional crops, but they cannot do so when the market conditions make growing poppies vastly more appealing to the farmers, where traditional crops may not ensure they have enough money with which to feed themselves.
DaveVader 23rd August 2010, 20:00 Quote
m0ngy: you sound like someone that would picket a soldier's funeral.
Get a grip.
Even if you don't agree with the war (there are multiple parts of it I don't solely agree with) the least you could do is support our troops and not make stupid comments about being proud to play the Taliban in a game.

As for the topic of Mr Fox. He can also get a grip. Complain about it all or complain about none of it.
I've killed multiple allied troops in multiple war games, oh facking dear.
What a nob sack.
pimonserry 23rd August 2010, 20:06 Quote
If he had teenage kids, I'd bet they buy it.
mars-bar-man 23rd August 2010, 20:17 Quote
I was talking to some guys (and girls! :O) at work about this, and showed them the article. They thought it was all BS. One of the girls I work with is going out with a Marine, currently in Afghanistan, I asked her about it, she said when he's played things like COD (very similar to this situation), he doesn't side with anyone side in particular, he'll play whatever.

If people really are getting upset by shoosting some pixels that make up a British flag, then they have something wrong with them tbh. The sooner the media accept there are games out there that show violence, and that not every single god damn human is going to mimic what they see, the better. Same with politicians.

You know, this reminds me of a thread on here a few months ago, when violence in video games was discussed (term used loosely).

It's just a bunch or arse.
Canon 23rd August 2010, 20:26 Quote
Wait wait wait, the news a couple of weeks ago.....somewhere along the lines of, our Troops are civilian mudering monsters (believe me that's how it felt to some people). BUT NOW! Anyone that is so 'unbritish' as to allow themselves to so much as contemplate virtually harming one,they're the monsters, make up your bloody minds or pipe down I say.
cheeriokilla 23rd August 2010, 20:41 Quote
the game sucks anyway so nobody's gonna miss out on anything, nor will people be playing as Taliban for too long
Ph4ZeD 23rd August 2010, 20:51 Quote
Of course, this is also great publicity for EA.
bogie170 23rd August 2010, 21:10 Quote
Why don't they turn the Taliban side into Politicians? Everyone can then enjoy the fun!

I'd love to headshot Gordon Brown and I'd definately Melee and then Teabag John Prescott!

What fun!
Gunsmith 23rd August 2010, 21:11 Quote
jesus **** people chill out.
ledbythereaper 23rd August 2010, 21:39 Quote
I have it on good authority that fictional PC games are serious business.
Captain Haddock 23rd August 2010, 21:58 Quote
The first mod to this game should be :-
Liam Fox's face replaces that of the Taliban fighters.
Sloth 23rd August 2010, 22:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith
jesus **** people chill out.
+1

Who knew people felt so strongly about their right to virtually kill their country's soldiers. :p

Also, why can we play WWII games then huh? I'm so witty! Hm, maybe because playing the bad guy isn't the point. The point is playing the bad guy who could actually be out there right now killing a fellow Brit who would love to just come home for his tea. It's not even over and they're making a sport out of it. Even if one doesn't agree in asking people not to play, it must be admitted that it's a little tasteless.
smc8788 23rd August 2010, 22:55 Quote
The problem isn't that the Taliban are in the game, it's that the politician is an idiot and trying to create another sensationalist news story because he thinks the game therefore supports the Taliban in some way. I'm sure if he actually played the game he might realise that's not the case and would be in a better position to comment on the matter.
stuartpb 23rd August 2010, 23:22 Quote
For the record, I have no problems with the Taliban being in the game. At least not to the point where I would be up in arms over it. I do think it is in poor taste, but not enough to take it to the point where I would be willing to condemn the devs for their choice. Where I took exception was the fact that m0ngy stated some ill conceived ideas about the Taliban, and some pretty extreme views too. He seems to think they are some sort of modern day French style resistance party, when history and the present show them to be a clear and present danger to the Afghans themselves, more than a danger to any other nation,
Dreaming 23rd August 2010, 23:38 Quote
It's 'non british' apparently.

**** him. Britain is becoming a nation of gamers whether he likes it or not... and those games include first person shooters where you play as the bad guy. Whether that's the taliban, the nazis, the vietkong or just red.

What is absolutely non british is advocating censorship.
Ergath 24th August 2010, 01:21 Quote
Quote:
Also, why can we play WWII games then huh? I'm so witty! Hm, maybe because playing the bad guy isn't the point. The point is playing the bad guy who could actually be out there right now killing a fellow Brit who would love to just come home for his tea. It's not even over and they're making a sport out of it.

So playing as a Nazi who could have shot my Grandad is OK, whereas playing as a Taliban fighter who could have shot my mate who's in the army is tasteless and wrong. I can see where you're coming from but I can't really agree that there's a lot of difference there.

Out of curiousity, would you argue that it's not tasteless to play as a US marine shooting the Taliban guy?

Messed up logic.
stonedsurd 24th August 2010, 01:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaming
or just red.

Oi. Red are the good guys. Blu are the bad guys.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 01:46 Quote
The thing that does worry me is the fact that EA's target audience could be seen to be teenaged players. Now within that group, we would find a substantial number of teens who had parents serving in Afghanistan, or brothers or sisters. Would they have the right to consider it offensive that players can opt to play as the Taliban? I do think they do have some right, but coming from a forces family, I would be the first to admit that I am biased in this.

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ergath
Out of curiousity, would you argue that it's not tasteless to play as a US marine shooting the Taliban guy?

Messed up logic.

I would argue that it is tasteless. I don't think current issues, especially such emotive ones, should be used for purely entertainment purposes. I just don't see any need myself, but that's my opinion only.
Woodspoon 24th August 2010, 03:22 Quote
Maybe it's time somebody made a game that lets you kill virtual politicians instead, I'm sure it would sell by the boat load
deadsea 24th August 2010, 03:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
The thing that does worry me is the fact that EA's target audience could be seen to be teenaged players. Now within that group, we would find a substantial number of teens who had parents serving in Afghanistan, or brothers or sisters. Would they have the right to consider it offensive that players can opt to play as the Taliban? I do think they do have some right, but coming from a forces family, I would be the first to admit that I am biased in this.

Well if the kids in a family, where the parents are serving in a combat zone, go out to buy a game where they can and/or choose to play as the enemy that's shooting at their parents in real life. I really don't think the problem lies with the game is it? Liberal application of a palm upside some heads would be required, no?
thehippoz 24th August 2010, 03:33 Quote
I can see getting upset over that.. thing is the war is still going on- a bit too recent for some
VipersGratitude 24th August 2010, 04:02 Quote
To Do:
1. Play as British soldier. Get Shot. Die.
2. Play as American soldier. Get Shot. Die.
3. Play as Taliban soldier. Get Shot. Die.
4. Realize though this crude metaphor that the human condition is universal.
5. Respawn as politician class with the lofty ambition of bring about world peace.
6. Defame wargames because encouraging patriotism gives the politician class more power.
7. Level up.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 04:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadsea
Well if the kids in a family, where the parents are serving in a combat zone, go out to buy a game where they can and/or choose to play as the enemy that's shooting at their parents in real life. I really don't think the problem lies with the game is it? Liberal application of a palm upside some heads would be required, no?

Very fair point. I do still question why games devs make such controversial decisions though. Is it purely because they want to provide entertainment, or they are exploiting current events and using them as marketing tools? I think the line is fine, and easily crossed. With the war still raging on, surely it would have been better not to produce a game based on that war at this juncture in time? Maybe it's me being old fashioned, but I didn't take up gaming many moons ago so I could get involved in current political and social issues. I done so as an escape from reality for the time I played, and to gain enjoyment from the past-time. If I want social messages or reminders of conflicts, then the news serves me well, I don't look at games to provide me with this. As I said though, maybe it's just me being old fashioned, and my age is catching up with me?
m0ngy 24th August 2010, 04:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
So the videos where Bin Laden claimed victory for 9/11 were manufactured then? All the intelligence that subsequently showed us how they managed to pull off the attack was just a fake? Are you implying that the US government manufactured the attack to justify the invasion? Or that they were complicit by not taking action against a "known" attack?

Bin Laden didn't knock down the World Trade Centre. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that he devised, carried out, or funded the operation. NO EVIDENCE! The CIA, who originally CREATED Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, have been saying this for years. They wanted to launch a real investigation into what happened on 9/11, using old world spy tactics (tried and true) and their director was sacked and replaced. Since then, the CIA has been largely sidelined from the 'War on Terror' because of the US (and it's allies) global agenda to capture oil assets in the middle east. Nothing to do with Bin Laden or the 'War on Terror' at all, as evidenced by so many public inqiries. We're using conventional methods of warfare to fight an invisible enemy, you work it out, doesn't take a genius to know it'll never succeed. Under real and impartial analysis, those video tapes do NOT demonstrate the 'evidence' the government and mainstream media want them to. A few snippets of conversation taken out of context can be made to say anything, look at those current affairs show every night. Subsequently, there have been many fake video and audio tapes released... by who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
No but they sure as hell run Afghanistan in a manner that would literally and absolutely scare the hell out of any other civilised populace. Murders due to petty "crimes", beatings for not doing as one was told, mass murders against those who spoke out against them, all in the name of Allah. Sure they were doing a great job of running the country...not.

None of your business how they run their own country, nothing to do with you mate. You should stop wearing your undies on the outside of your jeans and mind your own business. You really think the US and UK started a war in the most hostile region on earth to save the women and kiddies? Man, you're ignorant. The Afghan population currently look to the Taliban for good, LOCAL governance, because the far away corrupt regime in Kabul is illegitimate and incapable of delivering. These are an ancient, traditional people, living in mud huts on goats milk. What do they know of 'democracy'? They don't want it! They want a benelovent dictator, a warlord who keeps things in order, cutting off the hands of theives, stoning adulterous women, and beheading murderers. This is how it's been for thousands of years, who are we to enforce our ideologies on them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
If you are that proud why not go and fight for them. Seriously, you seem to hold them in some regard, and seem to think the Taliban are just the common or garden "freedom fighters". What about the mass intimidation of their own countrymen, and all the murders, torture and beatings carried out on their behalf? Then there's the fact that the Taliban control a massive share of the opium production for the whole world (something like 75% or more iirc), and use the drug heroin to attack the west's way of life, and do so with a fair amount of impunity. Yeah aint the taliban just great.

Poppy production was BANNED by the Taliban, under penalty of death. Drugs are anti-Islamic. It's the warlords the Taliban were perpetually fighting, on the fringes of the country, that were growing poppies. Herion production has increased expodentially now because the inept, western backed government exists only because the US have done deals with the warlords, who're now free to do as they like. The 'democratic' government is incapable of doing anything about it, again, unable to deliver real governence to the people. Sorry, but you're very ignorant. You should read more and watch less television.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 04:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Bin Laden didn't knock down the World Trade Centre. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that he devised, carried out, or funded the operation. NO EVIDENCE! The CIA, who originally CREATED Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, have been saying this for years. They wanted to launch a real investigation into what happened on 9/11, using old world spy tactics (tried and true) and their director was sacked and replaced. Since then, the CIA has been largely sidelined from the 'War on Terror' because of the US (and it's allies) global agenda to capture oil assets in the middle east. Nothing to do with Bin Laden or the 'War on Terror' at all, as evidenced by so many public inqiries. We're using conventional methods of warfare to fight an invisible enemy, you work it out, doesn't take a genius to know it'll never succeed. Under real and impartial analysis, those video tapes do NOT demonstrate the 'evidence' the government and mainstream media want them to. A few snippets of conversation taken out of context can be made to say anything, look at those current affairs show every night. Subsequently, there have been many fake video and audio tapes released... by who?

Knock off the conspiricy bullshit pal, it doesn't cut the mustard with me:D


Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
None of your business how they run their own country, nothing to do with you mate. You should stop wearing your undies on the outside of your jeans and mind your own business. You really think the US and UK started a war in the most hostile region on earth to save the women and kiddies? Man, you're ignorant. The Afghan population currently look to the Taliban for good, LOCAL governance, because the far away corrupt regime in Kabul is illegitimate and incapable of delivering. These are an ancient, traditional people, living in mud huts on goats milk. What do they know of 'democracy'? They don't want it! They want a benelovent dictator, a warlord who keeps things in order, cutting off the hands of theives, stoning adulterous women, and beheading murderers. This is how it's been for thousands of years, who are we to enforce our ideologies on them?


You're absolutely right it's none of my business and it didn't attempt to justify the war. Could you point out where I claimed this was the case. I would say it is you who is being ignorant and not me here. What I did state is the fact that the Taliban are simply not the fluffy, friendly people you seem to think they are. This got brought up in another thread not long ago, and the Taliban have committed some attrocious acts against their own countrymen, and on a grand scale too. So I suggest that you read up a little on the fluffy friends you hold in such esteem. After all, you said yourself you are proud of them! You know, the ones who will strap a bomb to a child of their own nation, or the ones who will detonate roadside bombs regardless of who is in the killzone. They are also the ones who will kill anyone suspected of conspiring with the coalition troops, regardless of guilt. Yeah, they sound just like the type of chaps I would invite over for a beer :(


Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Poppy production was BANNED by the Taliban, under penalty of death. Drugs are anti-Islamic. It's the warlords the Taliban were perpetually fighting, on the fringes of the country, that were growing poppies. Herion production has increased expodentially now because the inept, western backed government exists only because the US have done deals with the warlords, who're now free to do as they like. The 'democratic' government is incapable of doing anything about it, again, unable to deliver real governence to the people. Sorry, but you're very ignorant. You should read more and watch less television.

Until it was realised by the Taliban that the west would no longer be bankrolling their arms proliferation, and the money had to come from somewhere, boy for someone who likes using the term ignorant, you are guilty of it yourself a lot too.
m0ngy 24th August 2010, 05:01 Quote
Look, Afghanistan is a strategic strong point. You control Afghanistan you control a multitute of trade routes througout the region. It's known as the 'Graveyard of Empires', many have tried to control this region; the English, the Soviets, and now the US backed 'allies'. Illiterate kiddies and womens suffrage (human rights) have nothing to do with it. Please, gimme a break. Oh, and guess what, the Yanks have been busy using gound penetrating radar and they've found an abundance of untapped mineral resources! Who would've thunk it? What people don't seem to understand is the Taliban ARE the people. On the ground there's almost no discrimination. You'll NEVER bring the Taliban to heal because they have the active support of the people, for all sorts of family, cultural and historical reasons. Vietnam proved that. I'm no leftist, I'm a realist, and we shouldn't engage in a protracted conflict we have no hope of winning. Everything the west has done to these people, and the middle east in general, simply re-affirms they negative preconceptions of us, INCREASING radicalism and fundamentalism. You want to stamp these dangerous ideolgies out? Send them aid, help them develop in their time, on their own terms, they want flush toilets and fresh water, not McDonalds and LCD TVs. Let us prove we are not the imperialist scum they believe we are, use the carrot not the stick approach.

End of rant.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 05:09 Quote
You seem to be confusing the issues here, as I was never justifying the invasion. In fact, I have openly spoken out against the invasion in other threads here. Let's be straight on that.

Now on to the point of your statement that you would be proud to act out the role of the Taliban, this is where I got involved with you. You are a stupid person for coming out with a statement like that, and nothing you have said since has convinced me otherwise.
deadsea 24th August 2010, 07:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb

Very fair point. I do still question why games devs make such controversial decisions though. Is it purely because they want to provide entertainment, or they are exploiting current events and using them as marketing tools? I think the line is fine, and easily crossed. With the war still raging on, surely it would have been better not to produce a game based on that war at this juncture in time? Maybe it's me being old fashioned, but I didn't take up gaming many moons ago so I could get involved in current political and social issues. I done so as an escape from reality for the time I played, and to gain enjoyment from the past-time. If I want social messages or reminders of conflicts, then the news serves me well, I don't look at games to provide me with this. As I said though, maybe it's just me being old fashioned, and my age is catching up with me?

Well, pretty much in this day and age, nothing is sacred. Unles it's explicitly made illegal. I mean they even made a 9/11 movie. I doubt that was made solely for the victims to get "closure".

Most likely, it's just the company trying to produce something relevant to the times so to speak. Everyone has done WW1/2 to the death. Futurestic shooters. Generic US/Russia/China conflict... New material in that sense.

And you'd be surpised how many social issues can be found in games. Abuse of power, abandoment issues, same sex relations .... the list goes on. It's very hard to tell a story without any social content in that that's what makes us relate to the story. However, i don't deny there are some very very very disturbing games out there. Just have to stay away from what we can't stomach. Everyone else is welcome to whatever floats their boats.
DaveVader 24th August 2010, 08:37 Quote
To all the big walls of text above:
Shut up and talk about some prat of a politician who is criticising a game for portraying war.
Aragon Speed 24th August 2010, 09:37 Quote
"Defence Secretary disgusted by MOH"

Who cares?
Odin Eidolon 24th August 2010, 09:51 Quote
Anyone ever seen Rambo III? Yep? Remember those kind guys who helped Rambo survive after having rescued Trautman. Oh, how fine were they! So kind and gentle, a noble population with great ideals of freedom.

You think they have changed now? They are the same as they were before, the only difference is that now they fight us (they are obliged to) instead of Evil Devil Red Children-Eaters Damn Ugly Communists.

Man... we all know why we are there, and it's called oil.
I'm not defending them. But they are not as bad as some african dictators. And they are not worse than us. We torture and kill them, we send Phosphorous Bombs there, violating an explicit ONU convention, burning the skin of civilians as much as the 1% of Talibans.
You do NOT change anything with violence.
mecblade 24th August 2010, 10:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
So the videos where Bin Laden claimed victory for 9/11 were manufactured then? All the intelligence that subsequently showed us how they managed to pull off the attack was just a fake? Are you implying that the US government manufactured the attack to justify the invasion? Or that they were complicit by not taking action against a "known" attack?

Bin Laden didn't knock down the World Trade Centre. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that he devised, carried out, or funded the operation. NO EVIDENCE! The CIA, who originally CREATED Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, have been saying this for years. They wanted to launch a real investigation into what happened on 9/11, using old world spy tactics (tried and true) and their director was sacked and replaced. Since then, the CIA has been largely sidelined from the 'War on Terror' because of the US (and it's allies) global agenda to capture oil assets in the middle east. Nothing to do with Bin Laden or the 'War on Terror' at all, as evidenced by so many public inqiries. We're using conventional methods of warfare to fight an invisible enemy, you work it out, doesn't take a genius to know it'll never succeed. Under real and impartial analysis, those video tapes do NOT demonstrate the 'evidence' the government and mainstream media want them to. A few snippets of conversation taken out of context can be made to say anything, look at those current affairs show every night. Subsequently, there have been many fake video and audio tapes released... by who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
No but they sure as hell run Afghanistan in a manner that would literally and absolutely scare the hell out of any other civilised populace. Murders due to petty "crimes", beatings for not doing as one was told, mass murders against those who spoke out against them, all in the name of Allah. Sure they were doing a great job of running the country...not.

None of your business how they run their own country, nothing to do with you mate. You should stop wearing your undies on the outside of your jeans and mind your own business. You really think the US and UK started a war in the most hostile region on earth to save the women and kiddies? Man, you're ignorant. The Afghan population currently look to the Taliban for good, LOCAL governance, because the far away corrupt regime in Kabul is illegitimate and incapable of delivering. These are an ancient, traditional people, living in mud huts on goats milk. What do they know of 'democracy'? They don't want it! They want a benelovent dictator, a warlord who keeps things in order, cutting off the hands of theives, stoning adulterous women, and beheading murderers. This is how it's been for thousands of years, who are we to enforce our ideologies on them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
If you are that proud why not go and fight for them. Seriously, you seem to hold them in some regard, and seem to think the Taliban are just the common or garden "freedom fighters". What about the mass intimidation of their own countrymen, and all the murders, torture and beatings carried out on their behalf? Then there's the fact that the Taliban control a massive share of the opium production for the whole world (something like 75% or more iirc), and use the drug heroin to attack the west's way of life, and do so with a fair amount of impunity. Yeah aint the taliban just great.

Poppy production was BANNED by the Taliban, under penalty of death. Drugs are anti-Islamic. It's the warlords the Taliban were perpetually fighting, on the fringes of the country, that were growing poppies. Herion production has increased expodentially now because the inept, western backed government exists only because the US have done deals with the warlords, who're now free to do as they like. The 'democratic' government is incapable of doing anything about it, again, unable to deliver real governence to the people. Sorry, but you're very ignorant. You should read more and watch less television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
Look, Afghanistan is a strategic strong point. You control Afghanistan you control a multitute of trade routes througout the region. It's known as the 'Graveyard of Empires', many have tried to control this region; the English, the Soviets, and now the US backed 'allies'. Illiterate kiddies and womens suffrage (human rights) have nothing to do with it. Please, gimme a break. Oh, and guess what, the Yanks have been busy using gound penetrating radar and they've found an abundance of untapped mineral resources! Who would've thunk it? What people don't seem to understand is the Taliban ARE the people. On the ground there's almost no discrimination. You'll NEVER bring the Taliban to heal because they have the active support of the people, for all sorts of family, cultural and historical reasons. Vietnam proved that. I'm no leftist, I'm a realist, and we shouldn't engage in a protracted conflict we have no hope of winning. Everything the west has done to these people, and the middle east in general, simply re-affirms they negative preconceptions of us, INCREASING radicalism and fundamentalism. You want to stamp these dangerous ideolgies out? Send them aid, help them develop in their time, on their own terms, they want flush toilets and fresh water, not McDonalds and LCD TVs. Let us prove we are not the imperialist scum they believe we are, use the carrot not the stick approach.

End of rant.

Im sorry but quite a lot of your posts on this issue is quite inaccurate. Regarding your post about how Fighter Jets escort Commercial planes for a small portion of your journey, let me ask you a question. Have you ever looked out of a window to see a F-22 Raptor or a F-15 Eagle or a Tornado shadowing your aircraft? Nope. The only reason that they would do that is if there was a errorist Alert specifing THAT plane.

Also, poppy production was not banned by the taliban, they encouraged it. While i have to agree that the wars in afghanistan and iraq are more than just about saving the afghan population, it is a fact that the taliban uses drugs to fund their war on NATO.

As someone who was in the underground station when one of the bombs went off during 7/7, i would seriously recommend you get rid of the post where you state you are proud to play the taliban. By saying that, you would have insulted the familys of all those affected by the 9/11, the 7/7 and the Madrid bombings.

You say that Afghanistan is a major trade route in the region, and while i agree it has a huge untapped potential with all the oil and gems they have underneath their feet, i wouldnt say its a major trade route. All the trade routes they HAD have all been re routed through India and Pakistan. I mean, why do you think india is growing with money? Because of trade. The trade does not go through afghanistan any more.

Now on a different note: I think this is just a publicity stunt gone wrong for Liam Fox. Hes just trying to get Rep from the community who ignores logic and fact.

We really need someone to develop a game where its gamers vs politicians. Oh look, theirs our number one target, tony blair! *SNIPED*.
Threefiguremini 24th August 2010, 10:20 Quote
Free speech. They can do what they want. They're a business after all and have to make money, if people don't buy it the game wont succeed. It's entirely up to the game buying populace how the game does.
I guess there are issues of taste but there are books and films based on this war aren't there? If so why not a game.
The ever relevant quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I'd much rather have people able to do basically what they want and in the process offend some people than not.
Gunsmith 24th August 2010, 10:53 Quote
This thread was pointless 4 pages ago and its still just as pointless now, can we get it locked.
Zinfandel 24th August 2010, 11:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith
This thread was pointless 4 pages ago and its still just as pointless now, can we get it locked.

It's only pointless if you're not interested.

I've enjoyed reading it, if you've not then just don't come into it?
m0ngy 24th August 2010, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecblade
Im sorry but quite a lot of your posts on this issue is quite inaccurate. Regarding your post about how Fighter Jets escort Commercial planes for a small portion of your journey, let me ask you a question. Have you ever looked out of a window to see a F-22 Raptor or a F-15 Eagle or a Tornado shadowing your aircraft? Nope. The only reason that they would do that is if there was a errorist Alert specifing THAT plane.

That is what I said, you've simply re-iterated it for me. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecblade
Also, poppy production was not banned by the taliban, they encouraged it. While i have to agree that the wars in afghanistan and iraq are more than just about saving the afghan population, it is a fact that the taliban uses drugs to fund their war on NATO.

Poppy production was BANNED under the Taliban regime. It's a FACT, get over it; http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html
Please note the date, May, 2001, just before the US led invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecblade
As someone who was in the underground station when one of the bombs went off during 7/7, i would seriously recommend you get rid of the post where you state you are proud to play the taliban. By saying that, you would have insulted the familys of all those affected by the 9/11, the 7/7 and the Madrid bombings.

Too bad if I've insulted you or anyone else. You think the Taliban bombed the tube? HAHAHAHA, you're a retard! Home grown English radical muslim fanatics bombed London because the UK was (and continues) to kill Muslims in Afghanistan, and Iraq at the time. Much more dangerous and out-of-control than a few foreign agents, I am sorry to say. Nothing to do with the Taliban, everything to do with the greed and imperialism of the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecblade
You say that Afghanistan is a major trade route in the region, and while i agree it has a huge untapped potential with all the oil and gems they have underneath their feet, i wouldnt say its a major trade route. All the trade routes they HAD have all been re routed through India and Pakistan. I mean, why do you think india is growing with money? Because of trade. The trade does not go through afghanistan any more.

Again, LOL! For over a thousand years Afghanistan has, though mountainous and inhospitable, been part of a major route trade from the East to the West. Ever heard of the 'Silk Road'?

Wow, I thought you people would be educated, but man, was I wrong! What a joke!

Anyway, in so far as game content is concerned; no sexualisation, no violence against women or kids, and just about anything else goes, so long as it's made clear to the buyer beforehand.
BRAWL 24th August 2010, 13:41 Quote
+backhands argumentative people+ Stop being flaming/raging towels... I demand it, like Megatron demands you do as he commands...

It looks a good game, I'm buying it and I did a short service before injury. Get a grip and realise it's fiction. It's an MP trying to score points with 'moral bandwagon outrage' (remember Johnathan R(W)oss?) It's pointless and more people will buy it now to wind him up :D

I'll be buying it, aswell as a few other games. I make my own choices about the games I play, why can't you people? Why did you drag other wars and state your own morals and ethics like this MP is going to hunt down our forum? No-one cares... it's the internet. Buy it if you like the look of it, don't if you don't. Blow stuff up regardless...

If you are offended by anything stated on the game please lock yourself in a room and watch Mock the Week from start to finish... season 1 onwards... then you'll be cured.
Woodspoon 24th August 2010, 15:22 Quote
Commercial aircraft are even now, very very rarely escorted/intercepted through any airspace because of pre submitted flight plans by the carrier allow them to alter the route to go around dangerous or restricted areas.
Pre 9/11 an escort/interception for leaving your designated flight plan was unheard of, as bad as that sounds, security on internal flights in the U.S. was a shocking disgrace prior to 9/11 which is why they took so long to do anything, that coupled with the very short flight time from where they took off, it actually wouldnt have been too difficult as the concept that someone might actually want to do that hadn't been thought about.

Poppy production was banned by the Taliban, But it was also encourged as long as the proceeds go to funding the Taliban or funding the downfall of the corrupt western government.

While the silk road was in use for a very long time only a small part of one of the routes actually passed through afghanistan and the advent of commercial cargo flights and container shipping has all but completely killed it off.
m0ngy 24th August 2010, 17:24 Quote
At last, someone who really knows what they're talking about. Thanks mate... 8)
Ljs 24th August 2010, 17:28 Quote
I think he was putting you straight a bit m0ngy tbh...

"Thanks for showing me I as only 1/2 correct"

And you were complaining about uneducated people?
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 17:42 Quote
Mongy, in what country are you a resident? I think this is an important question for two reasons.

1. If you are not resident in Afghanistan, how do you know exactly what the Afghan people want, with regards to the Taliban.

2. If you were not resident in Afghanstan during the period of time when the Taliban were in control, what gives you the right to say that this is what the people wanted?

Further, I would accuse you of evading the issue of human rights crimes, committed by the Taliban, both before and after the invasion. Why are you skirting round it by claiming it is not our right to impose our beliefs on another culture. This is an absolute cop-out, and shows you to be nothing more than an uneducated, trolling pain in the scrotum. And that's before your STUPID comment on how proud of the taliban you are.

If I met someone in the street who spouted the same as you have here, I would consider calling the police and taking you as a threat, but seeing as we are on the net, and you are protected by anonymity, I see your outbursts as nothing more than some half baked way to stir up a hornets nest. Grow up.
Odin Eidolon 24th August 2010, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
Mongy, in what country are you a resident? I think this is an important question for two reasons.

1. If you are not resident in Afghanistan, how do you know exactly what the Afghan people want, with regards to the Taliban.

2. If you were not resident in Afghanstan during the period of time when the Taliban were in control, what gives you the right to say that this is what the people wanted?

Further, I would accuse you of evading the issue of human rights crimes, committed by the Taliban, both before and after the invasion. Why are you skirting round it by claiming it is not our right to impose our beliefs on another culture. This is an absolute cop-out, and shows you to be nothing more than an uneducated, trolling pain in the scrotum. And that's before your STUPID comment on how proud of the taliban you are.

If I met someone in the street who spouted the same as you have here, I would consider calling the police and taking you as a threat, but seeing as we are on the net, and you are protected by anonymity, I see your outbursts as nothing more than some half baked way to stir up a hornets nest. Grow up.

May I point out why your points are pointless (:D)?

1. You know? Bush knew, when he decided to invade Afghanistan?
2. Same as before. Anyhow, Talibans still control the majority of the territory. They won the war (if you think it has ended), or they are winning it. They were even asked to be part of the government.

Human rights: they evaded them. Our soldiers and politicians did too. Remember tortures and acid bombs? It is to easy to notice only what you want. Regarding the rest of the rant, I personally believe you exaggerate a little.

Anyhow, I do not like Talebans. In fact, I dislike everyone who kills, cheats, corrupts, torture. I think that we, with our rich and smart society, are not much better. And facts, IMHO, prove it.
boiled_elephant 24th August 2010, 19:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
It's mostly just the politicians trying to score +rep with the ignorant crowds.

Word.

I'm not about to take advice as to what games I should or shouldn't buy from a man who's probably never played one before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin Eidolon
In fact, I dislike everyone who kills, cheats, corrupts, torture. I think that we, with our rich and smart society, are not much better. And facts, IMHO, prove it.

Unfair. Judge a society by what it officially sanctions and allows to happen, not by what some of its members choose to do. Our government didn't wade in going "ok boys, chop off hands and stone anyone without a veil!" The taliban did (or so I'm told - I'm not clear on the details.) Putting us all in one big misanthropic basket together is a daft oversimplification that ignores how far our society has progressed.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 19:15 Quote
Why is it that because I am challenging Mongy's opinion that the Taliban are nothing more than normal men and women who are fighting nicely, I attract flak for the rights and wrongs of the war? As I have said, I have never tried to justify the invasion, and I do believe it was wrong for us to get involved.

If you think I exaggerate over the human rights attrocities enacted by the Taliban, both pre and post invasion, then you need to do some homework to show this. Here's some info to get you started:

http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/taliba.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-for_n_683080.html

http://www.rawa.org/massacre.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/taliban-pakistan-justice-women-flogging

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Grow-beards-or-face-punishment-Taliban/305671/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5537025.ece

http://www.newsoxy.com/world/amnesty-international-punishments-in-islam-14250.html

I could go on with the hundreds of videos showing the Taliban dishing out their rough justice, and with many more articles detailing the human rights crimes being committed. Sure, I am just exaggerating:(

My guess is that monger would claim this all to be nothing more than imperialist propoganda. The Nazis said similar about the death camps didn't they?
Odin Eidolon 24th August 2010, 19:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
Unfair. Judge a society by what it officially sanctions and allows to happen, not by what some of its members choose to do. Our government didn't wade in going "ok boys, chop off hands and stone anyone without a veil!" The taliban did (or so I'm told - I'm not clear on the details.) Putting us all in one big misanthropic basket together is a daft oversimplification that ignores how far our society has progressed.

I believe you are partially right, in fact. But we are not angels as they are not devils, don't you think?
They are some centuries back under some aspects: they (talibans) behave like we did >3 centuries ago.

By the way, i do not agree on the firts part of your post: I should not judge a society by what it officially sanctions and allows to happen. First, our society allows many atrocities to happen (yes, we do). Second, Stalin's dictatourship was officially great. Everyone equal! Equal rights and duties! Noone left behind! Behind what's official there's a whole (evil?) world.
Odin Eidolon 24th August 2010, 19:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
Why is it that because I am challenging Mongy's opinion that the Taliban are nothing more than normal men and women who are fighting nicely, I attract flak for the rights and wrongs of the war? As I have said, I have never tried to justify the invasion, and I do believe it was wrong for us to get involved.

If you think I exaggerate over the human rights attrocities enacted by the Taliban, both pre and post invasion, then you need to do some homework to show this. Here's some info to get you started:

http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/taliba.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/taliban-stone-couple-for_n_683080.html

http://www.rawa.org/massacre.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/taliban-pakistan-justice-women-flogging

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Grow-beards-or-face-punishment-Taliban/305671/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article5537025.ece

http://www.newsoxy.com/world/amnesty-international-punishments-in-islam-14250.html

I could go on with the hundreds of videos showing the Taliban dishing out their rough justice, and with many more articles detailing the human rights crimes being committed. Sure, I am just exaggerating:(

My guess is that monger would claim this all to be nothing more than imperialist propoganda. The Nazis said similar about the death camps didn't they?

Are you referring to me? Sorry, but I do not understand if you are speaking to me or to Mongy.
If you are speaking to me, I honestly believe you did not read carefully my posts.
And, please, never ever again suggest some far kind of correlation between me and nazis. People in my family was deported for having supported the Resistance, and my city was awarded of a Gold Medal for Resistance. I live between mountains where you can find various monuments celebrating the courage and moral righteousness of Partisans from all countries.
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 23:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
My guess is that monger would claim this all to be nothing more than imperialist propoganda. The Nazis said similar about the death camps didn't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin Eidolon
And, please, never ever again suggest some far kind of correlation between me and nazis. People in my family was deported for having supported the Resistance, and my city was awarded of a Gold Medal for Resistance. I live between mountains where you can find various monuments celebrating the courage and moral righteousness of Partisans from all countries.

Unless you have changed your name to monger (should have been Mongy, my typo), then how could you assume I was referring to you? For someone who has claimed I haven't read your posts, you don't seem to be doing too good yourself.
Odin Eidolon 24th August 2010, 23:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
Unless you have changed your name to monger (should have been Mongy, my typo), then how could you assume I was referring to you? For someone who has claimed I haven't read your posts, you don't seem to be doing too good yourself.

Man, be patient, not everyonw is a native english-speaker here. I'm glad you did not notice I wasn't, means my English is not that bad!
stuartpb 24th August 2010, 23:36 Quote
Just wanted to clear up the fact that I wasn't addressing the statement to you, which you seemed to think I was. Apologies if the confusion was due to English being your second language;)
m0ngy 25th August 2010, 05:42 Quote
This is hilarious. I just appreciated woodspoon's 5c worth 'casue it was so unemotive and factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
If you think I exaggerate over the human rights attrocities enacted by the Taliban, both pre and post invasion, then you need to do some homework to show this. Here's some info to get you started... My guess is that monger would claim this all to be nothing more than imperialist propoganda. The Nazis said similar about the death camps didn't they?

stuartpb, you certainly did try and justify the invasion of Afghanistan, and continue to do so with your comments regarding how brutal you thought the Taliban were. I have never denied that, by our standards, the Taliban have a very tough way of dealing with those they see as infringing on Islamic law, but this is their custom. They are not likeus, they are different. You need to understand that, ok, the whole world doesn't want to live like us. What they do in their own country, on the other side of the planet is simply none of our business. None at all. Remember, it is their country, we are the oppressors here, not them. You want to talk about propaganda, I think you've a hard time discriminating the facts yourself there buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin Eidolon
But we are not angels as they are not devils, don't you think? They are some centuries back under some aspects: they (talibans) behave like we did >3 centuries ago.

That's right. Who are we to ride in there, like John Wayne, bomb the sh!t of them, and then attempt to teach the greatness of democracy from the safety of armoured convoys? Don't you think, if they really wanted us there, preaching the democratic gospel might be a little bit easier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
If you are not resident in Afghanistan, how do you know exactly what the Afghan people want, with regards to the Taliban.

Fact: People get the government they deserve, that's most effective for them. This has always been always the case, throughout history. The people have always decided, even in ancient times the relationship between the people and the monarch was always reciprocal. If the ruler made the people suffer too much they were deposed and replaced. The Taliban were in control of Afghanistan, brutal as they may seem to us, because this is a traditional, tribal, lawless society, with many different factions jostling for position. The Taliban, through clever and cunning and bravery and strategic alliance came out on top, and in a traditional society this makes them the legitimate rulers. Look at almost all the middle-eastern, african, and south-east asian nations, developing nations which are a bit backward, and they all have dictators leading them. Strong men who rule with an iron fist in dangerous, lawless, backward societies. The Taliban brought order and the rule of law to Afghan society, and continue to do so though occupied. Right now, on the ground in Afghanistan, the western-backed regime, fractured and corrupt, exists only in Kabul. People living in remote villages seek justice from Taliban courts, from Taliban judges, for criminal and civil matters. He stole your goat? Then he should compensate you with two blocks of cheese and a case of ammo, etc. The people look to the Taliban for good governance, not us, and this is why we'll never win and should just leave. Not just leave, but apologise and then help the Taliban rebuild their country, build infrastructure for them, so that we may influence their government for a mutually beneficial and long lasting outcome. Like Bush snr said of Saddam in the 80's, when they were all pals, "He's a son of a b!tch, but he's our son of a b!tch!"
boiled_elephant 25th August 2010, 08:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin Eidolon
I believe you are partially right, in fact. But we are not angels as they are not devils, don't you think?
They are some centuries back under some aspects: they (talibans) behave like we did >3 centuries ago.

By the way, i do not agree on the firts part of your post: I should not judge a society by what it officially sanctions and allows to happen. First, our society allows many atrocities to happen (yes, we do). Second, Stalin's dictatourship was officially great. Everyone equal! Equal rights and duties! Noone left behind! Behind what's official there's a whole (evil?) world.

We fail to prevent many atrocities, but we don't sanction them, surely? Our laws are very liberal and huggy-friendly, generally. Our policemen can't even search us without reasonable cause. I'd say we have morals up the rear passage. The atrocities are committed by a few random wayward members of our society, not at the behest of our leaders. And even then, our atrocities are fairly mundane. Some prisoners tied up naked here, one old guy going crazy and shooting pedestrians there. Compared to some of the activities officially and repeatedly sanctioned by the Taliban, that's a trip to the corner shop.

Honestly, I know it makes me a bit jingoist, but I'm comfortable saying that the Taliban are horrifically amoral and that we're mostly good guys. That's just how it looks to me. I agree with you that nobody's perfect, and that there are probably plenty of conscientious, right-in-their-own-minds people in the Taliban, but judging both groups/societies by their overall effects, "Angels and Devils" isn't too far off.
sibster 25th August 2010, 08:40 Quote
ffs, ive just read all this.

I'm a soldier have been for the last 13 years and willdo for the next ten. Ive been ot iraq and afghan fighting them getting shot at by them etc etc. waking up in the morning to another one of there dodgy mortars landing near us.

I have had friends killed out there and had to speak to there wives on return, my wife herself having to help them during the hard times whilst also worrying baout me being out there.

Is this going to stop me from buying the game......???? hell no.

Its a fecking game simple. dam when we played rtcw enemy territory and had germans figthing americans (i'm a brit soldier by the way) did we all think dam this must be bad i'm killing american soldiers. nope we all thought killed the bas**rd wooohooo we win.

Same for all games today. we play to win the GAME and if that means i'm on the taliban side so be it. I dont think like that and i'm sure most gamers dont either. its a game, its pixels it in no way hurts familys, its a game game game.

lol, not ranting but find it weird that people can get so upset from it.
boiled_elephant 25th August 2010, 08:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibster
ffs, ive just read all this.

I'm a soldier have been for the last 13 years and willdo for the next ten. Ive been ot iraq and afghan fighting them getting shot at by them etc etc. waking up in the morning to another one of there dodgy mortars landing near us.

I have had friends killed out there and had to speak to there wives on return, my wife herself having to help them during the hard times whilst also worrying baout me being out there.

Is this going to stop me from buying the game......???? hell no.

Its a fecking game simple. dam when we played rtcw enemy territory and had germans figthing americans (i'm a brit soldier by the way) did we all think dam this must be bad i'm killing american soldiers. nope we all thought killed the bas**rd wooohooo we win.

Same for all games today. we play to win the GAME and if that means i'm on the taliban side so be it. I dont think like that and i'm sure most gamers dont either. its a game, its pixels it in no way hurts familys, its a game game game.

lol, not ranting but find it weird that people can get so upset from it.

+rep and /thread, I couldn't agree more...
Odin Eidolon 25th August 2010, 09:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuartpb
Just wanted to clear up the fact that I wasn't addressing the statement to you, which you seemed to think I was. Apologies if the confusion was due to English being your second language;)
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, no problem. ;)

[QUOTE=boiled_elephant;2404403]We fail to prevent many atrocities, but we don't sanction them, surely? Our laws are very liberal and huggy-friendly, generally. Our policemen can't even search us without reasonable cause. I'd say we have morals up the rear passage. The atrocities are committed by a few random wayward members of our society, not at the behest of our leaders. And even then, our atrocities are fairly mundane. Some prisoners tied up naked here, one old guy going crazy and shooting pedestrians there. Compared to some of the activities officially and repeatedly sanctioned by the Taliban, that's a trip to the corner shop.

Honestly, I know it makes me a bit jingoist, but I'm comfortable saying that the Taliban are horrifically amoral and that we're mostly good guys. That's just how it looks to me. I agree with you that nobody's perfect, and that there are probably plenty of conscientious, right-in-their-own-minds people in the Taliban, but judging both groups/societies by their overall effects, "Angels and Devils" isn't too far off.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and no. Yes, we are more liberal, we are free (from the legal point of view) compared to other societies. We are technologically advanced and such. Still, we commit as many atrocities as others do, imho. I personally believe that going there and killing many many (1800 civils killed only in 2008) innocent people is as bad as lapidating (if this is the right word) someone for adultery. Yes, our morality seems to be stronger, more moral, than theirs. But, first, I believe we have no true right to claim: "we are right, you are wrong"; secondly, their way of living was formed by decades of war and massacre. You have to remember that they are in war since 1973. Old people, there, knew only a little period of peace. This war, which I repeat goes on since 1973, was financed by us. We paid the Talebans to fight the URSS, we gave them weapons and support. We did, it's a fact. We gave weapons to whom we now fight, funny eh? (just like in Iraq!)
We caused their actual situation, and going there with the army is NOT a solution. With violence you only force people to fight. Afghan people fought for almost 40 years, will they stop now? They do not want, righteously, to be tought how to live, especially from who helped the cruel (I of course agree they are horrifically amoral, like you say) Talibans take power in their country.
They are bad, but we are not that better. We officially kill civils: don't tell me it is inevitable in war. In our times, war is not necessary anymore, and we all know it. Economical and political power is always enough to prevent any kind of violence: what is missing are the agreements to do so.

I believe you are wrong judjung societes only by what we pretend we believe. Come on, how many of us REALLY believe to the ideals of peace, freedom and justice? Here in Italy, at least, many people will claim that, but not many will really apply the ideals they say they have. Everything is about "looking" and nothing about "being" in our society: it is cool to show we care about, but most of us really don't. That's why judjung our society by singles is as bad as judjing it by groups and actions. Actions (especially in a democratic society) are a projection of what people really think, not of what they show.
That's why our society is so corrupted and, under the hood, immoral. That's why in Italy we still have Berlusconi.
Imho, the atrocities are not committed by a few random wayward members of our society: this kind of behavior is caused by how most people act. Often, those who say: "Wow, that's horrible!" would do the same exact thing under the same conditions. Our ideals are too weak and superficial in most of us.

/RANT :D
BRAWL 25th August 2010, 13:26 Quote
I swear this thread was about some MP who decided to cross the line? Not about justifying things in Afghanistan...

*humms* We didn't start the flame war...
Ph4ZeD 25th August 2010, 15:36 Quote
I'm going to shock everyone here and discuss what the thread is about, ie. MoH. I believe this issue has been created by EA to hype up the game.

If your EA, you used to be king of the hill and the top publisher, raking in bazillions. ActivBlizz have come along and pissed all over you, and your Medal of Honour franchise has stagnated badly. A guaranteed way of getting some interest in the new title at the critical Christmas period is to get some free publicity and stoke some controversey. A precedent has already been set by MW2 and GTA4, which generated plenty of tabloid/MP raving and thus reaped a huge bounty as a reward.
Nexxo 25th August 2010, 16:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
We fail to prevent many atrocities, but we don't sanction them, surely? Our laws are very liberal and huggy-friendly, generally. Our policemen can't even search us without reasonable cause. I'd say we have morals up the rear passage. The atrocities are committed by a few random wayward members of our society, not at the behest of our leaders. And even then, our atrocities are fairly mundane. Some prisoners tied up naked here, one old guy going crazy and shooting pedestrians there. Compared to some of the activities officially and repeatedly sanctioned by the Taliban, that's a trip to the corner shop.

Honestly, I know it makes me a bit jingoist, but I'm comfortable saying that the Taliban are horrifically amoral and that we're mostly good guys. That's just how it looks to me. I agree with you that nobody's perfect, and that there are probably plenty of conscientious, right-in-their-own-minds people in the Taliban, but judging both groups/societies by their overall effects, "Angels and Devils" isn't too far off.

Let's not get too comfortable in our self-righteousness. Apart from the fact that we created the Taliban:
Quote:
The plan: Flood rural Afghanistan with millions of schoolbooks preaching and teaching Islamic militancy. Books reportedly filled with language celebrating jihad (holy war), violent images of war.

Primers from which boys learned math by counting pictures of soldiers, tanks, guns and land mines.

The Purpose: Create a generation of militant Islamic freedom fighters — another term might be terrorists — who would rise up and run the godless Soviet communist forces out of Afghanistan. Which they did. Then they stuck around.

...and we fully supported them in the 90's:
Quote:
The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.

and even visited Texas as esteemed delegates to discuss gas pipelines), most of the Middle Eastern countries that we call our friends and allies treat their people just as badly. Apparently they are only evil when they are being evil to us.

From another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You are seeing everything through ethnocentric glasses. Pakistan has honour killings, but here two women are killed every week by an abusive partner or ex-partner. In many cases they had approached the police for help. While we decry the imprisonment and threatened stoning of a woman accused of adultery in Iran, we also have 30.000 people posting on the Raoul Moat Tribute Facebook page. You know, the guy who shot his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. And a police officer on the side.

As little as 100 years ago English Common Law stated it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife with a whip or stick as long as it was no bigger than the width of his thumb. Historically, man’s power and domination over his wife was legitimized. This enabled men to use violence and threats of violence to control her, as women at that time were seen as the property of their husbands and were not even considered a “person” under the law until the suffragette movement in the early twentieth century. Barbarians, aren't we all?
LtSmash 25th August 2010, 17:09 Quote
This may have been pretty well derailed but if anyone's interested here's a remarkably reasonable article on the situation from the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/7962037/Medal-Of-Honor-controversy-analysis.html
boiled_elephant 25th August 2010, 17:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Let's not get too comfortable in our self-righteousness. Apart from the fact that we created the Taliban:


...and we fully supported them in the 90's:


and even visited Texas as esteemed delegates to discuss gas pipelines), most of the Middle Eastern countries that we call our friends and allies treat their people just as badly. Apparently they are only evil when they are being evil to us.

I know our government were like LOL LUV U TALIBAN for years, but I was thinking more of our actual societies than our leaders. Violence and brutality aren't familiar or acceptable to us as a people. I know both sides' leaders show extraordinary detachedness and immorality, but the ordinary folk differ massively between the Taliban and the British forces, from what I've heard.
Odin Eidolon 25th August 2010, 17:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
I know our government were like LOL LUV U TALIBAN for years, but I was thinking more of our actual societies than our leaders. Violence and brutality aren't familiar or acceptable to us as a people. I know both sides' leaders show extraordinary detachedness and immorality, but the ordinary folk differ massively between the Taliban and the British forces, from what I've heard.

You are only speaking about the military, or also the civils? Remember it's us who caused (or at least we are an important factor) them to be so aggressive, as reported in Nexxo's excellent post.
adidan 26th August 2010, 09:02 Quote
He should be more concerned with real life warfare than a bunch of pixels.

It's funny how the world changes, not so long ago we were allies with the Taliban and we were pals with Saddam.
DesertFox 26th August 2010, 09:59 Quote
I lol'ed irl.
Nexxo 26th August 2010, 10:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
I know our government were like LOL LUV U TALIBAN for years, but I was thinking more of our actual societies than our leaders. Violence and brutality aren't familiar or acceptable to us as a people. I know both sides' leaders show extraordinary detachedness and immorality, but the ordinary folk differ massively between the Taliban and the British forces, from what I've heard.

Again, don't be too sure. Raoul Moates' Facebook tribute page should give you a sense of us ordinary people. And two women a week get killed by their partner (that seemed a high number to me too, so I paid attention to the news. It checks out).

There is an interesting article here about how brutalised soldiers become brutal. Ordinary men and women are sent by our immoral politicians to do monstrous things and (surprise, surprise) become monsters themselves. And this raises an interesting point: why do we think that the Taliban are inherently monsters, rather than brutalised ordinary folk turned into monsters like our soldiers?

Let me remind you: Afghanistan has seen decades of brutal civil war. First it was the Russians brutalising the Afghans. Then it was us hothousing those brutalised people to create monsters to fight back. Osama Bin Laden was once interviewed about his battlefield experienced against the Russian invasion. A grenade once impacted at his feet but failed to explode. "My God, how did that make you feel?" the journalist asked. Osama shrugged. "I felt nothing", he said.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. The Taliban are just what we would become if we suffered a similar history, their soldiers just the monsters that ours are becoming. They just have a head start.
Odin Eidolon 26th August 2010, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Again, don't be too sure. Raoul Moates' Facebook tribute page should give you a sense of us ordinary people. And two women a week get killed by their partner (that seemed a high number to me too, so I paid attention to the news. It checks out).

There is an interesting article here about how brutalised soldiers become brutal. Ordinary men and women are sent by our immoral politicians to do monstrous things and (surprise, surprise) become monsters themselves. And this raises an interesting point: why do we think that the Taliban are inherently monsters, rather than brutalised ordinary folk turned into monsters like our soldiers?

Let me remind you: Afghanistan has seen decades of brutal civil war. First it was the Russians brutalising the Afghans. Then it was us hothousing those brutalised people to create monsters to fight back. Osama Bin Laden was once interviewed about his battlefield experienced against the Russian invasion. A grenade once impacted at his feet but failed to explode. "My God, how did that make you feel?" the journalist asked. Osama shrugged. "I felt nothing", he said.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. The Taliban are just what we would become if we suffered a similar history, their soldiers just the monsters that ours are becoming. They just have a head start.

Could not be said in a more appropriate manner.
mecblade 26th August 2010, 11:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by m0ngy
That is what I said, you've simply re-iterated it for me. Thanks.



Poppy production was BANNED under the Taliban regime. It's a FACT, get over it; http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html
Please note the date, May, 2001, just before the US led invasion.



Too bad if I've insulted you or anyone else. You think the Taliban bombed the tube? HAHAHAHA, you're a retard! Home grown English radical muslim fanatics bombed London because the UK was (and continues) to kill Muslims in Afghanistan, and Iraq at the time. Much more dangerous and out-of-control than a few foreign agents, I am sorry to say. Nothing to do with the Taliban, everything to do with the greed and imperialism of the West.



Again, LOL! For over a thousand years Afghanistan has, though mountainous and inhospitable, been part of a major route trade from the East to the West. Ever heard of the 'Silk Road'?

Wow, I thought you people would be educated, but man, was I wrong! What a joke!

Anyway, in so far as game content is concerned; no sexualisation, no violence against women or kids, and just about anything else goes, so long as it's made clear to the buyer beforehand.

You said that ALL flights were escorted for a small portion of their journey, so what you stated is incorrect. When someone corrects you, you pretend thats what you meant.

Did i state i thought that it was the Taliban who bombed london? Nope i didnt. I knew it was Al Quida who did it, not the taliban, but its a fact that the Taliban are hiding Al Quida operatives.

Quite frankly, i find it wierd that it is home grown islamic extremists from the UK who did it. I mean, the UK took them in with open arms, provided them with a home, all of them were treted well, but they were corrupted into bombing the capital of their home.

Youre an idiot, i stated that the Taliban ARE using drugs to fund their operations. Lets say im wrong, where are they going to get their funds?

OF COURSE ive heard of the silk road. My family originated from china, the start of the silk road. Are you saying that trader STILL risk their goods while going through Afghanistan? Where they could be killed by extremists and have their goods taken?

Quite frankly, calling people a retard while leaving your arguments open is just stupid.

You said that you thought we were educated, but maybe YOU need to learn some more argumental skills before you get beaten by someone who is still in secondary school
Toploaded 26th August 2010, 11:47 Quote
Well to make him happy the game should be only the British standing off against the Americans in an epic friendly fire battle.
Dragon7Samurai 26th August 2010, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Beast
It's a VIDEO GAME not real life, when will people realize this

Thank you!
BRAWL 26th August 2010, 13:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD
I'm going to shock everyone here and discuss what the thread is about, ie. MoH. I believe this issue has been created by EA to hype up the game.

If your EA, you used to be king of the hill and the top publisher, raking in bazillions. ActivBlizz have come along and pissed all over you, and your Medal of Honour franchise has stagnated badly. A guaranteed way of getting some interest in the new title at the critical Christmas period is to get some free publicity and stoke some controversey. A precedent has already been set by MW2 and GTA4, which generated plenty of tabloid/MP raving and thus reaped a huge bounty as a reward.

That's very true to be fair mate
Boogle 26th August 2010, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD
If your EA, you used to be king of the hill and the top publisher, raking in bazillions. ActivBlizz have come along and pissed all over you, and your Medal of Honour franchise has stagnated badly. A guaranteed way of getting some interest in the new title at the critical Christmas period is to get some free publicity and stoke some controversey. A precedent has already been set by MW2 and GTA4, which generated plenty of tabloid/MP raving and thus reaped a huge bounty as a reward.

This does entertain me muchly. A team develops a game called 'Medal of Honor', it's an overnight success. EA pisses off this team so much they jump ship, and create a new studio.

New studio signs up with Activision, releases multiple overnight success games. Activision overtakes EA as biggest publisher. Activision piss off devs, so they jump ship and create a new studio.

New studio signs up with...?

I'm not saying Infinity Ward single-handedly caused these events, but they certainly played a large role. Oh greedy publishers.
boiled_elephant 26th August 2010, 16:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
why do we think that the Taliban are inherently monsters, rather than brutalised ordinary folk turned into monsters like our soldiers?

Let me remind you: Afghanistan has seen decades of brutal civil war. First it was the Russians brutalising the Afghans. Then it was us hothousing those brutalised people to create monsters to fight back. Osama Bin Laden was once interviewed about his battlefield experienced against the Russian invasion. A grenade once impacted at his feet but failed to explode. "My God, how did that make you feel?" the journalist asked. Osama shrugged. "I felt nothing", he said.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. The Taliban are just what we would become if we suffered a similar history, their soldiers just the monsters that ours are becoming. They just have a head start.

I don't demonize the Taliban soldiers as people, en masse; as I said, I'm sure some are pretty ordinary. But the particular nature of the things they do, the brutality and inhumaneness of their methods of justice, makes me wonder. I don't buy the argument that people are simply a product of their environments; I really don't think a bunch of brutalized, betrayed, warred-against British soldiers would start chopping off hands. (Of course, this is wild conjecture at this point, but that's how my intuition points.)

This is a criticism of their values and their traditions, rather than their actual members. Any given person raised in a particular group will tend to behave as that group does; a lot of the individual Taliban soldiers' actions aren't morally culpable for that reason, they're just doing what they know and believe in. So I'm criticizing the culture, not the individuals; I think their culture, their society, is less moral than ours. Their society's idea of justice is disgusting and barbaric; ours is sissified and imperfect, but it doesn't trample human rights half as much.
Odin Eidolon 26th August 2010, 21:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
I really don't think a bunch of brutalized, betrayed, warred-against British soldiers would start chopping off hands. (Of course, this is wild conjecture at this point, but that's how my intuition points.)

This can happen. U.S. soldiers tortured many people for no reason.
Kovoet 26th August 2010, 21:26 Quote
Hell I served 7 years in the army is that going to stop me buying a game for enjoyment. I am sure these politicians are looking for brownie points or something. This place is getting like a god damned police state and we going to ask to go for a crap just now.

They should stick to what they know best and that is stuff all.
Nexxo 27th August 2010, 00:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecblade
Did i state i thought that it was the Taliban who bombed london? Nope i didnt. I knew it was Al Quida who did it, not the taliban, but its a fact that the Taliban are hiding Al Quida operatives.
They aren't. They don't even know where they are (my money is on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and, of course now Saddam is out of the picture, Iraq). They never did, which is why they couldn't kick Osama out at the request of the US. Didn't particularly care to either, but they were not actively hiding him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecblade
Quite frankly, i find it wierd that it is home grown islamic extremists from the UK who did it. I mean, the UK took them in with open arms, provided them with a home, all of them were treted well, but they were corrupted into bombing the capital of their home.
The truth is much more complicated than that, and no open arms were involved. There has always been tension between Asian immigrants from the former British colonies and the Brits. As recently as the 60's and 70's racism and discrimination were rife. When an ethnic group cannot intergrate, they marginalise. Asians clustered together in their own communities, as did the Afro-Caribbeans.

When the West indulged in illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq it was seen as just another expression of racist sentiment, not least because of the anti-muslim paranoia from the locals actively encouraged by government policy. Already disenfranchised and disgruntled young men suddenly found a focus for their rage. This opportunity was of course heavily exploited by the fundamentalist Muslim clerics preaching in local mosques. Make no mistake: these clerics had been doing their thing for decades, but it was not until the illegal invasion of Iraq in particular that they found people willing to listen. The 7/7 London bombing and the Jackass-TV attempt at Glasgow airport betray that these were not the carefully planned act of an organised terrorist network. They were hystrionic acting out by a bunch of disenfranchised and alienated losers.
Nexxo 27th August 2010, 00:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
I don't demonize the Taliban soldiers as people, en masse; as I said, I'm sure some are pretty ordinary. But the particular nature of the things they do, the brutality and inhumaneness of their methods of justice, makes me wonder. I don't buy the argument that people are simply a product of their environments; I really don't think a bunch of brutalized, betrayed, warred-against British soldiers would start chopping off hands. (Of course, this is wild conjecture at this point, but that's how my intuition points.)
Abu Ghraib. Mi Lai. Your intuition is wrong. UK soldiers have been tried for doing their own version of Abu Ghraib.

UN soldiers have been representing our enlightened civilisation in Somalia. In 1995, a group of Canadian paratroopers were investigated for torturing a Somali to death and killing three others. In 1997 the London Telegraph, in a combined dispatch with AFP, reported that Belgian troops roasted a Somali boy (yes, on a spit). The sentence for this crime committed during an operation ironically called "Restore Hope": the military court sentenced two paratroopers to a month in jail and a fine of £200,--. Another Belgian soldier stands accused of forcing a young Somali to eat pork, drink salt water and then eat his own vomit. Another sergeant is suspected of having murdered a Somali whom he was photographed urinating upon. Another child, accused of stealing food from the paratroopers' base, died after being locked in a storage container for 48 hours. Fifteen other members of the same regiment were investigated in 1995 for "acts of sadism and torture" against Somali civilians.

Around the same time gruesome photos were published in a Milan magazine of Italian soldiers torturing a Somali youth and abusing and raping a Somali girl. Paratroopers claimed they were specifically trained in methods of torture to aid interrogation. According to one witness, Italian soldiers tied a young Somali girl to the front of an armoured personnel carrier and raped her while officers looked on.

The South China Morning Post published an AFP report about an Italian battalion commander who sexually abused and strangled a 13-year-old Somali boy. There are also allegations that, in 1993, Italian soldiers beat seven suspected Somali thieves, killing one; that they beat to death a 14-year-old boy who sold a false medal and beat a couple in a car. An Italian paratrooper was quoted as saying: "What's the big deal? They are just niggers anyway."
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
This is a criticism of their values and their traditions, rather than their actual members. Any given person raised in a particular group will tend to behave as that group does; a lot of the individual Taliban soldiers' actions aren't morally culpable for that reason, they're just doing what they know and believe in. So I'm criticizing the culture, not the individuals; I think their culture, their society, is less moral than ours. Their society's idea of justice is disgusting and barbaric; ours is sissified and imperfect, but it doesn't trample human rights half as much.
So is Saudi Arabia's. They are our friends. So was Saddam's Iraq. He used to be our friend. And let me whisper the two words: "extraordinary rendition". What does that make us but the worst kind of hypocrite; the one who doesn't get his own hands dirty but facilitates those who do?
Mach1.9pants 27th August 2010, 01:35 Quote
FFS as some one who has been there and done that in Iraq (and have many mates currently/about/just have) in the Stan.. I have no problem with this AND neither does anyone in the forces I know.

All this is is an easy way for a politician (who's idea of being on the front line is an all expenses paid trip... which could be better used on body armour... for a few days in a rear base) to score some free newspaper inches.

Twats the lot of them.

The only people have have real beef with these sort of games (and the fallujah ones) are not the military guys who have been there but the relatives and friends of the injured and killed. At least they can make a decent case, and I respect that. But a politician saying 'it undermines the values' of our forces? Bollox... what undermines the values is the penny pinching tossers in gov't that stop the forces getting the training/gear/support they need!





RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Rant over.
VipersGratitude 27th August 2010, 11:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiled_elephant
I think their culture, their society, is less moral than ours. Their society's idea of justice is disgusting and barbaric; ours is sissified and imperfect, but it doesn't trample human rights half as much.

http://www.asiapacificforum.org/images/segments/APF20070807_200_WhiteLight.jpg

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/visit_e/art_e/art01e.html
Odin Eidolon 27th August 2010, 13:21 Quote
alastor 27th August 2010, 13:35 Quote
Another quality Eurogamer article on the overall "issue" has been published today:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-26-play-fighting-article
alex! 27th August 2010, 20:10 Quote
Personally I dont see what the problem is, anybody who cant distinquish a game from reality, really needs to consider taking a long walk.....Outside.
Nexxo 27th August 2010, 20:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex!
Personally I dont see what the problem is, anybody who cant distinquish a game from reality, really needs to consider taking a long walk.....Outside.

http://www.lyrya.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lara-croft-cosplay.jpg

...Myeah. or maybe not.
smc8788 27th August 2010, 23:28 Quote
At first glance I thought that was Gabe Newell
Pieface 27th August 2010, 23:42 Quote
The guy int he pic is too skinny to be Gabe.
thehippoz 28th August 2010, 01:23 Quote
nice wife beater
pandoraocicat 28th August 2010, 01:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by alastor
Another quality Eurogamer article on the overall "issue" has been published today:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-26-play-fighting-article

Nice article but some sence here. If a movie offends you dont go to see it. Somthing on tv offends you change channel a game offends you dont play it.

So its awfull to shoot us troops in a game. Sorry but delta force 1998 lets go kill some arabs cant remember many complaints and even i n the dark ages of dial up there were plenty of us dying killing and respawning. To anyone offended youve never played a game where youve killed 100s koreans russians south americans etc etc etc. That was okay now your offended you can play as the taliban and kill americans. In the Rambo 3 computer game wasnt that based on afghanistan fighting with the taliban killing russians. So that was okay.
alex! 28th August 2010, 19:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
http://www.lyrya.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lara-croft-cosplay.jpg

...Myeah. or maybe not.

Oh god what has the world come to?!
alastor 28th August 2010, 19:36 Quote
Aaaaand another, examining the backlash towards Dr Fox from pretty much everyone:
Quote:
The story broke free of the specialist games press and started making waves across the political blogs and websites. The readership of these sites has exploded in the past few years, and despite the scoffing of some more traditional journalists, the influence of the larger blog sites is well-understood both at Westminster, and across the UK media industry.

Once the political blogs had picked up the backlash, then, it was only a matter of time before the mainstream media did the same - and indeed, the tone of the coverage shifted dramatically, from nodding at Fox' condemnation to slamming it as an example of a minister who's uninformed, out of touch and worse, one with deeply "un-British" attitudes to censorship.
Looks like my local MP is taking a bit of a hit from everywhere
cgthomas 4th September 2010, 14:26 Quote
Ban all war movies, Rambo, Transformers, Avatar because they all contain killings of civilians and destruction and the viewer is forced to witness torture of British and US forces! Get real, shouldn't have started the war in the first place. Bloody idiot, like all politicians. Full of bullshit just so they can benefit themselves.
We need the queen to have full power
Pieface 4th September 2010, 14:42 Quote
The queen to have full power? Pahahahaha! Rule the state by Monarchy again? Are you mad?
Veles 4th September 2010, 15:02 Quote
OK at first I thought this was a single player level like the russian airport level. But it's multiplayer factions? WTF is the problem with that? We had SAS vs. GIE (Generic Islamic Enemy) in CoD
pac-man 6th September 2010, 09:27 Quote
I'm probably repeating what's been said but it's just a game. Reminds me somewhat of the controversy which surrounded Manhunt.
Kiytan 6th September 2010, 16:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas
We need the queen to have full power

A queen....perhaps, THE queen. No. Definatly not.
DragunovHUN 6th September 2010, 17:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgthomas

We need the queen to have full power

Oh yeah because that worked so very well untill the 17th century.
Fizzban 6th September 2010, 19:22 Quote
Just don't play it, simple. At least you have that choice. If you don't like it go live in China for a bit where they decide for you what games you can play and what media you can see.
hirezo 6th September 2010, 19:54 Quote
i dont see the issue, its a game, its not really that offensive. nobody complained when you played as the terrorists in cod4 multiplayer...

besides...it could be a lot worse
KingSheepy 6th September 2010, 20:00 Quote
So much for free and tolerant society. I won't be buying it until it goes down to £15 anyways.
Sexton 6th September 2010, 21:29 Quote
OK for cops and robbers, but this isn't the same. It is the principle of simulating a still ongoing war. Its sick quite frankly, and as said here, thoroughly un-British. Our armed forces have spent years fighting against the Taliban and now EA decide to recreate the vice versa of that for gamers entertainmnent? There is nothing entertaining about that, just a completely twisted enjoyment that the shallow few who buy this travesty of a game will get.
eddtox 7th September 2010, 10:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexton
OK for cops and robbers, but this isn't the same. It is the principle of simulating a still ongoing war. Its sick quite frankly, and as said here, thoroughly un-British. Our armed forces have spent years fighting against the Taliban and now EA decide to recreate the vice versa of that for gamers entertainmnent? There is nothing entertaining about that, just a completely twisted enjoyment that the shallow few who buy this travesty of a game will get.

Don't play it if you don't want to.

However, if you feel that you are in some way entitled to pass judgement on those who do, please explain to us in full what gives you that right.
BRAWL 7th September 2010, 13:27 Quote
Quote:
Don't play it if you don't want to.

However, if you feel that you are in some way entitled to pass judgement on those who do, please explain to us in full what gives you that right.

Point 1 - Win
Point 2 - Stop the trolling! Like it matters... These are internet peoples! Like anyone really cares for another set of text against another.

+pre-ordered copy sitting on steam+
GooNeR 7th September 2010, 22:54 Quote
Medal of Honor is only a game. It uses two simple objectives. Do better than the other team. Kill more than you get killed.

Allied Troops vs Taliban while the war is ongoing is a little bit controversial and maybe distasteful yes. But controversy sells a lot of copies then.

Look at that former **** PM Tony Blair selling his book at the moment (and announcing that he was giving all money to the Legion - Smells of blood money to me tbh), bucketloads of money has been exchanged for that book of his memoirs being scrawled over the pages then.

MoH isn't any different than anything similar to that. I have it pre-ordered on Steam, and I will play it. At the end, the basic aim of the game is... shoot a moving object that is rendered in pixels!
st1x 8th September 2010, 14:10 Quote
New Medal of Honour has the Taliban as playable opponents in multiplayer and yet another politician has jumped on the "OMFG bandwagon" and is trying to urge people to ban it.....when will you realise that you have now promoted the game?
Since its rated an 18 and i am capable of making my own mind up, i will buy what the hell i want and play what i want.
Did you all bitch when we could play Germans in the other MoH'ers? or
play as Iraqis in Battlefield 1942...how about the chinese in
Battlefield 2 or maybe as Stormtroopers.....ok a little extreme...BUT
STORMTROOPERS HAVE FAMILIES AND FEELINGS ASWELL....No you didn't Mr
politician so stop trying to score kudos with the un-informed and ...get
back to doing your job, mmkay?

Score one more for buying it because it will irritate people....i play a game for the storyline...if its got a good story yeah ill play it since it doesnt matter to me WHO i play as.....

I wonder if as many people complained about the background of the two main protaganists in Kane and Lynch? and thats on its second installment.

Nic

EDIT: Just had a thought about Farcry 2......white player character shooting a load of non-white africans? That subject may be a little pushy, but i don't remember hearing anything about it on the news and THAT is still an ongoing war in many places.....

Perspective peoples....
pcyzad 13th September 2010, 23:39 Quote
Part of me wonders whether the reason you can choose to play as the Taliban is because a politican will be outraged and get the game free publicity :).
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums