Sounds more like a some apologetic love-thy-neighbouring-continents political statement to me, and those don't tend to be too offensive to anyone.
If it has to be a humorously psychedelic take on modern politics, sign me up for this one [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95937-This-Is-the-Best-Trailer-for-a-Japanese-Porn-Game-Ever] instead. I'm sure I'd be plenty offended if a): I could stop laughing and b): I could work out the tiniest fraction of what's supposed to be going on with it.
Yea ghods, I can smell the desperation and phail of this "project" through the screen. Won't touch this with a lead-lined 10' pole, not because of the "controversial" nature but because that seems to be its only selling point.
If they get a real statement on today's society (like, say, the ones in Bioshock) into a game that they don't have to shill as a bullet point, then I'll pay attention. (And maybe even cash.)
Pretty funny, can just visualize all the prominent people mentioned saying all that stuff. You don't see much satire these days, society has become too P.C.
Ehh. I prefer my satire to be a bit less obvious and a bit more nuanced and much less stupid.
And I hate Pat Buchanan'd guts, but this sort of shallow stuff lowers us all to his level and gives the idiots more reasons to hate our beloved medium.
That having been said, I think this line is pretty funny:
A brave group of human rebels led by fearless Danish cartoonists fought back against the aliens and their Wall Street clones.
So it's a game about how western culture is arrogant and intolerant? But Muslims are foreign aliens invading us? I'm having trouble reading this game as anything more than a bunch of stupid "controversial" stuff that really just boils down to using a bunch of Islam related words and bad puns. It says it wants to "highlight" issues, but that isn't the same as tackling controversial matters, especially if they're really trying to prove gaming can be an effective medium for social commentary. They actually need to say something, which it looks like they aren't really, because having reasons means you aren't being "provocative" enough.
Well guys, while I laughed quite hard at the story/backdrop for this game, announcing that you are intentionally provoking controversy in order to make people think is pretty arrogant, and kind of ruins the potential for it to be appreciated as good satire. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
That seems to be the case, but if so then who cares. I did enjoy the Italian PM's underage girl friend though. Good ole Berlusconi. To be fair, great plots aren't a staple in video games today.
Also by posting that clip you reminded me of how pissed off people got at that film,which is surprising when you consider a lot of comedy is simply absurd situations. So this game must be pretty hilarious.
Question, how can this suddenly be generating controversy, when in the tabletop gaming world, Catalyst Game Labs Battletech Property has been developing (and is in fact closing up) a galaxy wide war called the Word of Blake Jihad, and no one cares?
Its not like this is relatively new either, said storyline has been around for 6 years or so, and it was AWESOME!
By the way, that's also part of the reason you get this:
Therumancer said:
I've demonstrated this on a number of occasions by posting links to Muslim television shows and the like on numerous occasions which exist to condition children from a very early age to want to kill, enslave, or destroy.
You are aware that this is a propaganda tactic in and of itself? Itemizing anyone on a large scale (like posting each individual shooting in America to demonstrate how they're monsters as a whole, or posting individual cases of black crime separate from white), or putting out stats (~8% of Muslims think attacks on civilians can be justified!) without comparatives (~7% of Americans think so too) is to get away from things like, oh I don't know, the actual level of terrorism in the US (where Muslims are 6% of attacks [http://penjihad.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fbi-terrorism-pie-chart-1980-20051.jpg]. Way behind Latinos and Left wing extremists, and being in between Jews and Communists for the number of attacks.
How scared are you of the other groups?
So what's the problem? That the Middle East has extremists on TV with a chalkboard telling people "X is the enemy" and "they're coming" and "get them before they get you"? All in isolated soundbites? Well golly gee, that's hard to replicate [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcvbw6ExTQ]. (P.S. At least mine hasn't gone through a translation filter first).
Quick question. How much of your video evidence comes from Memri TV? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Reception]? (I'll give you a hint, about 60% of all Arab Media that the western world gets comes through Memri TV. Go check if they're trustworthy. Also, which words do they not bother translating?)
Personally, when I look at something like that, I prefer the facts. Facts like of all Muslim terrorism in the USA, 70% has been stopped by the Muslim community. Higher than any other community. Even though many other communities produce more terrorists (Muslims account for about 6% [http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005] of US based Terrorism, and even less for European based).
No wonder there are so many conspiracy theorists in the Middle East. The alternative is that this bias is natural, which makes the conspiracy theory, filled with comic book style villains demonizing an entire people for profit, the nicer option. It's the option where humanity isn't failing.
Unfortunately, some people like to fall for it. I say like because most clearly have the capacity to see it when applied to them. I've posted that Beck video before.
"Americans aren't like Beck!" if they're liberal.
"That's not what he means!" if they're conservative.
"You're picking and choosing!" if they're either.
Oh, and don't forget "That's not as bad!", though before making that statement, pretend Beck is brown with a beard. Don't forget to add the Arab accent [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6t1s8MMvFE]. It's not any better. It's not less meaningful. It's not more effective. It is exactly what happens in the Middle East. It is spun the same way too, by media abroad, and by people in forums, talking about a place they've no clue about.
Aaaaanyway, way too long, but goddamnit, you have no idea how stupid this TV-inspired view of the ME looks from the other side of the fence. I'll let you get back to your circling wagons and high noon shootouts to protect from marauding native Americans, UFOs and 50 cent.
Well, a lot of the western media would agree with you, and shares your general attitudes largely as part of a "peace at any price" philsophy. I however do not agree with your analysis or opinions. What's more it goes well beyond some guy with a chalkboard pointing things out, it involves things like children's shows featuring characters like "Jihad Bee" or shows where in the final episode a character much like Mickey Mouse is martyred by Jews. If this was on some kind of obscure home-schooling video series or something it wouldn't be a big deal, but it's not, it's being run on their television networks. Networks that are directly run and managed by groups like HAMAS in Palestine.
I use the TV shows simply as a verifiable point, and something not covered by the mainstream media very often in the US. Things like this show how deep the poison runs, and that your not dealing with tiny groups of whack jobs, but with a populance that has been being conditioned this way from an early age, and that this has been going on in one form or another (even though it's becoming more modern) for a very long time, which is why attempts to reason with and reform the region always ultimatly failed, even if some groups in the region have "played ball" for a while when it benefitted them. Simple things like establishing a seperation of church and state, or the seeds of it, in the new constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq failed, as did our plans to bring about women's liberation to the point where during meetings American women in positions of authority must walk around wearing body tents and be seen to defer to men in the meetings even if they are ultimatly calling the shots.
When it comes to academic points about how there are other terrorist groups, or what the actual numbers may be, one has to remember there is a differance in scale. We've been dealing with Islamic terrorism for a long time, and we did by and large ignore it, or use very measured responses since it wasn't that big a deal overall. We treated it like a lot of these other groups, and given the foreign nature of it's source we attempted to cultivate allies in the region so we didn't have to invade, that's by and large what happened with Saddam and Iraq(he betrayed us). Like it or not, 9/11 was a major turning point, people tend to look at the SUCCESSFUL attack on the twin towers as the sum total of the event, but in reality it was a decapitation strike launched at the goverment. The Pentagon was also hit, but survived due to luck, we also had other planes which were shot down heading for Washington DC. The Twin Towers caused a lot of economic shockwaves, but had we lost The Pentagon, Capital Building, and White house, along with the respective personell, the US would be a far differant place than it is now. These other groups have never successfully launched an attack on a level that could have done that much damage, or even brought about the demise of the nation entirely.
What's more, every group of terrorists and radicals out there is surrounded by others as you pointed out, and the same basic arguement your making could be made about targeting any of them "leave these guys alone, I mean there are lots of other ones out there". Such attitudes typically coming from fear, not just of retaliation, but of the moral cost in actually dealing with such large scale problems given our current principles.
You ARE correct that there are people who practice Islam peacefully throughout the world, and that within nations like the US there is some assistance from the Islamic community in dealing with the terrorists coming in from outside. This is incidently one of the big reasons why I talk specifically about targeting The Middle East, and the nations/cultures in that area as opposed to say rounding up all of the Muslims throughout the world and locking them away or killing them. I believe that if we deal with the culture in that region, as large and expansive as it is, it will deal with the root of the problem, and we'll be able to move on. I think it will get to the point where Islam will become pretty much like Christianity then, where you won't even know someone practices it unless they tell you, and even the fringes will operate on a much smaller scale or within much greater limits.
I could go into more detailed specifics, but this post is long enough, not to mention it's irrelevent to the discussion, and my attitudes can probably be found archived in numerous messages I've written on these forums if you dig back far enough.
Well, a lot of the western media would agree with you, and shares your general attitudes largely as part of a "peace at any price" philosophy. I however do not agree with your analysis or opinions.
I have decades of experience and study in the topic from at least 4 different angles. I studied social simulations of terrorist activity as my dissertation. I did comparative religion as my IB year project. I studied Islamic studies for 7 years. I lived in the Middle East for over a decade. I used to work doing country analysis for a few years, specializing in the MENA region. I've traveled most of it, and lived in part of it. I'm touring the GCC in a month.
Now: You're free to disagree, but at least consider that I might have a clue what I'm talking about here, as might "a lot of western media".
Also, I appreciate the explanation of western media but you'll find I'm a westerner too. I'm a British Citizen. I have an American wife I spend time there too (though only 6 months at a time), and was brought up mostly in the UK, (lived there over a decade too, went to uni there). So I want you to know, that likewise, I disagree with your opinion on your own media. Though I am willing to accept some truth to your statement.
Though when your largest News Network has O'Reilly talking about Jihad being the number one threat to America, re-imagining obscure Shiite tenets like "Taqiyya" as some form of overt subterfuge being practiced by Muslims at large to deceive America, I do have to apply a little doubt.
On to substance:
If you want to talk about Muslim culture, a good demonstration of that is "number of crazies". The more crazies (and a comparison to elsewhere), the more it can be claimed that it is a mainstream rather than fringe position.
You don't address that even though that's an accurate (and comparable) measure of analysis. You want to talk about the success of individual attacks.
Even if Al-Qaeda stole *all the nukes* and nuked *everyone*, it still does not in any way demonstrate it as a mainstream view any more than one (or a hundred in a cult) Canadians setting off a nuke indicates anything about the country's culture.
The luckyness of the terrorists should not be a factor in the evilness, nor number, nor support, of the terrorists. 9/11 killed 3K people. The average suicide bomb attack kills 3. The average IRA bomb killed 1.
The IRA had more support. The IRA had more manpower. The IRA had more attacks (until recently, disarming and all). The IRA targeted more people. The IRA tried to kill more people. All of these are factors of a mindset, yet they were not as successful as AQ.
The point you're trying to make is this: "It's not a fringe".
The evidence you ignored (the percentages and the fact that Muslims are the single most cooperative community) is completely at odds with your conclusion. The evidence you provided (Those 19 guys are more successful than others (Like the IRA example)), does not demonstrate your point.
So, just to summarize: You ignore relevant data, in favour of irrelevant data. Why?
Therumancer said:
If this was on some kind of obscure home-schooling video series or something it wouldn't be a big deal, but it's not, it's being run on their television networks. Networks that are directly run and managed by groups like HAMAS in Palestine.
Fox viewership: 8 million watching at primetime. (1.7M for Beck).
Entire population of Palestine: 4 million.
The show in particular: My estimate: 25K.
That is assuming similar TV distribution to the USA, assumes children are primetime, and inflates for larger younger age bracket. This should be a massive overstatement.
So, you're taking a land which has been at war for 70 years as your example of the Middle East and "how deep the poison runs".
Not going into:
1) So Jihad is one of the words they don't translate? That's in my original list.
2) So it *was* originally sourced by Memri TV.
I should not be able to offhandedly predict your sources of information before you supply any information other than the type of media used ("TV"). If I can, it suggests you are not getting information, you are being spoonfed an opinion from a narrow source. The more people you listen to, the more accurate picture you'll get.
The Middle East has a population about the same size as the USA by the way, making all comparisons of channel size, roughly equivalent.
This is akin to saying "Kentucky is pretty much the benchmark of the USA for opinions... lets see how 'they' (America) feel about the 2008 election. McCain wins in a landslide with 67% of the vote!".
To demonstrate the comparison:
Palestine is about 3 times more likely to support terrorist groups than it's second closest rival (that I found) Afghanistan. The ME average is ~8%. The Palestine average is just under 40%. That 8% includes the 40% skewing it.
I would have a more representative sample taking only US convicts, (That's 4% of the US population taking just convicts, not 1.3% of the ME taking just Palestine) and drawing conclusions from that.
Therumancer said:
I use the TV shows simply as a verifiable point, and something not covered by the mainstream media very often in the US.
No, you use it as a preconcluded justification of a point you were trying to make. All the stats I provided are verifiable, and publicly available. They accurately represent your point, but do not support it.
Which is why you are happy to throw around terms like "their television networks" as if it's a Middle Eastern Staple, after quoting a channel with lower viewers than any random cable channel, then go on to say things like:
When it comes to academic points about how there are other terrorist groups, or what the actual numbers may be, one has to remember there is a differance in scale.
Scale? Yes. There were 33 terrorist victims out of 150'000 regular murders since 9/11. Any real measure of scale is not to the advantage of your point.
Minor "academic" things like the number of terrorist supporters when discussing the influence they have in the middle east should not be ignored? No. When looking at the facts, your analysis seems terribly incorrect.
Most support *against* terrorists in the US: Muslims.
(Even with a lower estimate I just found in the triangle report of 40%. This may be a difference of actioned support (70%) vs actionable intelligence (40%)).
Most fights with terrorists worldwide: Muslims.
Biggest victims of terrorism: Muslims.
Support for terrorism in the ME: 8%, comparable to the US's 7%, lower when compared specifically to the IRA's support in the US (Cannot find a reliable source, but estimates range around 15%).
Number of Muslims in Terrorist organizations would be the best measure, but you have a problem there of:
Aberrant figures (Somewhere between 20K and 1.2M Muslims (Lets say 600K, even though the median is 120K) vs 50-500K USA (Say 300)).
Comparative populations. It's fair to count the ME, it's also fair to count the entire Muslim population.
ME: We have about 30% more compared to the US. (Most Muslim terrorists are in the ME)
All of Muslimdom: We have about 60% less.
So, this metric is useful, but does not make either point well unfortunately due to the huge variances in figures available, and the question of "what is the best comparator for region". Overall though, if you want to use the data, it's comparable.
All metrics that give an accurate picture of the situation, but like I said, show a very different picture to the one you seem to have.
Lets take an equivalent example:
I *could* sit here and post up individual pictures of US soldiers poking heads with sticks stuck in them, after going "trophy hunting" among afghan civilians.
But to be honest it wouldn't be "simply as a verifiable point, and something not covered by the mainstream media", it would be the cheap showboating appeal to emotion to get people to overlook the facts and share my opinion.
I would rather discuss *any* of the points which would actually measure the conclusion you've reached.
Because when you measure it, it's not subject to emotional appeal.
Like detailing the 10 Muslim terrorist attempts in 2010 in the US: Emotional appeal.
Saying there were (I think, double check the link [http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/about/news_release20110202.php], I'm getting tired now) 17 non Muslim terrorist attacks: Similarly.
Using both: Actual comparable data.
Many of your suppositions only make any sense if "Muslim culture" started in 2003 (Muslim Terrorism has gone up about 1200% since the invasion of two Muslim countries). Keep in mind that's the era we're discussing terrorism in. Those are the figures I'm quoting right now. That the IRA was the only terrorist organization anyone paid attention to in 2000 is not a coincidence, and unless Islam/Muslim culture came about in 2001 your reasoning might be suspect.
I'll leave you with a quote from David, Director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security:
This study puts into perspective the threat presented by domestic radicalization of Muslim Americans. Is this a problem that deserves the attention of law enforcement and the Muslim American community? Absolutely. But Americans should take note that these crimes are being perpetrated by a handful of people who actions are denounced and rejected by virtually all the Muslims living in the United States.
Incidentally, the largest polls ever conducted across the Middle East by Zogby, the CSM, and so on and so forth, all seem to agree with these conclusions. Doubting the opinions of experts is one thing. Dismissing them out of hand, does not bode well for your ability to choose "opinions".
I don't know whether to laugh at this, or cry at the fact that they're trying so hard to make this sound like a bad fanfic. Seriously, this is the kind of stuff in movies that Mystery Science Theater would poke fun at with abandon, and they're making a game out of this? And people are supposed to take this seriously?!
Oh please, just skip straight to licensing the movie rights! Then at least Rifftrax can rip right into it before too long
Also, "Virginopolis"? Are you serious? Are you seriously shitting me? So... the aliens are... 'Virginians'...?
Well, a lot of the western media would agree with you, and shares your general attitudes largely as part of a "peace at any price" philosophy. I however do not agree with your analysis or opinions.
I have decades of experience and study in the topic from at least 4 different angles. I studied social simulations of terrorist activity as my dissertation. I did comparative religion as my IB year project. I studied Islamic studies for 7 years. I lived in the Middle East for over a decade. I used to work doing country analysis for a few years, specializing in the MENA region. I've traveled most of it, and lived in part of it. I'm touring the GCC in a month.
Now: You're free to disagree, but at least consider that I might have a clue what I'm talking about here, as might "a lot of western media".
-
I'll leave you with a quote from David, Director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security:
This study puts into perspective the threat presented by domestic radicalization of Muslim Americans. Is this a problem that deserves the attention of law enforcement and the Muslim American community? Absolutely. But Americans should take note that these crimes are being perpetrated by a handful of people who actions are denounced and rejected by virtually all the Muslims living in the United States.
Incidentally, the largest polls ever conducted across the Middle East by Zogby, the CSM, and so on and so forth, all seem to agree with these conclusions. Doubting the opinions of experts is one thing. Dismissing them out of hand, does not bode well for your ability to choose "opinions".
I'm sure you THINK you know what your talking about. Obviously if there wasn't two sides to this kind of thing we wouldn't be dealing with such major problems. What's more, right now there are more people that DO agree with you because the information you present is in line with what they want to hear. Simply put nobody wants to go to war, and nobody wants to put the blood on their hands.
Of course a lot of your comments are kind of silly, like talking about how "well if your right, Muslim Culture only would have started in 2001". The truth is we've been at this for decades, with tons of kidnappings, hijackings, plane bombings, and going back and forth with one group in the region after another. We've tried diplomacy, friendship, measured response, tolerance, and had them all fail. 9/11 was simply the biggest act of an ongoing series of events, and what finally spurred us into taking more signifigant action, even if we wound up hamstringing our own response as soon as we decided to take it.
I talk about acting against the entire culture, throughout most of the nations in the region, largely because I don't think it's one paticular nation or group of people. It's that entire culture.
As far as Muslims being victims of Muslim "terrorists", of course that's the case. There is constant infighting between religious factions throughout the entire region. The western world and the US is simply one enemy they can all agree on, with Isreal (which is a US ally) being another.
Irregardless of how you try and argue the point, those TV programs are the equivilent of watching say "Barney" or "Romper Room" in the US. They reach pretty much he entire population and instead of teaching kids how to get along and such, they teach them to kill Americans, Jews, and promote the Muslim culture. This is done with the support of the society, since it's not like parents are preventing their kids from watching those shows or anything.
What's more, the poison is very deep, and has been going on for a long time. We've had pictures of kids training to be terrorists and soldiers as early as 8 and 9 being circulated through magazines and periodicals for decades. That's just how that part of the world is, because the culture is so broken, and attempts to simply reform it have failed.
Now you ARE correct that in the US and other nations outside of The Middle East, the reaction is a bit differant. Those people are surrounded by cultures other than the ones of The Middle East, and especially over a period of generations it has a very real affect. This is why I talk about targeting The Middle East, as opposed to some kind of global genocide where we would hunt down the entire population of people.
You wipe out the central cultures in that region, and then over time the ones who live elsewhere in other societies will wind up fully adapting.... and yes, you are correct that domestically there are plenty of Muslims who will work against terrorists. At the same time however, you can't totally ignore internal security because we have plenty of Muslims supporting them and trying to encourage terrorist acts, we've had websites towards this purpose run by college professors off of university campuses... which incidently doesn't wind up helping your case much.
I mean I get it, especially over in the UK you don't want to fight in a war for an ally. Heck, in the US we by and large don't want to fight it either. *NOBODY* likes wars or fighting, and there are always attempts to end them under any justification. In general this is why the US at least has war powers it's supposed to invoke in cases like this to control information and the propagation of anti-war sentiment, we however did not use them, and I think we're paying the price more than we otherwise would. But then again I don't think anyone expected this to go on this long or become quite so political.
One of the best ways to justify ending a war is to say "we were wrong, the other side isn't that bad". Who knows, your opinion, and what you think, might actually contribute to ending the conflict. Right now though things are quite divided still (despite what the media might say), and people like me who want to just crush the enemy and get it over with as opposed to all this "winning the peace" stuff which I think is doomed for failure are so far in the minority.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
