Capcom Cancels Zombie Pool In Wake Of Terror Attack

[Lightspeaker]

Are all religious based attacks terror attacks now?

2 guys kills another man, and while it's abhorrent, it's hardly a terror attack.

It's just plain old murder.

Giving these events such undue attention only spurs on others to commit such attacks (citation needed).

Exactly my feeling. In my opinion, this is the British media and government suffering from 9/11 envy. Let's get some perspective. A bomb in a public place, a plane flown into a building, these are acts of terrorism. A nutter with a meat cleaver is not, no matter what his motive.

Except you're objectively and legally wrong. Terrorist attacks are nothing to do with scale or effect or "perspective" but purpose. The UK defines a terror attack under the Terrorism Act 2000 which you can conveniently view on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

Motive is EVERYTHING about whether or not an attack is terrorist in nature. In addition to quote Johkmil above:

Assasinations and the murder of police/military/government personell was the more common form of terrorism until quite recently. Mass murder is not the only form of terror. This is terrorism.

For example: the Provisional IRA is classified as a terrorist organisation and they carried out a large number of attacks. Many were simple ambushes and murders of security forces personnel or assassinations. These were still terror attacks.


And to come up with a concept like "9/11 envy"...I mean seriously what the hell? Are you serious? That's just sick.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Are all religious based attacks terror attacks now?

2 guys kills another man, and while it's abhorrent, it's hardly a terror attack.

It's just plain old murder.

Giving these events such undue attention only spurs on others to commit such attacks (citation needed).

Well, it was an attack solely meant to intimidate and to cause terror among British citizens.

But yes, creating too much media coverage does prove to other potential terrorists that people are obviously paying attention to their shenanigans.

 

[FamoFunk]

Good guys Capcom. They're showing respect and some people are getting pissy, seriously?

 

[zidine100]

its odd when i find myself agreeing with capcom these days, but it is for the best.

 

[Musclepunch]

I know the West is not innecent in this, but it's convenient how they forgot that now Muslims are dying because other muslims are killing them.

Without trying to be a troll, as a western male I don't really care if they kill each other, it's when they start killing us that it becomes a problem

 

[Longstreet]

I'll refrain from making some of the comments i had in mind to avoid some serious ban issues.

Let me just say that i agree with capcom. Although i don't usually agree with some of the actions companies take in light of some events -see the movie theater scene removal from Gangster Squad- but having a bath of blood 5 feet next to the place where a bloodbath happened isn't the best idea.

Besides the media backlash they will probably run into some legal troubles, ie. getting sued, with the next of kin from the deceased soldier. I'll admit i know fuck all bout the UK justice system, but capcom surely needs to account for the possibility of such an event.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Terrorism doesn't have a minimum body count. The rhetoric this guy was spewing was skewed on the way extremist level which is exactly what terrorists do. Remember the journalist that got beheaded by terrorists? Same freakin thing. But hey if some of you wanna bury your head in the sand and say "there's no more terrorism, Obama killed Osama" go right ahead.
OT: Capcom showed some class, props to them for having some heart and knowing there IS such a thing as BAD PR.

 

[Gerishnakov]

Totally agree with those on here who've already mentioned that this was just 2 crazy guys publicly killing one man. I'll concede to another point made; that motive is important in determining whether a crime is 'terrorist' in nature. The problem with denoting a crime such as this with the label of terrorism allows authoritarian nut-bags like ex-Home Secretary John Reid to pipe up making the case for cracking down on privacy rights. I reiterate, this was one death. People get murdered all the time and we don't call for a crackdown on privacy.

 

[Lurklen]

It was a wise move on Capcoms part. I've done some more looking into the incident and apparently a woman in her 40's confronted the men and tried to talk them down while other women went and shielded the body of the soldier. That is incredibly brave and I can't really express how good it makes me feel that in the face of violence with the perpetrators of that violence still there and armed these people rose to the occasion and did what they could in a non violent way. It's acts like this that display to me that while bad things happen in the world most people are just decent.

 

[Flatfrog]

Except you're objectively and legally wrong. Terrorist attacks are nothing to do with scale or effect or "perspective" but purpose. The UK defines a terror attack under the Terrorism Act 2000 which you can conveniently view on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

Intriguing but still, I'd maintain that as a definition that sucks arse. It's so broad as to count huge numbers of acts which no reasonable person would use the term for. It most definitely does apply to the drone strikes the US carries out in Pakistan and elsewhere, which I'm sure most US people would maintain were not terrorist in nature. And by that definition many serial killers who believe themselves acting under the order of God would probably also count.

At the very least, to my mind and whatever the legal definition, the word terrorism implies some kind of coherent political organisation behind the attack and some kind of intentional plot, which may or may not be present here but certainly there's nothing in the media to suggest it so far.

Anyway - whatever the legal status, what kind of message does it send out to make this much fuss over an event of this kind? Sure, a murder is tragic and this one was particularly unpleasant, but when it can bring a country to a standstill and cause Cobra meetings and all the rest of this nonsense, all it says to the kind of pathetic losers who do these kinds of things is 'hey, your life may be empty and you may be full of rage, but here's a way you can make a big name for yourself. No need to make a bomb or hijack a plane. Any fool with a kitchen implement can be a terrorist now'.

And to come up with a concept like "9/11 envy"...I mean seriously what the hell? Are you serious? That's just sick.

Well, it was said in frustration but yes, I do stand by it. Sick as it may be, I think it's true. There's a part of the political mind that craves events like these. They want to show how tough they are, and the more dramatic they can make it, the better. The coverage of the Boston bomb was just hysterical, and every other article was harping back to 9/11. It's the Godwin's Law of government - every security argument eventually returns to 9/11, the one terrorist attack which we can point to unequivocally as a major catastrophe. Apart from that one event, terrorists in general are and always have been pretty hopeless. They provoke fear far, far out of proportion to the actual damage they cause. The likelihood of dying from a terrorist attack is something like 0.00001. We need to stop giving these wankers so much of what they crave.

 

[CriticalMiss]

I didn't know this had happened until reading the article and a quick trip to the Beeb. While I don't really see the need to have cancelled the event (could they have delayed it?) it's nice that they are being respectful, especially since it was a particularly gruesome attack and seeing people frolic playfully in a pool of blood is likely to annoy someone so soon afterwards.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

I know the West is not innecent in this, but it's convenient how they forgot that now Muslims are dying because other muslims are killing them.

Isn't that the truth :/ Despite all their yammering on about the 'big devil' (America) and the 'little devil' (Israel), they STILL manage to fight among themselves.

The irony is that a lot of Muslims have actually migrated from the East to the West to escape from all the horrific violence (from both Western soldiers and other Muslims). My doctor for example had to bribe his way out of Pakistan (if I haven't got the place wrong). But of course, the extremists conveniently forget that most of (or whatever stat, I don't know) the fighting going on is between their own 'brother Muslims', rather than the 'foreign oppressors'.

As you said, the West isn't blameless. But they're hardly worse.

OT: Capcom dodged a bullet here. It would probably have been too close to the real thing for comfort.

 

[nexus]

It should be a crime to call this a terrorist attack. Shame on the media & the government and all who perpetuate this nonsense.

 

[verdant monkai]

Why! Just carry on as normal and don't give these bastards the attention they want.

And for those of you saying it was just a non religion related murder, you are completely wrong. They hacked the guy to death whilst screaming "Allah is greatest". But it doesn't matter it should be dealt with and then we carry on as normal, but obviously our thoughts should be with the murdered soldiers family.

More on that story here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22644857

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

It should be a crime to call this a terrorist attack. Shame on the media & the government and all who perpetuate this nonsense.

As it's been stated already, mass murder is not the only form of terrorism. Single murders can also be terrorism, so long as the primary goal is to bring fear to people and to spread a cause. The size of the attack is irrelevant, only it's motive and cultural significance. For example, a bombing of the Statue of Liberty by a domestic group seeking the removal of U.S. forces from foreign disputes would qualify as terrorism, even if nobody was killed or injured by the attack.

Two guys performed a public assassination and dismemberment of a soldier with the sole intent of getting a message across and making people at large fear them. The soldier was clearly the specified target, seemingly because of what he represents to both British society as well as the Middle East, thus giving the death and dismemberment of such an individual more meaning and impact. This attack, by definition, is a case of terrorism.

I will agree though that the attention from media isn't helping matters in the slightest.

 

[bfgmetalhead]

Are all religious based attacks terror attacks now?

2 guys kills another man, and while it's abhorrent, it's hardly a terror attack.

It's just plain old murder.

Giving these events such undue attention only spurs on others to commit such attacks (citation needed).

Exactly my feeling. In my opinion, this is the British media and government suffering from 9/11 envy. Let's get some perspective. A bomb in a public place, a plane flown into a building, these are acts of terrorism. A nutter with a meat cleaver is not, no matter what his motive.

It was a islamicly motivated attck that was brutal and extreemly violent, it was intended to send a message. People are scared some would say they are terrified, a terror attck on the scale of 7/7 or 9/11? No it's not that is correct. However it still is a terror attack reguardless of the scale, weapon used or the location.

The worst thing is the muslim communtiy will suffer the worst as a result, I wish I knew what these two madmen hoped to achieve for Islam from this act appart from worsening it's public image.

 

[nexus]

It should be a crime to call this a terrorist attack. Shame on the media & the government and all who perpetuate this nonsense.

As it's been stated already, mass murder is not the only form of terrorism. Single murders can also be terrorism, so long as the primary goal is to bring fear to people and to spread a cause. The size of the attack is irrelevant, only it's motive and cultural significance. For example, a bombing of the Statue of Liberty by a domestic group seeking the removal of U.S. forces from foreign disputes would qualify as terrorism, even if nobody was killed or injured by the attack.

Two guys performed a public assassination and dismemberment of a soldier with the sole intent of getting a message across and making people at large fear them. The soldier was clearly the specified target, seemingly because of what he represents to both British society as well as the Middle East, thus giving the death and dismemberment of such an individual more meaning and impact. This attack, by definition, is a case of terrorism.

I will agree though that the attention from media isn't helping matters in the slightest.

When did I ever say terrorism has to be mass-murder?

But by all means, spew your rhetoric. Let us keep reminding people we need to continually be on edge and at war. Continue being part of the problem.

The man detests me, for what he did. But was his message not true? Do we not kill Muslims on a daily basis? Men, women and children? Yes, we're just innocent folk having to deal with abhorrent "terror attacks", woe is us. Let us spend more money on paramilitary police with assault rifles. Let us never address the problem, let us just label everything "terrorism" and pat ourselves on the back.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

It should be a crime to call this a terrorist attack. Shame on the media & the government and all who perpetuate this nonsense.

As it's been stated already, mass murder is not the only form of terrorism. Single murders can also be terrorism, so long as the primary goal is to bring fear to people and to spread a cause. The size of the attack is irrelevant, only it's motive and cultural significance. For example, a bombing of the Statue of Liberty by a domestic group seeking the removal of U.S. forces from foreign disputes would qualify as terrorism, even if nobody was killed or injured by the attack.

Two guys performed a public assassination and dismemberment of a soldier with the sole intent of getting a message across and making people at large fear them. The soldier was clearly the specified target, seemingly because of what he represents to both British society as well as the Middle East, thus giving the death and dismemberment of such an individual more meaning and impact. This attack, by definition, is a case of terrorism.

I will agree though that the attention from media isn't helping matters in the slightest.

When did I ever say terrorism has to be mass-murder?

But by all means, spew your rhetoric. Let us keep reminding people we need to continually be on edge and at war. Continue being part of the problem.

The man detests me, for what he did. But was his message not true? Do we not kill Muslims on a daily basis? Men, women and children? Yes, we're just innocent folk having to deal with abhorrent "terror attacks", woe is us. Let us spend more money on paramilitary police with assault rifles. Let us never address the problem, let us just label everything "terrorism" and pat ourselves on the back.

What's with the hostility? You said it wasn't terrorism. By definition, it was. That was my main point.

You're also ignoring my last sentence entirely. I actually agreed with you that bringing attention to these guys is not a good idea. I also did not mention the validity of their messages in any way. You're putting words into my mouth that I never said, which is a fallacy that wrecks the legitimacy of whatever your point was. Did you even read my post?

 

[RicoADF]

Except you're objectively and legally wrong. Terrorist attacks are nothing to do with scale or effect or "perspective" but purpose. The UK defines a terror attack under the Terrorism Act 2000 which you can conveniently view on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

Intriguing but still, I'd maintain that as a definition that sucks arse. It's so broad as to count huge numbers of acts which no reasonable person would use the term for. It most definitely does apply to the drone strikes the US carries out in Pakistan and elsewhere, which I'm sure most US people would maintain were not terrorist in nature.

The US wouldn't count their strikes as terrorist attacks, but the people on the other side would. It's all to do with perspective. Personally sending drones to assassinate whoever you want is a terrorist attack, the fact the US is a big nation that can say tough shit doesn't change the fact it's committing various crimes.

OT: Smart move on Capcoms part, if it was an event elsewhere then it'd be an over reaction, but being so close to the event both physically and time wise it would have been disgraceful to go ahead with the event.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Are all religious based attacks terror attacks now?

2 guys kills another man, and while it's abhorrent, it's hardly a terror attack.

It's just plain old murder.

Giving these events such undue attention only spurs on others to commit such attacks (citation needed).

Exactly my feeling. In my opinion, this is the British media and government suffering from 9/11 envy. Let's get some perspective. A bomb in a public place, a plane flown into a building, these are acts of terrorism. A nutter with a meat cleaver is not, no matter what his motive.

I think running a guy down in a car, dragging him out into the middle of the road to make sure everyone can see, cleaving the man all over, beheading him and then hanging around and requesting people record them so they can justify themselves and spread a message counts as some kind of terrorism. It's more than just a religion-based murder, anyway.

Anyway, I think Capcom were probably right to call the event off. Even though almost anyone who knows what a zombie is would see how the stunt has no relation to the murder, there's just too many ways it could be seen as disrespectful.
Besides, if they want people to get talking about their game, they should follow in the wake of the Dragon's Crown sexualisation debate and put some emphasis on Lady Hunk.

Spoiler: Yes, Lady Hunk.

What's wrong with Lady HUNK? I'm actually excited for that bit of DLC. If not for the lack of pants, you'd never know it was a woman- the only other thing that's changed is her fingers. Still has the same sized heavy flak jacket that HUNK usually wears.