Activision Defends Oliver North in Black Ops 2

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Activision Defends Oliver North in Black Ops 2


Activision says it "made sense" to use the Iran-Contra colonel as a consultant on the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

Oliver North is a polarizing figure, to put it very mildly. Back in the 80s, he was the face of the Iran-Contra scandal, an unprecedented political disaster in which the United States was busted selling weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages and then funneling the money to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. President Ronald Reagan rather improbably denied knowing anything and while several officials with his administration were eventually indicted and convicted of various charges (which were later vacated or pardoned), it was Lt. Colonel Oliver North, who steadfastly refused to roll over on anyone, who became the face of the affair.

He's a hero to some and a traitor to others, but either way he's also a consultant on the upcoming Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, and that apparently has some people in a knot. Activision says his participation only makes sense, however, because like him or not, he was a central figure in the real black ops community.

"When we create the fictions that we create, we do a bunch of research and try to talk to subject matter experts on it. And part of that research is reading and watching documentaries and movies and everything else," Treyarch studio boss Mark Lamia told Kotaku. "[North] rises to the top as someone who was probably, obviously the most well-known covert operations [person]. So it made sense for us from a game development point of view to spend the time and be able to talk to [him]."

"We're not trying to make a political statement with our game. We're trying to make a piece of art and entertainment," he continued. "If you're trying to create that fiction, for us to have met with him as we're creating our fiction is totally appropriate."

I would have to agree. North may or may not have broken a whole pile of laws, but his real crime was simply that he got caught. It sounds cynical, but the fact is that governments do unsavory things all the time; we just happen to live in such a "reality"-obsessed culture that those deeds become entertainment fodder faster than ever before. If Treyarch is building a game around the real-life black ops world of the 1980s, and one of the central players from that period is willing to offer insight into it, it would be foolish not to take advantage.

Interestingly, Lt. Col. Hank Keirsey, the military advisor on the Call of Duty franchise since the 2004 release of United Offensive [http://www.amazon.com/Call-Duty-United-Offensive-Expansion-Pc/dp/B0002V3CPW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337967427&sr=8-1], briefly stepped up to defend North before being shut down by an Activision public relations rep. Suggesting that modern gamers likely consider North a traitor simply because he's on Fox News, Keirsey said, "Do they know what he really did? I guess I'm out of line even coming into the interview, but the man was involved in a crux of history..." at which point he was "waved off" by the PR guy and left the room.

A polarizing figure indeed. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 [http://www.amazon.com/Call-Duty-Black-Ops-II-Pc/dp/B007XVTR12/ref=sr_tr_sr_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337967378&sr=8-1] comes out on November 13 for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC.

Source: Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/5913092/call-of-duty-makers-say-controversial-oliver-north-helped-make-their-game-more-authentic]


Permalink
 

RaNDM G

New member
Apr 28, 2009
6,044
0
0
Doesn't really bother me. If anyone knows how to make a good espionage story, it would be this guy.
 

tmande2nd

New member
Oct 20, 2010
602
0
0
Why not hire an expert in what happened?

Sure he did something wrong, but he probably knows more than a great many people about this.
Also LOL the "enter the following" thing is SAVE FACE for me.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,649
0
0
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob? They're just using North to get attention, like a child who draws graffiti on the wallpaper.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Okay, is it okay that I have a slight migrain after reading Activisions defense, and it makes sense?

Aiddon said:
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob?
What makes this guy a whackjob though? What he was doing? As said in the article, it was only bad because he got caught. Hell, this is probably minor compared to some of the shit the US government had done that we dont know about.

Does that mean Im going to defend this guy, hell no, but im not going to pretend that he's the devil.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
I think the only people who really care about them getting advice from North and are making a fuss about it are idiots who try to be sensationalist.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
I would have to agree. North may or may not have broken a whole pile of laws, but his real crime was simply that he got caught.

Nope. His real crime was selling weapons to the Ayotollah, despite their being an embargo at the time with Iran (thus breaking international law), to fund drug-smuggling, torturing, raping, murdering rebels in Nicuragua. According to Sen. John Kerry, there's evidence to suggest that North got the US actively involved in the Contra's drug smuggling schemes. At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.

This is no different than if Dice, ahead of their next Battlefield game, were to go "We really wanted to know what the experience of fighting insurgents is like in Afghanistan... so we invited several key members of the Taliban to come and advise us on what sort of missions they do, insurgency tactics, etc."

North is a criminal. He was tried for war crimes. The only reason he wasn't convicted was because of a ridiculous plea-bargain he made beforehand that meant the US could bring him to trial, so long as they didn't convict him. Fuck him, and fuck Activision for supporting him in any way. Black Ops is not such a true-to-life game that the developers need to consult war criminals to get the campaign right.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
WanderingFool said:
Okay, is it okay that I have a slight migrain after reading Activisions defense, and it makes sense?

Aiddon said:
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob?
What makes this guy a whackjob though? What he was doing? As said in the article, it was only bad because he got caught. Hell, this is probably minor compared to some of the shit the US government had done that we dont know about.
Do you know anything about the Contra scandal? This wasn't just your usual political scandal. This was the US being caught actively supporting a rebel movement that habitually used murder, torture, rape and imprisonment of civilians as tactics for their cause. They were also heavily involved in drug trafficking. And they did this by selling weapons to the Ayotollah of Iran who, need I remind you, are a bunch of whackjobs and nutters themselves.

This is no different than if the US were found to be sending money to South American drug criminals, by selling weapons to the Taliban. That's the level of fucked up that the Iran/Contra affair reached, and this guy North was behind it. Anyone who is responsible for the rape and torture of the people of an entire nation deserves to rot in jail, not get paid to develop videogames.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
Bullshit Activision. You are constantly scavenging for controversy.

2 things I think need to be asked:

*Why couldn't you get a Spec Ops who hasn't been disgraced and hasn't got a buttload of controversy surrounding him?

*Even if he's your source for all things black ops, why didn't you just keep him at that level. WHY DID YOU THROW HIM INTO THE MARKETING ASPECT AS WELL?

This reeks of commercialism, hoping to stir up a hornets nest of free advertisement. Stop defending it like its an aspect of integrity. It isn't...
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
The man broke both US and international law and funneled arms to two groups of equally distasteful people; one a theocratic dictatorship harboring deep antagonism towards to the US that was under an arms embargo and the other a group of rebels who had committed numerous human rights violations along with being one of the leading forces in international drug trade.

Oliver North should have been tired at The Hague and be rotting in a prison cell somewhere near Genevra along with anyone else directly involved with the stunt. This is why people think the US makes a mockery of international law. Because they usually do.
 

Mischlings

New member
Feb 18, 2011
86
0
0
Using him as a consultant? That's perfectly understandable and doesn't really have any real problems with it -- he really would know his stuff and would be a great source of information.

Now, using him in commercials trying to sell the game? That's when you start with the possibly unfortunate implications...
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
Don't know who he is, don't really care who he is, and I give even less of a shit about his past. He's an old bastard likely to die in a few years anyway, if we can pick his brain for some historical insight before that time then I say let's do it. The people on their moral crusade over a long dead and forgotten issue are just getting angry for the sake of it it would seem.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
Maybe this clears things up a bit :p

Golden... and informative, if the blatant satire doesn't blow over you that is.

KeyMaster45 said:
Don't know who he is, don't really care who he is, and I give even less of a shit about his past. He's an old bastard likely to die in a few years anyway, if we can pick his brain for some historical insight before that time then I say let's do it. The people on their moral crusade over a long dead and forgotten are just getting angry for the sake of it it would seem.
Thats all well and good, in fact I couldn't give a shit if he was the director of their games. However, what has putting his ass in front of a camera to advertise a game got to do with historical insight?

EDIT: ALSO... LONG DEAD? Blood is still been shed because of what he has done.

Clarification: Not literally because of what he did, but his actions are still a contribution to a vile military campaign and an entire countries suffering. He also gave weapons to Iran... yeah.
 

Orange12345

New member
Aug 11, 2011
458
0
0
wait, if hes the most well known covert ops figure doesn't that make him the worst covert "operator" (is that the right word?)
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.
You mean like in Vietnam? Or in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'm not saying that North was "right," just that what he did was no more than a fairly conventional application of foreign policy. He just happened to get caught with his dick in the jar. And in the eyes of the law, he did his time.

I think it's also little disingenuous to suggest that he was somehow a lone gunman in all this.

This is no different than if Dice, ahead of their next Battlefield game, were to go "We really wanted to know what the experience of fighting insurgents is like in Afghanistan... so we invited several key members of the Taliban to come and advise us on what sort of missions they do, insurgency tactics, etc."
But isn't that exactly what what Atomic did with Six Days in Fallujah - which many gamers defended against the backlash from "outside the community?"
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,366
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
WanderingFool said:
Okay, is it okay that I have a slight migrain after reading Activisions defense, and it makes sense?

Aiddon said:
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob?
What makes this guy a whackjob though? What he was doing? As said in the article, it was only bad because he got caught. Hell, this is probably minor compared to some of the shit the US government had done that we dont know about.
Do you know anything about the Contra scandal? This wasn't just your usual political scandal. This was the US being caught actively supporting a rebel movement that habitually used murder, torture, rape and imprisonment of civilians as tactics for their cause. They were also heavily involved in drug trafficking. And they did this by selling weapons to the Ayotollah of Iran who, need I remind you, are a bunch of whackjobs and nutters themselves.

This is no different than if the US were found to be sending money to South American drug criminals, by selling weapons to the Taliban. That's the level of fucked up that the Iran/Contra affair reached, and this guy North was behind it. Anyone who is responsible for the rape and torture of the people of an entire nation deserves to rot in jail, not get paid to develop videogames.
Pretty much this. Also, if you don't know about the Ayotollah, think Saddam in the 80's.

Trivia; I was born around the time of the trial.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
Don't know who he is, don't really care who he is, and I give even less of a shit about his past. He's an old bastard likely to die in a few years anyway, if we can pick his brain for some historical insight before that time then I say let's do it. The people on their moral crusade over a long dead and forgotten issue are just getting angry for the sake of it it would seem.
Sorry, what? I didn't realise that the crimes of treason, breaking international law, destroying evidence before going to trial and the funding rape, torture and murder aren't worth getting angry over. Silly me, I thought we lived in a Western society where we could still hold our leaders accountable. I was under the impression that things like human rights and international law still had meaning. I'm glad you proved me wrong. Let's totally forget that the Iran/Contra affair ever happened.

/sarcasm

By allowing people in authority to get away with this kind of shit, we only give them yet more reasons to try it again in future. If we can't even properly convict a guy for treason, then what's to stop the US or other Western governments from just selling weapons to the Colombian coke gangs, the Mexican cartels, or frankly any criminal network that takes their pick. Because that's the example we're setting.

Seriously people, wake the fuck up!
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Grats dude, you've established that we all understand that he is a very bad man. I also imagine this fact was established way back in the 80's when it all happened. It happened, the country got pissed at how the government handled it and we moved on. Getting so angry about it 30 years plus down the line does nothing productive for anyone.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Grats dude, you've established that we all understand that he is a very bad man. I also imagine this fact was established way back in the 80's when it all happened. It happened, the country got pissed at how the government handled it and we moved on. Getting so angry about it 30 years plus down the line does nothing productive for anyone.
Without even trying to not avoid repeating myself, What has putting his ass in front of a camera to advertise a game got to do with being productive? Clearly, due to the controversy, it ISN'T BEING PRODUCTIVE. It's a harmful association... People don't just forget these things.

Just because you can nonchalantly dismiss treason and assisted war crimes, doesn't mean the rest of us compassionate and empathetic folk have to or even want to.

Just don't shove his ugly ass in our faces. Use him to advise how you wipe for all I care, I don't want to see that cretin.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.
You mean like in Vietnam? Or in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I do indeed. And at least with Iraq and Afghanistan, some small effort has been made to actually punish the soldiers responsible for raping and killing civilians. Not a huge effort, true, but better than the complete lack of justice that was brought to the Iran-Contra affair.

And seriously, talk about damning with faint praise. You think maybe, just maybe, the fact that the US has been involved in so much civilian slaughter makes a mockery of the idea of international law?

I'm not saying that North was "right," just that what he did was no more than a fairly conventional application of foreign policy. He just happened to get caught with his dick in the jar. And in the eyes of the law, he did his time.
In the eyes of the law, he weaselled his way out by destroying evidence and copping a plea-bargain. The only reason he went to trial was because he agreed to stand, as long as he wasn't found guilty. That's pretty much the entirety of what his pre-trial plea amounted to, and it meant that he didn't do any time at all. In fact, he got off scot-free. This is like O.J Simpson, if Simpson had been responsible for mass genocide and slaughter.

I think it's also little disingenuous to suggest that he was somehow a lone gunman in all this.
He was the Colonel in charge of the operations, who was responsible for deciding to sell weapons directly to the Ayotollah, breaking international law in doing so, and according to John Kerry was not only responsible in directing funds to the Contra, but may well have been involved in their Cocaine trafficking. I'm sure this was the work of many hands, but he was the one directing them. Well, possibly Reagan as well, but when has a US President ever been brought to trial for war crimes?

But isn't that exactly what what Atomic did with Six Days in Fallujah - which many gamers defended against the backlash from "outside the community?"
No. Atomic spoke to veteran soldiers of the Afghanistan conflict. They may well have spoken to Aghani civilians too, I don't know. But they could not have spoken to Taliban insurgents. For them to actually bring on Taliban soldiers in an advisory position would have broken about a million international laws, first among them being that you can't financially support individuals or groups recognised around the world as being terrorists. Second among them being you don't give money to an enemy you're currently fighting in the Middle East. Atomic would have been tried for treason.

And this is the issue. All that this issue shows is that you can commit the most terrible war crimes, and shit all over international agreements, and American corporations will reward you by making you a consultant on their news channels, and hiring you to advise their videogames. It makes a complete mockery of the idea that the people in charge of the military can be brought to justice, just like anyone else.

Justice is supposed to be blind. Apparently in this case, its only blind in one eye.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Grats dude, you've established that we all understand that he is a very bad man. I also imagine this fact was established way back in the 80's when it all happened. It happened, the country got pissed at how the government handled it and we moved on. Getting so angry about it 30 years plus down the line does nothing productive for anyone.
So I guess that means that anyone who commits any crime should be able to get away with it if they avoid justice for long enough? I mean, if this guy can get away with supporting genocide, then surely everything else is ok by default? Rape a woman? As long as you're not caught in the first ten years, we'll let that slide. Murder a family? Give it twenty years, we'll let that slide. Torture someone for shits and giggles? Just don't get caught jaywalking, and we'll shut our eyes to that misdemeanour.

Justice does not come with a fucking expiration date. If someone commits a war crime, then they deserve to be brought to justice, whether it be one year or thirty years later. Anything else is just an insult to the thousands of people who died in Nicaragua, and many more whose lives were made a living hell by this prick.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Their explanation makes sense for using him as a consultant... but not so much as a figurehead for their ad campaign. That was misguided at the very least.

But I agree with Mr. Chalk in the sense that pretty much everyone with experience in this field that Activision could have asked in most likely has their hands just as dirty, if not more so, than Oliver North. They were just never caught. Guys, the whole point about 'deniable ops' is that if it was all above board, then they wouldn't need to be 'deniable' would they?

Also that last part is... intriguing.
 

Ayjona

New member
Jul 14, 2008
183
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
but his real crime was simply that he got caught.
I thought his real crime was involvement in "selling weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages and then funneling the money to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua" :D
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
Ragsnstitches said:
Without even trying to not avoid repeating myself, What has putting his ass in front of a camera to advertise a game got to do with being productive? Clearly, due to the controversy, it ISN'T BEING PRODUCTIVE. It's a harmful association... People don't just forget these things.

Just because you can nonchalantly dismiss treason and assisted war crimes, doesn't mean the rest of us compassionate and empathetic folk have to or even want to.

Just don't shove his ugly ass in our faces. Use him to advise how you wipe for all I care, I don't want to see that cretin.
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
He's not advertising the game he's a consultant, and his picture is only on the article here because most of us will go "Oliver who? Oh, I guess he's that old guy in the picture". You guys are getting mad because Activision sat down and thought to themselves who might know the most about secret under-handed shady government stuff and this guy was their choice. Despite being a scumbag they felt that since he wasn't in prison his knowledge should at least be put to work doing something positive.

Though I still don't really care what this guy did, so to make up for that I'm going to give the two of you something special.

 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Will the profit from Black Ops 2 also be used to funnel crack to American inner-city neighborhoods?
Andy Chalk said:
North may or may not have broken a whole pile of laws, but his real crime was simply that he got caught.
So it's okay for me to help to black teens into crack heads and funnel weapons to countries that sponsor terrorists as long as I don't get caught? Thanks for the great advice Andy! And hey, if it's not illegal, it can't possibly just be wrong now could it?

"Ask no questions, hear no lies" Indeed!
 

Richardplex

New member
Jun 22, 2011
1,731
0
0
To add to the sentiment many others have posted, Oliver North was completely unneeded for the ad campaign. P. W. Singer showed he was fully capable of doing it himself, as well as being an expert in modern military tactics.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Without even trying to not avoid repeating myself, What has putting his ass in front of a camera to advertise a game got to do with being productive? Clearly, due to the controversy, it ISN'T BEING PRODUCTIVE. It's a harmful association... People don't just forget these things.

Just because you can nonchalantly dismiss treason and assisted war crimes, doesn't mean the rest of us compassionate and empathetic folk have to or even want to.

Just don't shove his ugly ass in our faces. Use him to advise how you wipe for all I care, I don't want to see that cretin.
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
He's not advertising the game he's a consultant,

You were saying...?



and his picture is only on the article here because most of us will go "Oliver who? Oh, I guess he's that old guy in the picture". You guys are getting mad because Activision sat down and thought to themselves who might know the most about secret under-handed shady government stuff and this guy was their choice. Despite being a scumbag they felt that since he wasn't in prison his knowledge should at least be put to work doing something positive.

Though I still don't really care what this guy did, so to make up for that I'm going to give the two of you something special.
You know, I think it's that last sentence that says the most about you. A quick Google of the name Oliver North, or the term 'Iran-Contra' would not only tell you everything you need to know about the affair, it would also be pretty clear why you should care. The fact that you seemingly don't give a fuck about a war-criminal going against Congress, illegally selling weapons to Iran, funding drug-traffickers and rapists in Nicuragua, destroying evidence before being brought to trial, and being allowed to get away scot-free... if that's the sort of stuff you don't care about, then I suggest that perhaps you need to take another look at your priorities in life.

Civilians died in Nicuragua. They died in large numbers as part of a systematic campaign to intimidate an entire country. They were also tortured and murdered. Because this man Oliver North allowed them to do so. That is monumentally fucked up.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
KeyMaster45 said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Without even trying to not avoid repeating myself, What has putting his ass in front of a camera to advertise a game got to do with being productive? Clearly, due to the controversy, it ISN'T BEING PRODUCTIVE. It's a harmful association... People don't just forget these things.

Just because you can nonchalantly dismiss treason and assisted war crimes, doesn't mean the rest of us compassionate and empathetic folk have to or even want to.

Just don't shove his ugly ass in our faces. Use him to advise how you wipe for all I care, I don't want to see that cretin.
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
He's not advertising the game he's a consultant, and his picture is only on the article here because most of us will go "Oliver who? Oh, I guess he's that old guy in the picture". You guys are getting mad because Activision sat down and thought to themselves who might know the most about secret under-handed shady government stuff and this guy was their choice. Despite being a scumbag they felt that since he wasn't in prison his knowledge should at least be put to work doing something positive.

Though I still don't really care what this guy did, so to make up for that I'm going to give the two of you something special.

Oh... delicious:


That's an Ad.

And to quote another very bad advertisement ploy:

"Suck it down"


EDIT: Also going to quote this cause it's just fucking retarded

"I don't want to worry about a guy who wants to hijack a plane, I want to worry about the guy who hijacks ALL the planes"

-Oliver North, Black Ops 2 teaser trailer.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
NOOOOOOOO, I don't give a shit about Activision and Oliver North but this means another episode of Gameoverthinker bitching about COD and FPS games.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
And this is the issue. All that this issue shows is that you can commit the most terrible war crimes, and shit all over international agreements, and American corporations will reward you by making you a consultant on their news channels, and hiring you to advise their videogames. It makes a complete mockery of the idea that the people in charge of the military can be brought to justice, just like anyone else.
That's kind of my point - not that North was "right" or redeemed or anything, but that this isn't uncommon. Bad men are rewarded for bad deeds all the time. And bad men do bad things for what they perceive to be good reasons all the time. Justice is not blind. Eliot Spitzer leaps to mind; his crimes were nowhere near the magnitude of North's, but he was a hypocritical piece of shit of the worst kind, and it landed him a hot gig on CNN.

Justice is not blind.

I maintain that if we don't have a problem with Activision making videogames based on the real-life events of the "black ops world" of that era, then it's hypocritical to take offense when guys like North are involved in the process.

Oh, and as far as the 6 Days in Fallujah thing goes, it's based solely on the word of the dev, so take it for what it's worth:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fallujahquot-says-developer [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fallujahquot-says-developer]
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
I maintain that if we don't have a problem with Activision making videogames based on the real-life events of the "black ops world" of that era, then it's hypocritical to take offense when guys like North are involved in the process.
Thing is, games like Black Ops are fiction. Pure fiction. Sure, they may take place in historical settings, but they're about as historically accurate as Braveheart. They're fundamentally harmless, and pieces of throwaway entertainment. I don't think a single person has died because of Black Ops.

People like North aren't involved in the fiction, they're involved in the real history of these things. And in North's case, the Iran-Contra affair is a big part of that. People died because of the Contras. Quite a few people at that. It's not hypocritical to demand that developers make games set in recent history without resorting to hiring war criminals to make them. That would be no different to a Hollywood studio making a film set in WWII, only to hire a former SS commander to advise them. It's in bad taste, and insults the people who died because of this prick's attempts to bypass Congress.

I refuse to buy this game, simply because the thought of my money in any way being used by Activision to support the man responsible for the Iran-Contra affair makes my blood boil. That't not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when a country claims to follow international law, only to fail to adequately bring those who break it to justice.

Oh, and as far as the 6 Days in Fallujah thing goes, it's based solely on the word of the dev, so take it for what it's worth:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fallujahquot-says-developer [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fallujahquot-says-developer]
Reading that, I feel ill. I hope the guys at Atomic were bullshitting, because I'm pretty sure there's an entire book of international law they broke there.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I bet activision respect his input because of the time he sold the explosives that killed 220 of his fellow marines in Beirut.
hmmm, probably some other reason.
 

Yureina

Who are you?
May 6, 2010
7,098
0
0
Wow.... the amount of hostility towards this is far from what I expected. But then again, I did a University Research project on the Iran-Contra Affair, and I ended up with quite a different perspective on Oliver North and his actions than what has been voiced here. Yes, what he did was illegal, but calling him a war criminal? That's going too far. North was a patriot who ended up being involved in dirty affairs at the behest of his political masters. Those people got in serious trouble for what they did, and rightly so. North might have gotten immunity, but he was also the man who was, in effect, the chief witness of the entire affair. His testimony helped bag the people responsible for that scandal.

Suffice to say, North is a controversial figure. As for Activision using him, let em. Iran-Contra was over a quarter century ago. Let this man live his life for goodness sakes.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Pretty close to my statements that turned into an insult fest towards me when I commented on Bob's rant. Albiet I think it's also important to note that "Black" Ops. are called that for a reason. Law is pretty much an illusion, countries that survive do whatever it takes to stay on top, those that don't wind up eventually be taken down. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Allowing yourself to be taken down due to rules or some agreement that involves you giving everything to someone else because of a loophole, or them not following the rules where you insist on doing so, is just plain stupid. Black Ops. exists by it's nature in the reality of people pretending laws matter, but in actuality the cold reality is that the most brutal bastards dominate, and everyone else gets exploited. You try and be nice, you get exploited by the bastards. Speak softly and carry a big stick, the Spec. Ops. community is the stck we hold behind our back, people know it's there, but we don't acknowlege that we whack people with it. Of course modern liberalism and detachment from reality has caused problems, leading to all the garbage we're seeing over Oliver North.

I will say that I can understand the point to an extent. With the left wing dominating the media, it does seem like most people hate everything Oli North stands for. That's not the truth, it's just a matter of who gets the platform. In general you don't hear anything nice about Fox news, unless it comes from Fox News, or another conservative platform. Polarization means that of course the left wing platforms, which are more numerous shout down the left wing, and with more of them they tend to mostly drown it out. The real numbers tend to come out around election times, where things are resolved by a few scant percentage points. Both sides would like to claim they have a majority, the left wing claims vocally that they have a clear majority, where the right wing on merits of controlling less media and having less platforms maintains claims of a "silent majority". In the end we pretty much have parity, with that tiny percentage which gives a lead (which can manifest as a bigger control in the actual goverment than it should have in absolute terms, due to our system being pretty much 'all or nothing' in many regards) waffling back and forth. Bush wins by a hair, Obama comesin and wins by a hair (reported at the best as 7% but some critics of the media have said it could have been as low as .5% as the other extreme, ignoring wingnuts who claim doubt digit differances in either direction, like the whole right wing "Obama stole the country by cheating" crowd which is just as crazy as the left wing guys who claimed it of Bush).

To get to the point before people pig pile on me and start screaming how ignorant I am and all that jazx, but bottom line is that while the media is the wrong arena to actually argue the point, Oliver north is polarizing. A clear majority of gamers don't oppose the guy or even really hate Fox News, or any of that other garbage, it's just that those who are vocal on specialized message boards and such do. Gaming isn't really a hobbby dominated by one side or the other at the user level, and Oli is a good spokesman to a lot of people given the subject. Activision seems to know that, but also knows it needs damage control in the left wing dominated media.

I will say that I think game DEVELOPMENT is dominated by the left wing though, I don't think I've ever seen a decent AAA game made that actually promoted a more right wing morality and philsophy. Or at least not one from the US. I've seen criticisms of games being that, for not being quite left wing enough, but none that I considered to actually be on the right wing. For all of the comments about "American Military Porn" pretty much every game of the sort has elements that I think derail it from actually being right wing. The whole "nuke death" scene in modern warfare, and even the infamous "No Russian" mission , not to mention the little girl dying in a bomb, all sort contribute to games about the military and warfare actually conveying very strong anti right wing, anti-militant messages. While sometimes it falls flat half of these games nowadays seem to be intended to get you to think about what your actually doing (or have done up until that point) as opposed to a straightforward "America is good, we are destroying the bad guys, and the military is how we get the job done". While rarely discussed the left wing gets that, and it's how it's believers justify to themselves playing these games doubtlessly. Someone like Oliver North gives more of a "this is for the greater good, and how it's done" vibe to a game, as his biggest real "crime" was being caught, and nearly everyone involved in that was vindicated to an extent through pardons and the like, and that small differance in tone is enough to cause left wing outrage. I mean how dare the US promote it's personal interests through violence, and in any way act like it might be justified at least internally?
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I refuse to buy this game, simply because the thought of my money in any way being used by Activision to support the man responsible for the Iran-Contra affair makes my blood boil. That't not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when a country claims to follow international law, only to fail to adequately bring those who break it to justice.
I get what you're saying, but at the risk of sounding flippant (which is not at all my intent), I find myself unable to get too angry over it when things like this already exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-microsoft-xbox-360/dp/B005EZ5GUU/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1337977411&sr=1-1 [http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-microsoft-xbox-360/dp/B005EZ5GUU/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1337977411&sr=1-1]
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
I refuse to buy this game, simply because the thought of my money in any way being used by Activision to support the man responsible for the Iran-Contra affair makes my blood boil. That't not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when a country claims to follow international law, only to fail to adequately bring those who break it to justice.
I get what you're saying, but at the risk of sounding flippant (which is not at all my intent), I find myself unable to get too angry over it when things like this already exist:

http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-microsoft-xbox-360/dp/B005EZ5GUU/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1337977411&sr=1-1 [http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-microsoft-xbox-360/dp/B005EZ5GUU/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1337977411&sr=1-1]
This is what I don't understand though? Why does the existence of one morally obnoxious game excuse the developers of marketing their own in a morally obnoxious way? Is selective anger the 'in' thing now? I mean, the fact that I hated the politics of The Dark Knight's ending wasn't enough to stop me raging at the racist, misogynistic way Transformers 2 treated its characters.

Maybe I just listen to too much Rage Against The Machine, or maybe I'm just quite a frothy individual, but surely if there are two games with decidedly un-cool politics, then that means you've got two games to get angry over? When did it become a matter of choosing which game is the worst offender?

Therumancer said:

Seriously though?

"Law is pretty much an illusion"

"With the left wing dominating the media"

"I will say that I think game DEVELOPMENT is dominated by the left wing though, I don't think I've ever seen a decent AAA game made that actually promoted a more right wing morality and philsophy"

This is all comedy gold, man. I mean, game developers being dominated by the left wing? You do know that the games industry is one of the last industries to not have any form of Union, right?

Apart from that, your post is pretty much the usual right-wing mix of hyperbole and fantasy. Entertaining to read, but it scares the shit out of me that guys like you are currently running the world.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:

Seriously though?

"Law is pretty much an illusion"

"With the left wing dominating the media"

"I will say that I think game DEVELOPMENT is dominated by the left wing though, I don't think I've ever seen a decent AAA game made that actually promoted a more right wing morality and philsophy"

This is all comedy gold, man. I mean, game developers being dominated by the left wing? You do know that the games industry is one of the last industries to not have any form of Union, right?

Apart from that, your post is pretty much the usual right-wing mix of hyperbole and fantasy. Entertaining to read, but it scares the shit out of me that guys like you are currently running the world.
You know what scares me. That people like you are incapable of even considering the other side at all, and immediatly jump to insults and attacks on anyone you happen to disagree with politically, while feeling it's entirely justified. You seem to entirely miss the irony in accusing someone of ridiculous extremism, while at the same time dismissing everything they say out of hand because of a belief you are un-questioningly right, and being insulting about it to boot. Then of course people wonder why the country is such a polarized mess.

Now, let me save you the time, the usual move at this point on these forums to such a blanket statement is to make some absrdist comment about being justified due to the other side making arguements akin to Obama riding unicorns and zapping people with eye lasers (or whatever tickles your fancy), which actually just continues to make the point of you being as bad, or even worse, than the people you claim to oppose.

The very defense of criticizing my statements being based on the same kind of ignorance, as things like "there is no left wing media bias" is justified by the defense that the media is telling the truth, so it's not biased. Anyone who disagrees with these things is inherantly wrong, and not even worth considering.

That's really scary, and I hope one day you see it.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,637
1,054
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Why the hell do they even need consultants? I mean they pretty much just pull crap out of their asses and add explosions for the cod games.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
I passionately disagree with this defense of a man who is a criminal and a traitor. It is true that governments are havens for crooks and profiteers, and it may even be there is nothing we can do about it. What we can do is not provide social sanction and respectability to criminals. If we cannot wipe his kind from the face of the earth we should shame them off it. Even criminals like Dick Cheney are granted the respectability and social sanction of 'political controversy', rather than being damned to the public as the criminals they are. I can't stand to watch them sneer through interviews where they are treated like controversial figures and not the worst kind of slime. It is the face of a man who knows he has done wrong and is content. It is disgusting. It has to stop.

Complicity in treason, rape, murder, pillage and torture are his crimes. Allowing him to show his face in polite society is ours.

Fuck you Activision. Just fuck you.
 

Frostbite3789

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,778
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
But isn't that exactly what what Atomic did with Six Days in Fallujah - which many gamers defended against the backlash from "outside the community?"
The thing is after the Nuke level which was actually...genuine in CoD4, this has become the thing for the CoD series. Stir up controversy. Shoot up an airport. Watch a family die. Torture a dude. This time they aren't waiting for the game to even start for it though.
 

Frostbite3789

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,778
0
0
Worgen said:
Why the hell do they even need consultants? I mean they pretty much just pull crap out of their asses and add explosions for the cod games.
How much can this many consult about a game in the near future that deals with a robot army and fighting while on horseback?

I mean, maybe I'm completely uninformed about the Iran/Contra Affair, but I feel like North isn't exactly qualified to consult on unmanned armies. Maybe he's consulting on how nefarious the guy who hands the bad guys the figurative keys that are mentioned in the trailer?
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,637
1,054
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Frostbite3789 said:
Worgen said:
Why the hell do they even need consultants? I mean they pretty much just pull crap out of their asses and add explosions for the cod games.
How much can this many consult about a game in the near future that deals with a robot army and fighting while on horseback?

I mean, maybe I'm completely uninformed about the Iran/Contra Affair, but I feel like North isn't exactly qualified to consult on unmanned armies. Maybe he's consulting on how nefarious the guy who hands the bad guys the figurative keys that are mentioned in the trailer?
That would be pretty good if it turned out he was consulting for the bad guys you were fighting in it. They would be oli north robots or something... maybe with human emotions and they bleed. So they can beg for their lives, their robot lives.
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
We're trying to make a piece of art
Andy Chalk said:
a piece of art
Andy Chalk said:


Oh wow that's a good one, Treyarch! Really! You guys crack me up!

OT: Yeah it was short-sighted as it sends out the wrong political message, but I think that's all it is; short-sighted. They probably didn't think it'd stir up as much controversy as it actually did.
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
Frostbite3789 said:
Worgen said:
Why the hell do they even need consultants? I mean they pretty much just pull crap out of their asses and add explosions for the cod games.
How much can this many consult about a game in the near future that deals with a robot army and fighting while on horseback?

I mean, maybe I'm completely uninformed about the Iran/Contra Affair, but I feel like North isn't exactly qualified to consult on unmanned armies. Maybe he's consulting on how nefarious the guy who hands the bad guys the figurative keys that are mentioned in the trailer?
Some of the game is set during the 80's so he might be consulting on that?
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
I can't help but think: "Why him?" I mean...I am 100% certain that there are other, less well-known, black ops people they could talk to and use their expertise instead of North's. And let's be clear - these other people would be just as bad as North if not worse - the reason why they're called 'Black Ops' is precisely BECAUSE they are technically illegal. Not to say that I don't agree with Andy's perspective, still when it comes to matters of law one does still need to follow its letter while not following its spirit to at least *appear* legitimate and thus avoid getting nailed. Black Ops, however, by definition break those laws and do the stuff that the country in question shouldn't solely for its own benefit. So it's no surprise that Oliver North took the fall for the rest of the administration since he was moreso directly involved...not that it mattered - he still got acquitted. :p

But my point was - they could've used any other less known person than him. Because if it's just a matter of expertise being relayed towards the creation of a fictional game...what does it really matter if you talk to North or someome else who did that actual work. Even moreso, North with his moreso 'superstar status' probably charged Activision more for his appearance. So why not go to a less-known black ops expert to back the game's writing up who would probably also charge Activision less for the priviledge?

Unless of course...you're actually *hoping* to stir up controvesy by having such a 'superstar status' polarizing figure appear on your game's ads. To me that's pretty much what this is. And I'd actually agree with Andy that the only difference is that he got caught, but as to the question of why he specifically is being used well heh...it's an old marketing strategy really.

And I daresay it's working beautifully considering all the press coverage they're getting because of this controvesy.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Andy Chalk said:
I would have to agree. North may or may not have broken a whole pile of laws, but his real crime was simply that he got caught.

Nope. His real crime was selling weapons to the Ayotollah, despite their being an embargo at the time with Iran (thus breaking international law), to fund drug-smuggling, torturing, raping, murdering rebels in Nicuragua. According to Sen. John Kerry, there's evidence to suggest that North got the US actively involved in the Contra's drug smuggling schemes. At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.

This is no different than if Dice, ahead of their next Battlefield game, were to go "We really wanted to know what the experience of fighting insurgents is like in Afghanistan... so we invited several key members of the Taliban to come and advise us on what sort of missions they do, insurgency tactics, etc."

North is a criminal. He was tried for war crimes. The only reason he wasn't convicted was because of a ridiculous plea-bargain he made beforehand that meant the US could bring him to trial, so long as they didn't convict him. Fuck him, and fuck Activision for supporting him in any way. Black Ops is not such a true-to-life game that the developers need to consult war criminals to get the campaign right.

this.

He is partially responsible for the influx of cocaine into the U.S. by funding the Contra's.

Oh, no big deal, he did it for his country, yea, fuck off, no one in their right mind would knowingly let drug traffickers into their country and fun them with money gained from selling weapons to an organization that took your citizens hostage.

No, Activision could of used ANYONE from the special forces or black operations community, but they chose North because he will bring news, and thus publicity.

They are not using him as a consultant, they are using him to sell Black Ops 2, and that is fucking horrible.

Of course, that wont stop the wave of CoDtards from buying the update, many probably dont know who North is anyway, those that do probably don't give a shit.

That doesn't meant it isn't tasteless.
 

TotalerKrieger

New member
Nov 12, 2011
376
0
0
They should make a game about Major General Smedley Butler next. Each mission could feature a new locale as you progess through his impressive, if extremely mercenary, military career. The final mission could allow the player to choose whether to be a "patriot" and command the forces of the Business Plot or be a no-good commie and blow the whistle on the whole operation.

Dear Activision/Teyarch, you are a bunch of talentless attention-whores.
 

Chairman Miaow

CBA to change avatar
Nov 18, 2009
2,093
0
0
I would be fine with this if ya'know, CoD really had artistic merit, and they weren't just going "ART! Our games need to be realistic and accurate despite the fact we've never given a shit about it before."

As it is, they have no need to hire him.
 

Angry_squirrel

New member
Mar 26, 2011
334
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Nope. His real crime was selling weapons to the Ayotollah, despite their being an embargo at the time with Iran (thus breaking international law), to fund drug-smuggling, torturing, raping, murdering rebels in Nicuragua. According to Sen. John Kerry, there's evidence to suggest that North got the US actively involved in the Contra's drug smuggling schemes. At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.

This is no different than if Dice, ahead of their next Battlefield game, were to go "We really wanted to know what the experience of fighting insurgents is like in Afghanistan... so we invited several key members of the Taliban to come and advise us on what sort of missions they do, insurgency tactics, etc."

North is a criminal. He was tried for war crimes. The only reason he wasn't convicted was because of a ridiculous plea-bargain he made beforehand that meant the US could bring him to trial, so long as they didn't convict him. Fuck him, and fuck Activision for supporting him in any way. Black Ops is not such a true-to-life game that the developers need to consult war criminals to get the campaign right.
I would go off on a rant about this, but this post puts it better than I ever could.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Andy Chalk said:
I maintain that if we don't have a problem with Activision making videogames based on the real-life events of the "black ops world" of that era, then it's hypocritical to take offense when guys like North are involved in the process.
Thing is, games like Black Ops are fiction. Pure fiction. Sure, they may take place in historical settings, but they're about as historically accurate as Braveheart. They're fundamentally harmless, and pieces of throwaway entertainment. I don't think a single person has died because of Black Ops.

People like North aren't involved in the fiction, they're involved in the real history of these things. And in North's case, the Iran-Contra affair is a big part of that. People died because of the Contras. Quite a few people at that. It's not hypocritical to demand that developers make games set in recent history without resorting to hiring war criminals to make them. That would be no different to a Hollywood studio making a film set in WWII, only to hire a former SS commander to advise them. It's in bad taste, and insults the people who died because of this prick's attempts to bypass Congress.

I refuse to buy this game, simply because the thought of my money in any way being used by Activision to support the man responsible for the Iran-Contra affair makes my blood boil. That't not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when a country claims to follow international law, only to fail to adequately bring those who break it to justice.

Oh, and as far as the 6 Days in Fallujah thing goes, it's based solely on the word of the dev, so take it for what it's worth:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fallujahquot-says-developer [http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/14/insurgents-contributing-quotsix-days-fallujahquot-says-developer]
Reading that, I feel ill. I hope the guys at Atomic were bullshitting, because I'm pretty sure there's an entire book of international law they broke there.
talking to insurgents = entire book of international law. By that logic all of the middle eastern community would probably have done at some time or other.

Its background research on a thought out piece, i had no doubt that game would of been respectful of the subject matter. But big american media isn't ready for intellectually challenging games quite yet.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
This may be completely off topic, but it needs to be said.

Does anyone remember the days when the choice to buy/not buy a game wasn't a political statement?
 

idarkphoenixi

New member
May 2, 2011
1,492
0
0
It's pretty obvious why they did this. They cannot make a single call of duty game ever since MW1 without having controversy. It's really kind of childish on what they'll do to get attention (MW3 having some American child die in an explosion)

Yeah, he's a war criminal and a lot of people know that now. Which is what Activision was counting on.

Honestly I don't like that they used Oliver North like it was nothing. He's a damn criminal and deserves to be serving life for what he did. But I won't go making a huge deal out of it and I won't go signing any petitions and I won't be adding my voice to any boycott movements. Why? Because that's exactly what Activision want you do to!

Don't fuel the fires guys. Just voice your opinion and move on. Theres nothing you can do about this.
 

Grey Day for Elcia

New member
Jan 15, 2012
1,773
0
0
Men like North deserve to be publicly shamed, stripped of all commendations, removed from history and forgotten about.
 

Loonerinoes

New member
Apr 9, 2009
889
0
0
Aeonknight said:
This may be completely off topic, but it needs to be said.

Does anyone remember the days when the choice to buy/not buy a game wasn't a political statement?
Ahhh...the days before internet becoming prolific...the wild days.
 

Bigeyez

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,135
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Not trying to knock you or anything here I completely see where you are coming from, but would be you saying the same thing if they had hired Reagan or Caspar Weinberger for the same job North is doing? In my opinon North catches the most flak because he became the face of the whole affair but there were many more people involved in Iran-Contra then just him. Reagan, his cabinet, many high up military and intelligence people. North basically took the dagger in the public spotlight, but he was definitely not the one and only guy behind it all.
It's sad to say that the stuff that happened in Iran-Contra has been happening for a long time in our history and thats only the stuff we know about. Thats in no way defending North, but I will say some of the hate geared toward him should really be geared towards the entire top echelon of U.S. Gov't/Military/Intelligence.
 

EMFCRACKSHOT

Not quite Cthulhu
May 25, 2009
2,973
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
That would be no different to a Hollywood studio making a film set in WWII, only to hire a former SS commander to advise them. It's in bad taste, and insults the people who died because of this prick's attempts to bypass Congress.
How is it in bad taste to consult someone who can rightly be regarded as an expert in their field for research?
Its kind of funny, even now he still does what he was intended to do when the affair went public and keeps all the attention off the guys who were truly responsible. All this hyperbole about how terrible he is is somewhat mis-aimed. He couldn't have done what he did without approval from higher up (reagan did approve of it after all) and he only takes the flak because he is the pulic face of the scandal. It was the cold war, that sort of thing happened all the time, this time they were just unlucky enough to get caught.
Also, i have to point out that several members of the Waffen SS did in fact go on to star in hollywood movies. The most notable of them being Hardy Kruger.
One thing i think many of us can agree on though is that Black Ops 2 wil most likely suck massive doneky balls
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
The guy is a scumbag. It still flabbergasts me that some people give North and the whole Reagan administration a pass for that sordid affair.

For those that don't know, this is what happened. Basically even though there was an arms embargo on Iran, meaning we weren't supposed to sell them weapons, these guys sold Iran weapons, the same Iran that was holding US hostages at the time.

Then they turned around and gave the money to a rebel groups called the Contras. They were fighting against the Sandinistas, a group that had recently overthrown the Nicaraguan dictator Debayle. The Sandinistas has held elections that many Western groups maintained were fair.

The Contras themselves committed many acts of terrorism with clandestine support from the US. Here is a quote detailing some of the acts they committed:

"An influential report on Contra atrocities was issued by lawyer Reed Brody shortly before the 1985 U.S. Congressional vote on Contra aid. It disclosed a "distinct pattern" of abuses by the contras, including: "attacks on purely civilian targets resulting in the killing of unarmed men, woman, children and the elderly; ? premeditated acts of brutality including rapes, beatings, mutilations and torture; ? and individual and mass kidnappings of civilians for the purpose of forced recruitment into the Contra forces and the creation of a hostage refugee population in Honduras; ? assaults on economic and social targets such as farms, cooperatives and on vehicles carrying volunteer coffee harvesters; ? intimidation of civilians who participate or cooperate in government or community programs such as distribution of subsidized food products, education and local self-defense militias; ? and kidnapping, intimidation, and even murder of religious leaders who support the government, including priests and clergy- trained lay pastors."

So many Americans don't know what kind of illegal methods the US has used and continues to use to enforce its foreign policy goals around the world. The information is out there for anyone interested.

So yes, Oliver North and all the people involved are scumbags who traded with America's enemies and directly supported the murder and torture of innocents and civilians.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:

Nope. His real crime was selling weapons to the Ayotollah, despite their being an embargo at the time with Iran (thus breaking international law), to fund drug-smuggling, torturing, raping, murdering rebels in Nicuragua. According to Sen. John Kerry, there's evidence to suggest that North got the US actively involved in the Contra's drug smuggling schemes. At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.

This is no different than if Dice, ahead of their next Battlefield game, were to go "We really wanted to know what the experience of fighting insurgents is like in Afghanistan... so we invited several key members of the Taliban to come and advise us on what sort of missions they do, insurgency tactics, etc."

North is a criminal. He was tried for war crimes. The only reason he wasn't convicted was because of a ridiculous plea-bargain he made beforehand that meant the US could bring him to trial, so long as they didn't convict him. Fuck him, and fuck Activision for supporting him in any way. Black Ops is not such a true-to-life game that the developers need to consult war criminals to get the campaign right.
Dead on. Bravo. Explained better than I could.

There's still people dying just because of this scumbag. He deserves to be nowhere near a camera or the spotlight. I'm insulted that you'd try to spin this as "his only crime is getting caught", Escapist writer. Just....no.

Also:
Kalezian said:
They are not using him as a consultant, they are using him to sell Black Ops 2, and that is fucking horrible.
THIS. FUCKING THIS.

This is a sales stunt, and it's sad that anyone is fooled into thinking otherwise. I would hope for a boycott of the game, but we all know how well boycotts work.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Aeonknight said:
This may be completely off topic, but it needs to be said.

Does anyone remember the days when the choice to buy/not buy a game wasn't a political statement?
I think its pretty safe to chalk anyone who doesn't buy a game because they are too busy whining about politics off as irrelevant.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
Aiddon said:
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob? They're just using North to get attention, like a child who draws graffiti on the wallpaper.
OK, I will tell you the truth.

You know SEAL team 6, the ones that put the bullets in Bin Laden, they have probably done similar things to what Lt. Col. North 'allegedly' done. He 'may have' lead a similar team. He is by no means a whackjob as he was 'probably' following the orders of his Commanding General (who was 'probably' following the orders of the President).

If you call Mr. North a whackjob, you call 90% of special forces that.

As too everyone else, I think I counted 3 people who 'know' (or as much as the public will 'know' for the next 50 years anyway) what happened back in the 80s. I am not counting wiki quick studies, mostly.

Note all the '' marks it is 'difficult' too know what really happens.

It is difficult for me to say, absolutely, that they were wrong. They were trying to rescue people. but then again the Nicaragua connection does not help their case.

As for the anti-Fox news bit, that part is probably true. Lets face it 80% of y'all are left-wingers who blindly believe the hype from MSNBC and other media telling you that the conservative are crazy. Personally, I believe both sides are equally crazy.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
Mysterious Druid said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
Maybe this clears things up a bit :p

That's where I first heard of the guy.

Don't look at me like that.
Actually that is not too bad, lets face it, I was in diapers and peeing on people changing me. Were you even born yet? Most of the kids here were not. Though, that video does sum it up (mostly left leaning but I am coming to terms with that).
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,633
0
0
Was anyone even attacking their decision to use that guy, or are they "defending it" in order to spark controversy where there is none?
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Gilhelmi said:
Aiddon said:
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob? They're just using North to get attention, like a child who draws graffiti on the wallpaper.
OK, I will tell you the truth.

You know SEAL team 6, the ones that put the bullets in Bin Laden, they have probably done similar things to what Lt. Col. North 'allegedly' done. He 'may have' lead a similar team. He is by no means a whackjob as he was 'probably' following the orders of his Commanding General (who was 'probably' following the orders of the President).
No.

Sorry, but no. Not gonna let that one slide.

There is a difference between a SEAL team carrying out a clandestine hit against a terrorist leader (while somehow managing to trash a helicopter), and an administration supporting the selling of missiles to Iran, going against Congress and breaking international law in doing so, in order to fund an entire guerilla movement that was killing and raping people across an entire country, and using their resources for cocaine trafficking.

The former is a designated operation against a single target. The latter is the political manipulation of an entire country, resulting in rape, torture, forced conscription, murder, and genocide. If you can't see the difference between clandestine assassinations and allowing an entire country to be ground under your heel for political purposes, then I'm sorry, but your opinion counts for very little.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
Now I don't like Oliver North, but they are right. There really aren't a lot of people who would know more about black operations than him... and is actually allowed to talk about it.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
I maintain that if we don't have a problem with Activision making videogames based on the real-life events of the "black ops world" of that era, then it's hypocritical to take offense when guys like North are involved in the process.
There's "involved in the process", and then there's physically sticking him in the ad campaign. At the very least, it's a monumentally stupid piece of marketing.

And really, we've all played Call of Duty at some point, how much do they actual need a consultant, especially one of this magnitude? They're not striving for realism, that's for sure. He's a marketing tool, that should be evident to absolutely everyone, and that's in pretty poor taste.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Here are my thoughts:

a) The idea of Activision or Treyarch doing any kind of research is laughable at best. Black Ops is riddled all kinds of historical errors that are obviously propping up the conspiracy laden plot; and if they had studied any European history at all from any historical period ever, they would have known that it was logistically implausible in MW3 to have Russia invade every major European power within days, not least after having just pulled out of a massive war with the USA.

b) Black Ops 2 isn't even set in the period of the Contras: in fact it's set in the fucking future. You have the full license of speculative fiction to make up whatever crap you like about how people conduct clandestine operations in a hypothetical scenario, so you choose to pay more money than you need to to get 'expert' advice? That's like hiring Noam Chomsky to help you write a new language for a D&D game: just because he's the world's most famous linguist doesn't mean it's money well spent when you could literally just make up any crap and no one would care otherwise.

c) Activision's record of attracting controversy which serves as free marketing is against them on this one. I think five times is more than enough to qualify as a pattern.

d) Having said all that, Activision aren't the first people to make money off North: that dubious title is held by the producers of JAG, not to mention the publishers of all of North's books.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Gilhelmi said:
Aiddon said:
Activision are still idiots for using the guy though; there are TONS of special ops they could have consulted, but instead they bring on THIS whackjob? They're just using North to get attention, like a child who draws graffiti on the wallpaper.
OK, I will tell you the truth.

You know SEAL team 6, the ones that put the bullets in Bin Laden, they have probably done similar things to what Lt. Col. North 'allegedly' done. He 'may have' lead a similar team. He is by no means a whackjob as he was 'probably' following the orders of his Commanding General (who was 'probably' following the orders of the President).
No.

Sorry, but no. Not gonna let that one slide.

There is a difference between a SEAL team carrying out a clandestine hit against a terrorist leader (while somehow managing to trash a helicopter), and an administration supporting the selling of missiles to Iran, going against Congress and breaking international law in doing so, in order to fund an entire guerilla movement that was killing and raping people across an entire country, and using their resources for cocaine trafficking.

The former is a designated operation against a single target. The latter is the political manipulation of an entire country, resulting in rape, torture, forced conscription, murder, and genocide. If you can't see the difference between clandestine assassinations and allowing an entire country to be ground under your heel for political purposes, then I'm sorry, but your opinion counts for very little.
But do you think that mission is the Only mission they have done? I agree, Bin laden getting a few new holes was a good thing and not really comparable to the Contra stuff.

But, the special forces do alot of mission and 90% are for good, like axing bin laden. But there is that 10% (all estimates, since we will not truly know the numbers in our lifetime, maybe never) where the shades of grey come into play. The missions where, if you are caught, even though the President gave the Order, the CIA is in charge mainly to take the blame (plausible dependability). It was glossed over but, even in the Bin Laden mission, If things went wrong, the CIA was in charge and going to take the blame. Yes, the CIA agreed to this and knew they would be completely blamed if it turned out too be the wrong guy or Pakistan caught our SEAL team on the way out (ether by shooting down the Helo or showing up with the military) or any number of ways that the mission could end badly, then the plan was for President Obama to say "I knew nothing it is the CIAs fault". The best/worst part is that EVERY President for at least the last 60 years have pulled that type of crap.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
Therumancer said:
Pretty close to my statements that turned into an insult fest towards me when I commented on Bob's rant. Albiet I think it's also important to note that "Black" Ops. are called that for a reason. Law is pretty much an illusion, countries that survive do whatever it takes to stay on top, those that don't wind up eventually be taken down. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Allowing yourself to be taken down due to rules or some agreement that involves you giving everything to someone else because of a loophole, or them not following the rules where you insist on doing so, is just plain stupid. Black Ops. exists by it's nature in the reality of people pretending laws matter, but in actuality the cold reality is that the most brutal bastards dominate, and everyone else gets exploited. You try and be nice, you get exploited by the bastards. Speak softly and carry a big stick, the Spec. Ops. community is the stck we hold behind our back, people know it's there, but we don't acknowlege that we whack people with it. Of course modern liberalism and detachment from reality has caused problems, leading to all the garbage we're seeing over Oliver North.

I will say that I can understand the point to an extent. With the left wing dominating the media, it does seem like most people hate everything Oli North stands for. That's not the truth, it's just a matter of who gets the platform. In general you don't hear anything nice about Fox news, unless it comes from Fox News, or another conservative platform. Polarization means that of course the left wing platforms, which are more numerous shout down the left wing, and with more of them they tend to mostly drown it out. The real numbers tend to come out around election times, where things are resolved by a few scant percentage points. Both sides would like to claim they have a majority, the left wing claims vocally that they have a clear majority, where the right wing on merits of controlling less media and having less platforms maintains claims of a "silent majority". In the end we pretty much have parity, with that tiny percentage which gives a lead (which can manifest as a bigger control in the actual goverment than it should have in absolute terms, due to our system being pretty much 'all or nothing' in many regards) waffling back and forth. Bush wins by a hair, Obama comesin and wins by a hair (reported at the best as 7% but some critics of the media have said it could have been as low as .5% as the other extreme, ignoring wingnuts who claim doubt digit differances in either direction, like the whole right wing "Obama stole the country by cheating" crowd which is just as crazy as the left wing guys who claimed it of Bush).

To get to the point before people pig pile on me and start screaming how ignorant I am and all that jazx, but bottom line is that while the media is the wrong arena to actually argue the point, Oliver north is polarizing. A clear majority of gamers don't oppose the guy or even really hate Fox News, or any of that other garbage, it's just that those who are vocal on specialized message boards and such do. Gaming isn't really a hobbby dominated by one side or the other at the user level, and Oli is a good spokesman to a lot of people given the subject. Activision seems to know that, but also knows it needs damage control in the left wing dominated media.

I will say that I think game DEVELOPMENT is dominated by the left wing though, I don't think I've ever seen a decent AAA game made that actually promoted a more right wing morality and philsophy. Or at least not one from the US. I've seen criticisms of games being that, for not being quite left wing enough, but none that I considered to actually be on the right wing. For all of the comments about "American Military Porn" pretty much every game of the sort has elements that I think derail it from actually being right wing. The whole "nuke death" scene in modern warfare, and even the infamous "No Russian" mission , not to mention the little girl dying in a bomb, all sort contribute to games about the military and warfare actually conveying very strong anti right wing, anti-militant messages. While sometimes it falls flat half of these games nowadays seem to be intended to get you to think about what your actually doing (or have done up until that point) as opposed to a straightforward "America is good, we are destroying the bad guys, and the military is how we get the job done". While rarely discussed the left wing gets that, and it's how it's believers justify to themselves playing these games doubtlessly. Someone like Oliver North gives more of a "this is for the greater good, and how it's done" vibe to a game, as his biggest real "crime" was being caught, and nearly everyone involved in that was vindicated to an extent through pardons and the like, and that small differance in tone is enough to cause left wing outrage. I mean how dare the US promote it's personal interests through violence, and in any way act like it might be justified at least internally?
WOW, You summed up by feelings perfectly. Brilliant post, Thank You.
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Andy Chalk said:
I would have to agree. North may or may not have broken a whole pile of laws, but his real crime was simply that he got caught.

Nope. His real crime was selling weapons to the Ayotollah, despite their being an embargo at the time with Iran (thus breaking international law), to fund drug-smuggling, torturing, raping, murdering rebels in Nicuragua. According to Sen. John Kerry, there's evidence to suggest that North got the US actively involved in the Contra's drug smuggling schemes. At the very least, it was his funding that allowed them to go round burning down villages, raping women and children, killing innocent civilians, and capturing and torturing whoever they felt like.

This is no different than if Dice, ahead of their next Battlefield game, were to go "We really wanted to know what the experience of fighting insurgents is like in Afghanistan... so we invited several key members of the Taliban to come and advise us on what sort of missions they do, insurgency tactics, etc."

North is a criminal. He was tried for war crimes. The only reason he wasn't convicted was because of a ridiculous plea-bargain he made beforehand that meant the US could bring him to trial, so long as they didn't convict him. Fuck him, and fuck Activision for supporting him in any way. Black Ops is not such a true-to-life game that the developers need to consult war criminals to get the campaign right.
Ok, lemme preface this with a very honest "I've no real knowledge of the subject", but based on what's in the OP (ie. Andy's logic, as presented) and what you've said, fully, 100% agreed.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Gilhelmi said:
But do you think that mission is the Only mission they have done? I agree, Bin laden getting a few new holes was a good thing and not really comparable to the Contra stuff.

But, the special forces do alot of mission and 90% are for good, like axing bin laden. But there is that 10% (all estimates, since we will not truly know the numbers in our lifetime, maybe never) where the shades of grey come into play. The missions where, if you are caught, even though the President gave the Order, the CIA is in charge mainly to take the blame (plausible dependability). It was glossed over but, even in the Bin Laden mission, If things went wrong, the CIA was in charge and going to take the blame. Yes, the CIA agreed to this and knew they would be completely blamed if it turned out too be the wrong guy or Pakistan caught our SEAL team on the way out (ether by shooting down the Helo or showing up with the military) or any number of ways that the mission could end badly, then the plan was for President Obama to say "I knew nothing it is the CIAs fault". The best/worst part is that EVERY President for at least the last 60 years have pulled that type of crap.
Sorry, where the fuck do shades of grey come in on the matter of selling missiles to Iran to fund murderous cocaine smugglers in Nicaragua?

I'm serious on this, where the hell is the grey in that? Because while I know governments do sneaky shit all the time, funding the Contras does not fall into 'grey' territory, it falls into black-and-white, damn stupid, should bloody well know better territory. I don't care how much of a hard Reagan had for fighting the Communists, you do not go around selling missiles to extremists and funding drug traffickers. The minute you do, you have lost any right to call yourself a nation that stands for any justice and humanity.

This is not an issue of 'shades of grey'. This is an issue of a war criminal being let off scott-free, and being allowed to shill for a videogame publisher when he should be rotting in a prison cell somewhere.
 

Gilhelmi

The One Who Protects
Oct 22, 2009
1,480
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Gilhelmi said:
But do you think that mission is the Only mission they have done? I agree, Bin laden getting a few new holes was a good thing and not really comparable to the Contra stuff.

But, the special forces do alot of mission and 90% are for good, like axing bin laden. But there is that 10% (all estimates, since we will not truly know the numbers in our lifetime, maybe never) where the shades of grey come into play. The missions where, if you are caught, even though the President gave the Order, the CIA is in charge mainly to take the blame (plausible dependability). It was glossed over but, even in the Bin Laden mission, If things went wrong, the CIA was in charge and going to take the blame. Yes, the CIA agreed to this and knew they would be completely blamed if it turned out too be the wrong guy or Pakistan caught our SEAL team on the way out (ether by shooting down the Helo or showing up with the military) or any number of ways that the mission could end badly, then the plan was for President Obama to say "I knew nothing it is the CIAs fault". The best/worst part is that EVERY President for at least the last 60 years have pulled that type of crap.
Sorry, where the fuck do shades of grey come in on the matter of selling missiles to Iran to fund murderous cocaine smugglers in Nicaragua?

I'm serious on this, where the hell is the grey in that? Because while I know governments do sneaky shit all the time, funding the Contras does not fall into 'grey' territory, it falls into black-and-white, damn stupid, should bloody well know better territory. I don't care how much of a hard Reagan had for fighting the Communists, you do not go around selling missiles to extremists and funding drug traffickers. The minute you do, you have lost any right to call yourself a nation that stands for any justice and humanity.

This is not an issue of 'shades of grey'. This is an issue of a war criminal being let off scott-free, and being allowed to shill for a videogame publisher when he should be rotting in a prison cell somewhere.
IF I recall correctly, Part of the selling the missiles were too try and free American hostages. In Regan's mind the Drug Dealer were better then the commie hoards (that commie hoards part was me being sarcastic of Regan's America). Just remember that none of us know the whole story as to what happened during the whole incident.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Gilhelmi said:
IF I recall correctly, Part of the selling the missiles were too try and free American hostages. In Regan's mind the Drug Dealer were better then the commie hoards (that commie hoards part was me being sarcastic of Regan's America). Just remember that none of us know the whole story as to what happened during the whole incident.
1) If someone takes Americans hostage, that does not mean that the US government has the right to sell those kidnappers fucking missiles in order to get them back. That's not how it works in Afghanistan, that's not how it works in Iraq, and that is not how it should have worked with Iran.

BTW, you do know that the only reason Iranians were hostile to the US during that period, to the point of taking hostages, was because of the Iranian Revolution of 79 when the Iranians overthrew the Shah who had been installed in the country by the US. Ever think that perhaps all this illegal meddling the US gets into perhaps causes more problems? Because causing a country to revolt against the leader you installed, leading to the point that you have to sell missiles to that country in order to get back hostages that they took from you, is a pretty sorry state of affairs all round, and does not suggest anything like a mature country able to responsibly handle its international affairs. In fact, it comes across as an administration selfishly pursuing whatever suits its own interests, long-term consequences be damned.

2) Sorry, but in what world are Soviets worse than lawless rapists and drug-traffickers? I know the US has a long history of demonising Communism, but at least the Soviets were an actual political entity that had some respect for law and order. The Contras were a bunch of genocidal barbarians. If Reagan honestly thought that sadistic barbarians were better allies than the Soviets, then that only shows how far his alzheimers must have set in.

3) You're right, we don't know everything that happened. Mostly because Oliver North did his best to shred as much evidence as possible before being dragged to court, a crime that would have had him tried for perverting the course of justice were it anyone else. Regardless, we know enough, and indeed the Courts knew enough to have him pronounced guilty. They simply couldn't convict him because of his ridiculous plea bargain. We know what went down with the Iranian weapons deal, because Reagan had to apologise on national fucking television because of it. We know what happened with the Contras, because an entire committee was put together to investigate the Iran-Contra affair.

You're apologising for people who did nothing but spit on the ideals of the United States. The people responsible for the Iran-Contra affair weren't patriots, they weren't doing in any way what needed to be done, they were simply criminals who broke US and International Law to try and pursue their own interests, and got caught doing so. Oliver North doesn't love America. If he did, he wouldn't have been so quick to bypass Congress. He wouldn't have been so quick to undermine the very basis on which the United States government is supposed to operate.

Once again, fuck him. The fact that he's allowed to shill for Activision speaks badly for him, Activision, and the entire judicial system.
 

Scott Mozzo

New member
Nov 14, 2012
1
0
0
This is ridiculous. Does this mean that Benedict Arnold, America's greatest general during the Revolutionary War should have been in Assassin's Creed III? The man committed treason, period. His "masters" were all pardoned by the President responsible for it!!!!! No one saw any real time. He is considered a traitor because he is on Fox News. NO!!!! He is a traitor because he committed high crimes against our NATION! Does anyone over the age of 25, remember who he collaborated with? IRAN!!!!! The same country that ended Carter's administration (rightfully so, by the way), but was A OK for a republican president to AID!!!!!!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Ragsnstitches said:
Also going to quote this cause it's just fucking retarded

"I don't want to worry about a guy who wants to hijack a plane, I want to worry about the guy who hijacks ALL the planes"

-Oliver North, Black Ops 2 teaser trailer.
Why is that retarded? Stopping the masterminds and leaders of a terrorist group is more important. You need to stop the foot soldiers and facilitators but thats not the job of the best of the wetwork and intelligence operatives, there are other agencies that do that.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
Scott Mozzo said:
This is ridiculous. Does this mean that Benedict Arnold, America's greatest general during the Revolutionary War should have been in Assassin's Creed III? The man committed treason, period. His "masters" were all pardoned by the President responsible for it!!!!! No one saw any real time. He is considered a traitor because he is on Fox News. NO!!!! He is a traitor because he committed high crimes against our NATION! Does anyone over the age of 25, remember who he collaborated with? IRAN!!!!! The same country that ended Carter's administration (rightfully so, by the way), but was A OK for a republican president to AID!!!!!!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!
J Tyran said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Also going to quote this cause it's just fucking retarded

"I don't want to worry about a guy who wants to hijack a plane, I want to worry about the guy who hijacks ALL the planes"

-Oliver North, Black Ops 2 teaser trailer.
Why is that retarded? Stopping the masterminds and leaders of a terrorist group is more important. You need to stop the foot soldiers and facilitators but thats not the job of the best of the wetwork and intelligence operatives, there are other agencies that do that.
Why the fuck are you 2 necroing this thread? This topic died in May.

And J, that line I quoted was part of the hype machine for Blops 2 and the whole "cyber terrorists attacking america" shtick. The quote isn't about cutting off the serpents head, so to speak, but rather a monumentally misguided view on how Cyber Terrorism works. Fear induced stupidity.

I don't take anything he says seriously, but more importantly, this was a quote that he made for an ad for a video game. Acti new what they were doing picking him for the Ad... nothing like a bit of controversy to sell a game (getting an accused and convicted war criminal to pioneer your game is ballsy at least).

It's one thing to use him as a consultant, but they made stride to associate their product with the good ol' patriot olly.

God Bless America and all that faff.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Ragsnstitches said:
Scott Mozzo said:
This is ridiculous. Does this mean that Benedict Arnold, America's greatest general during the Revolutionary War should have been in Assassin's Creed III? The man committed treason, period. His "masters" were all pardoned by the President responsible for it!!!!! No one saw any real time. He is considered a traitor because he is on Fox News. NO!!!! He is a traitor because he committed high crimes against our NATION! Does anyone over the age of 25, remember who he collaborated with? IRAN!!!!! The same country that ended Carter's administration (rightfully so, by the way), but was A OK for a republican president to AID!!!!!!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!
J Tyran said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Also going to quote this cause it's just fucking retarded

"I don't want to worry about a guy who wants to hijack a plane, I want to worry about the guy who hijacks ALL the planes"

-Oliver North, Black Ops 2 teaser trailer.
Why is that retarded? Stopping the masterminds and leaders of a terrorist group is more important. You need to stop the foot soldiers and facilitators but thats not the job of the best of the wetwork and intelligence operatives, there are other agencies that do that.
Why the fuck are you 2 necroing this thread? This topic died in May.

And J, that line I quoted was part of the hype machine for Blops 2 and the whole "cyber terrorists attacking america" shtick. The quote isn't about cutting off the serpents head, so to speak, but rather a monumentally misguided view on how Cyber Terrorism works. Fear induced stupidity.

I don't take anything he says seriously, but more importantly, this was a quote that he made for an ad for a video game. Acti new what they were doing picking him for the Ad... nothing like a bit of controversy to sell a game (getting an accused and convicted war criminal to pioneer your game is ballsy at least).

It's one thing to use him as a consultant, but they made stride to associate their product with the good ol' patriot olly.

God Bless America and all that faff.
I posted because it was on the front page and noticed it. Using Oliver North to promote the game is a bit tasteless though I didn't know that because I have not followed BLOPS II, still not taking anything he says seriously is misguided. He was a very influential man, for wrong reasons but his actions are still shaping the world today. Oliver North is the type of man everyone should take seriously.
 

Ragsnstitches

New member
Dec 2, 2009
1,871
0
0
J Tyran said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Scott Mozzo said:
This is ridiculous. Does this mean that Benedict Arnold, America's greatest general during the Revolutionary War should have been in Assassin's Creed III? The man committed treason, period. His "masters" were all pardoned by the President responsible for it!!!!! No one saw any real time. He is considered a traitor because he is on Fox News. NO!!!! He is a traitor because he committed high crimes against our NATION! Does anyone over the age of 25, remember who he collaborated with? IRAN!!!!! The same country that ended Carter's administration (rightfully so, by the way), but was A OK for a republican president to AID!!!!!!!! RIDICULOUS!!!!
J Tyran said:
Ragsnstitches said:
Also going to quote this cause it's just fucking retarded

"I don't want to worry about a guy who wants to hijack a plane, I want to worry about the guy who hijacks ALL the planes"

-Oliver North, Black Ops 2 teaser trailer.
Why is that retarded? Stopping the masterminds and leaders of a terrorist group is more important. You need to stop the foot soldiers and facilitators but thats not the job of the best of the wetwork and intelligence operatives, there are other agencies that do that.
Why the fuck are you 2 necroing this thread? This topic died in May.

And J, that line I quoted was part of the hype machine for Blops 2 and the whole "cyber terrorists attacking america" shtick. The quote isn't about cutting off the serpents head, so to speak, but rather a monumentally misguided view on how Cyber Terrorism works. Fear induced stupidity.

I don't take anything he says seriously, but more importantly, this was a quote that he made for an ad for a video game. Acti new what they were doing picking him for the Ad... nothing like a bit of controversy to sell a game (getting an accused and convicted war criminal to pioneer your game is ballsy at least).

It's one thing to use him as a consultant, but they made stride to associate their product with the good ol' patriot olly.

God Bless America and all that faff.
I posted because it was on the front page and noticed it. Using Oliver North to promote the game is a bit tasteless though I didn't know that because I have not followed BLOPS II, still not taking anything he says seriously is misguided. He was a very influential man, for wrong reasons but his actions are still shaping the world today. Oliver North is the type of man everyone should take seriously.
I would worry about what he does, but since he has been disgraced and discredited numerous times and that his only soap box is through FoX news, I don't feel particularly pressured to listen to what he has to say.

Words are wind and Olly blows hard.