Islamists Modding Video Games to train young Jihadists

[suckerpunch5]

This was an interesting story. I'm not sure how wide spread this is, but apparently some radical islamic websites are hosting modded forms of games like Battelfield 2. The twist is the hero is an islamic terrorist gunning down u.s. soldiers who are raiding his village.

This is an interesting bit of propoganda. We argue a lot about the effects of video games on young minds, but it would seem that for the islamists their value as a conditioning tool is apparent. Anyway, very interesting. I wonder what everyone else thinks about this?

LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060504/us_nm/security_videogames_dc_4)

To be fair, there are a lot of games where americans kill islamists. . .

[c0ldb33r]

I fail to see the difference between that and America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/).

[SirDrexl]

I sure see the difference. The modders are using the usual "attack on Islam" to try to justify it. So they use statements from guys like Robertson and Falwell (who make a lot of stupid statements) to try to make it sound that their "jihad" is a response to their "oppression" by the West, I mean, uh, "infidels," all the while condoning their suicide bombers who thought they were getting paradise for their actions ( LOL )

At least America's Army has the sense to keep religion out of it.

[c0ldb33r]

Either way, it's a video game hoping to enlist future combatants.

edit: Oh wait, I found a difference, America's Army was developed using your tax dollars LOL

[suckerpunch5]

maybe I should add, i'm less interested in seeing this thread devolve into a "they are bad" and "oh yeah, well you do the same thing" scenario. What is interesting to me is, both groups of people are using video games to try and train the minds of young kids in very specific ways.

What do you think of this use of video games? I think it is ironic an essentially fun thing can be used so nefariously. Is this a perversion of our hobby, regardless of who does it? Or does this type of entertainment lend itself to manipulation so well that it is inevitable? I think both of these are true. If they are, what does this say about the true impact of any video game?

My point is, I often argue that video games don't turn people into killers. (columbine, or whatever) But I think things like this show their impact is meaningfull, be it for good or bad purposes.

[Push Upstairs]

I find "America's Army" to be less of a "kill simulator" and really more of a promotional tool.

There isnt a video game today that could be 100% true to life. Hell, i remember PC Gamer asking actual military personel who played the game how close it was only to have them say something like "It's pretty close, but it leaves out some really crappy parts".

I guess to put it another way, a game is only as good as what the developer/modder puts into it and they are not going to be able to put *EVERY* possibility that can happen in real life.

[Satan Claus]

I find "America's Army" to be less of a "kill simulator" and really more of a promotional tool.

There isnt a video game today that could be 100% true to life. Hell, i remember PC Gamer asking actual military personel who played the game how close it was only to have them say something like "It's pretty close, but it leaves out some really crappy parts".

I guess to put it another way, a game is only as good as what the developer/modder puts into it and they are not going to be able to put *EVERY* possibility that can happen in real life.

Battlefield 2 is a good game, but if you try this gameplay in real life against real soldiers, you are death. It's a game and a bad training.
I'd like to try this mod myself - is here someone who has a link

[heybtbm]

Bullshit detector alert:

If you read the news story, the "game" has audio clips from, "Team America: World Police"...and the author is apparently oblivious to that fact. I'm thinking that this might be a hoax. Especially since the soundbites are in English.

And please, let's stop the "moral equivalency" argument here. Comparing Islamic terrorists to the American Army is incredibly naive and insulting to the people who volunteer to risk their lives day after day.

[Flack]

Thank you Muhammed! But our jihad is in another castle ...

[c0ldb33r]

And please, let's stop the "moral equivalency" argument here. Comparing Islamic terrorists to the American Army is incredibly naive and insulting to the people who volunteer to risk their lives day after day.
Hey we're just comparing video games here, not people.

[Beavertown]

I fail to see the difference between that and America's Army (http://www.americasarmy.com/).


Well I'm pretty sure that one is a legitimate promotional tool aimed at young men and women to join the Armed Forces, an honorable and noble career opportunity that consists of many different fields. It's hardly a shoot the terrorists game, nor does it promote that.

The other, if true, was created by cowardly scum and encourages children to pick up arms to kill and die in the name of Allah.

[heybtbm]

Hey we're just comparing video games here, not people.

You made a statement specifically to provoke a response, and I responded. Backpeddaling and clarifying your point after the fact doesn't fly here.

[njiska]

Hey we're just comparing video games here, not people.

You made a statement specifically to provoke a response, and I responded. Backpeddaling and clarifying your point after the fact doesn't fly here.

His point, i think, isn't that Terorists and America's Army are the same, but rather that using BF2 to promote terrorism is no different then using AA to promote military service. It's all propaganda.

[noname11]

I always found it funny how the Famicom "Che" game became became Guerilla Warfare.... regionalism and localization aside, I kinda wanna play as Che , and i want my 2nd Player to be Fidel Castro.... same kinda thing w/ the name of "Contra" in different markets



This kinda propagandizing has been going on since th begining of video games, there are magazine articles about the military using a 2600 game to train recruits ....idiots , and yet GTA gets negative attention for sex in a game ! Sometimes it seems like the US lives under a fundamentalist regime where sex is evil and killing for the goal of the regime is encouraged to the point of childhood indoctrination... but i digress ...

[c0ldb33r]

Hey we're just comparing video games here, not people.

You made a statement specifically to provoke a response, and I responded. Backpeddaling and clarifying your point after the fact doesn't fly here.

His point, i think, isn't that Terorists and America's Army are the same, but rather that using BF2 to promote terrorism is no different then using AA to promote military service. It's all propaganda.
Word.

And I stand by that.

[RetroYoungen]

I wanna see their mod for Katamari Damacy.

[Neil Koch]

So what would be the difference between this and something like Counter-Strike? FPS/war games have been getting modded like this for years - this is hardly news.

[Beavertown]

Word.

And I stand by that.

That's a poor generaliaztion. There are clear differences between the two "games" and how they are being used.


So what would be the difference between this and something like Counter-Strike? FPS/war games have been getting modded like this for years - this is hardly news.


They're not endorsed or funded by the US Military or Al Qaeda.

[njiska]

Word.

And I stand by that.

That's a poor generaliaztion. There are clear differences between the two "games" and how they are being used.

No there aren't. Well at least not for how they're being used. America's Army was created inorder to get people to enlist. That is it's sole purpose. The game does not generate revenue for the US Army (Console version excluded) it generates bodies.

The BF2 mod in question was purportedly created by a terrorist organization (there's more then just Al Qaeda you know) simply to increase their ranks.

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

The only difference is that one fights for what you'd consider morally correct reasons and the other fights for what you consider morally wrong.

In other words the concept and usuage of the games is exactly the same, only your preception of those behind them is different.

[Beavertown]

No there aren't. Well at least not for how they're being used. America's Army was created inorder to get people to enlist. That is it's sole purpose. The game does not generate revenue for the US Army (Console version excluded) it generates bodies.

It was created to generate "interest" in the Armed Forces. Once someone goes in and starts talks with a recruiter, there are tons of opportunities in different fields, you can join the Army in non combative roles, you know? It's a legimate promotional tool. Comparing that to simple propoganda that encourages kids to pick up arms is ridiculous.


The BF2 mod in question was purportedly created by a terrorist organization (there's more then just Al Qaeda you know) simply to increase their ranks.

The article quotes Al Qaeda, and they're all cowardly scum.


IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.

Different Intent. Different motives. Different end-result.


The only difference is that one fights for what you'd consider morally correct reasons and the other fights for what you consider morally wrong.

Are you saying that terrorists are moral?


In other words the concept and usuage of the games is exactly the same, only your preception of those behind them is different.

It's not the same. One is legitimate and encompasses more than just telling people and kids to pick up and kill.

[njiska]

It was created to generate "interest" in the Armed Forces. Once someone goes in and starts talks with a recruiter, there are tons of opportunities in different fields, you can join the Army in non combative roles, you know? It's a legimate promotional tool. Comparing that to simple propoganda that encourages kids to pick up arms is ridiculous.

The intent is still the same and that intent is to get people to join. What the enlisted do after that is irrelevant.


The article quotes Al Qaeda, and they're all cowardly scum.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I suggest you research the origins of your own country. In the eyes of the crown and history the Sons of Liberty were terrorists.


Different Intent. Different motives. Different end-result.

Intent of America = To attract young people to join the army

Intent of Al Qaede = To attract young people to join the Al Qaede

Motive of America = To increase they're ranks with young soldiers and skilled people to further support their cause. Defending America's beliefs and way of life

Motive of Al Qaede = To increase they're ranks with young soldiers and skilled people to further support their cause. Defending the Islamic beliefs and way of life

End Result for Amaerica = Some young people enlist in the Army

End Result for Al Qaede = Some young people enlist in Al Qaede


The only difference is that one fights for what you'd consider morally correct reasons and the other fights for what you consider morally wrong.


Are you saying that terrorists are moral?

Absolutley because morals are relative.

Do i consider Al Qaede's actions morally justifyable? No i think killing civillians is wrong, only military targets are valid. Although collateral damage is an unfortunate side effect. But that's my opinion.

Ask yourself this, "Do you think a member of Al Qaede considers what they're doing morally wrong?" In their own eyes they are morally just.

It's all prespective.



In other words the concept and usuage of the games is exactly the same, only your preception of those behind them is different.

It's not the same. One is legitimate and encompasses more than just telling people and kids to pick up and kill.

Just remember that's your opinion and not a provable fact. If you take morallity out of the equation it's all the same and since morality is personal, NOT universal, it is not an exceptable point of arguement.

Oh here's something else for you to reflect on:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Hermann Goering

[Juganawt]

It was created to generate "interest" in the Armed Forces. Once someone goes in and starts talks with a recruiter, there are tons of opportunities in different fields, you can join the Army in non combative roles, you know?

I don't see America's Army glorifying how to write a report sheet or how to cook for a hundred hungry soldiers. It focuses on the main thing the American Army wants - grunts who know how to kill anything that moves.

I'm sure there are non-combative roles in terrorism too - like recruiters, bomb makers, tactic planners, preachers for the almighty Allah to recite the "surrounded by virgins when you die" speech, people who make the sandwiches inbetween bombing runs etc, but you don't see any of that in the terrorism mod either.

As for encouraging kids to blow themselves up for the cause? America's Army is available to minors too, basically advertising "You like America? Then play this awesome game where you get to kill for your country. If you get hit, we don't give a crap, there's thousands of other kids just like you that'll take your place."

Besides, Getting kiddie terrorists to blow themselves up isn't as bad as most people make it out to be. I say it's better to blow em up when they're younger and less intelligent than to wait till they grow smarter and are able to recruit more people to the cause of martyrdom when our children are our age and are at risk.

Njiska and Coldbeer are right on this one. Both the BF2 mod and America's Army are mere propaganda.

[Beavertown]

The intent is still the same and that intent is to get people to join. What the enlisted do after that is irrelevant.

I still disagree. Like I keep saying, one is legitimate. The other is just propaganda that says "kill the americans!" America's Army doesn't say that to me.


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I suggest you research the origins of your own country. In the eyes of the crown and history the Sons of Liberty were terrorists.

Come on! That was pointless. You know very well what I meant and what I'm talking about.


Intent of America = To attract young people to join the army

Different POV I guess. To me it's an advertising tool to generate interest only. Once interest is generated, there is a lengthy process that follows and just anyone is not accepted.

Terrorist intent - Kill Americans, Fight the oppresors for the glory of Allah.



Motive of America = To increase they're ranks with young soldiers and skilled people to further support their cause. Defending America's beliefs and way of life

Motive of Al Qaede = To increase they're ranks with young soldiers and skilled people to further support their cause. Defending the Islamic beliefs and way of life

Wrong. America's motive is that of a job recruiter. That may encompass what you said, but is not limited to.

Al Qaeda's only motive is too kill and destroy America and all that it encompasses, by any means. They justify it with relgion, but anyone who has studied Islam knows that they are misguided.



End Result for Amaerica = Some young people enlist in the Army

End Result for Al Qaede = Some young people enlist in Al Qaede

Not really what I was getting at. Most who join the Army will live and have normal lives, probably won't even see combat.

Those who join Al Qaeda will most certainly kill innocents and die pointlessly.


Absolutley because morals are relative.

Do i consider Al Qaede's actions morally justifyable? No i think killing civillians is wrong, only military targets are valid. Although collateral damage is an unfortunate side effect. But that's my opinion.

Ask yourself this, "Do you think a member of Al Qaede considers what they're doing morally wrong?" In their own eyes they are morally just.

I think a man should know and does know what he is and what he does. That's what seperates us from animals. And yes, I'm sure even the most dedicated Al Qaeda agent questions his own actions and beliefs.



Just remember that's your opinion and not a provable fact. If you take morallity out of the equation it's all the same and since morality is personal, NOT universal, it is not an exceptable point of arguement.

Yes it's my opinion. But one is still legitimate, and it still stands for and encompasses more than just telling someone to pick up a gun and kill and die. That is a fact. You can't argue that.


Oh here's something else for you to reflect on:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Hermann Goering

I suggest you practice extreme diplomacy if you're gonna go there.

[heybtbm]

Moral relativism is a lazy and cowardly way of justifying anything. It's the easy way out of any arguement. Absolutely laughable.

[Garry Silljo]

I would like to suggest a cease fire here. This arguement can and will get extremely ugly if it isn't dropped. We aren't even talking about the game anymore, and I don't see either side of the issue budging. I see one side clearly doing a better a job with their argument, but I wont comment on who that is. I just think we should agree to disagree, before the flames get too strong to put out.

[GrandAmChandler]

Locked because of OP's request via PM.