Rainbow 6 Patriots video game:All freedom loving americans are terrorists

reply to post by s4196606

If you commit a terrorist attack, you're a terrorist. Pretty straightforward. Just because someone does it for a political reason doesn't change the fact that you're still a terrorist.

wow. ever heard of the boston tea party? was the revolutionary war a plot by terrorists?

ever heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

the banks, corporations, and government screwed everyone over in what could be called an economic act of terror, so in your eyes, anyone who opposes anything the government does is a terrorist, but it's ok for the government to bomb nations and kill millions. that's completely legitimate because they made it legal, right?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I'm not passing judgement, I'm just reminding people that you don't have to be into wearing turbans to be a terrorist.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

As per definition one, I would be correct. Although i disagree with your use of the phrase 'economic terrorism', the idea you were getting at falls under definition 3. Different sides of the same coin. From the OP, it was sounding as though the right wing group depicted in the game weren't really terrorists, whereas I disagree

reply to post by s4196606

this reminds me of the boston bombing training scenario, trying to brand constitution loving americans as terrorists.
our government has killed tens of thousands of non-combatants and innocents recently for the purpose of "preventing terrorism".

what do you think of this passage from the declaration of independence?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I think that the US government hasn't killed tens of thousands of US citizens in the name of preventing terrorism? Maybe a few here and there

Originally posted by s4196606
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

I think that the US government hasn't killed tens of thousands of US citizens in the name of preventing terrorism? Maybe a few here and there

so you think it less a crime to kill citizens of other countries?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I personally don't agree but thats a matter for the supreme court. Do you think thats what the founding fathers meant?

Originally posted by s4196606
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

I personally don't agree but thats a matter for the supreme court. Do you think thats what the founding fathers meant?

you didn't answer my question, and i don't understand yours. what are you referring to?

next will be drones

Originally posted by Danbones
next will be drones

Only if you elect Rand Paul as President.

You won't see drones used on US soil under Obama.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

This is starting to get insane. Pretty much anyone that doesn't agree with the state narrative is a terrorist.

But arming and giving military aid to Terroists flooding into Syria is siding with the Terrorists and is the actual state narrative these days.

Pretty much means that the US and UK citizens who go along with that policy and don't voice opposition to are pretty much Terrorists by proxy...so technically the game is accurate..technically.

Seriously though, i agree that 'games' are an effective form of subliminal directing and steering, and the idea being pushed in this particular game is exactly what you imply in this thread...or what George Jnr said.."if you're not with us, you're against us" (even if we're breaking the law and staging the 'terror' ourselves)

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Danbones
next will be drones

Only if you elect Rand Paul as President.
You won't see drones used on US soil under Obama.

they are already being "used" all over american soil
AND

Holder noted in one of his own speeches last year he had made it clear the United States would only use lethal force against an American citizen "who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or its associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans." He also said no American would be targeted unless he or she posed an imminent threat and could not be captured.

www.cnn.com...


they will be waco-ing weddings soon

Originally posted by Sankari
So this game involves a bunch of domestic terrorists who strap bombs to people before throwing them out the window—and people here are rooting for the terrorists?

Here's a tip folks: putting 'Patriot' in your name doesn't make you the good guy. You can call yourselves 'The First Line Constitution-Loving Christian Freedom Patriots of the Lord for an Independent Capitalist America', but if you murder innocent civilians with bombs, you're still nothing but a bunch of filthy terrorists.

People are rooting for the 'terrorists' because people are beginning to realise that there is no good or evil with this.
This recent US, UK, FR alliance that's come about in the Middle East in the last few years has been bombing targets with no access to SAM defences and supplying weapons to groups which in simple terms are terrorist groups. Our Governments kill thousands each year, possibly hundreds of thousands by proxy, yet if someone domestically bombs and kills a few dozen people its called 'terrorism' and its hyped up by the media.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support acts of violence on innocents to get a political message across, but our countries right now are being handed to corporations on a plate like never before. There is an argument that if the right targets were hit (aka Fight Club style, blowing up the bank servers) it ceases to be terrorism and constitutes a legitimate target.

You have to be careful that we don't just accept anyone who resists a corrupt Government a 'terrorist'. This kind of black and white thinking does nothing but acerbate the issues.

reply to post by Sankari

but if you murder innocent civilians with bombs, you're still nothing but a bunch of filthy terrorists.

so you consider obama a "filthy terrorist"?

There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one "suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscient of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.

just because one has the title "president" in front of their name doesn't mean they're the good guys. and BOOM goes the dynamite.

Nelson Mandella was a terrorist to the apartheid system
Anybody who accuses a government of abuse of power is called a terrorist and this is simple brain washing kids and game players.

I think this game opens up a whole can of worms...

Let's start off with a simple premise. Most members of ATS would like to see some genuine accountability dished out to those perceived as the antagonists of the current world-wide situation. Government administrations, law enforcing agencies, bankers, wall street stock-brokers, and shadowy cabals that seem to be steering the world towards some form of globalised agenda that most ordinary citizens (regardless of country) may well not agree with, nor wants to be a part of. We may disagree ethically with what is unfolding, and rightly feel utterly helpless as the agenda rolls out. We are, in fact, totally defenceless, except in a scenario where we ourselves do the defending, but we know we cannot get people engaged enough to the issues surrounding them so that they would sacrifice their lives in defence of a world they themselves would like to see established. This why the world situation is as it is.

Now suppose with this game, the player can choose which side to play as...as a Rainbow 6 operative, or as one member of the so-called terrorist cell 'True Patriots'. Such a decision is the first ethical decision the game would present to the player. Indeed, for the developer of the game to allow the player to play a so-called terrorist would be an ethical decision.

I suppose, in analysis, the ethical choices the player will make will probably be made on what he/she perceives as 'good' and as 'evil'. In defence of your belief system, would you be willing to kill fellow compatriots to achieve, or in defence of, your aims? Would you see them as sacrificial and collateral essentials of your struggle to combat what you perceive as the 'evil' agenda and goal of your government and the network it uses? Yes, of course it is 'just' a game, but it closely mirrors real life in caricature, which is part of the game's immersive factor.

You may be able to find it within yourself to perceive government machinery, people and devices it uses, as being used unethically, and for an agenda you know you cannot accept. You know that you are fractured from its goals because you are inclined to a different ethical acceptance. You know you will never be able to subjugate yourself to the world your government is trying to realise, because you know and fear and believe it will be elitist, abusive, and restricting; draconian almost to a dictatorship, and rewarding to the wrong people whom do not merit their privilege.

It is easy to be ethical with the vote, to cast it once every four years and walk away with a clear and clean conscience, because after all, no one was murdered or killed from your participation in simply voting for one person over another...but is that true?

What if the person you voted for sends troops to another country in the guise of helping the people of that country to overthrow the so-called tinpot dictator whom has been killing his own people and abusing his power. In other words, you see that he is acting with evil intentions for good in order to overcome an evil, with his true agenda hidden from your understanding. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are killed in the process of 'liberation', and with the removal of the dictator, a power vacuum arises in which civilians are being murdered and killed daily as groups vie for the throne. Of course, you only made a tick or an 'x' at the ballot box, but that participation, regardless of how trivial and insignificant you think it, or how unconnected to the bigger world picture, helped to eventually open the door to the slaughter of people...do you think yourself culpable and complicit in their deaths. I should think no, because you will salve your conscience with the thought that it was never your intention, and you're not an evil and unethical person, you're a good person with a good heart. You will blame anything and everything else but your own participation...you will deny it utterly!

Perhaps, you may claim that you cannot be blamed for how your government acts, or for the slaughter and destruction it carries out in other countries, often in your name and for your security? Well, the truth is, yes, you can be blamed, because you do nothing to rein in its actions. As a people, and a nation, you stand idly by in full knowledge of what is being enacted in your name. Maybe some of you will only act when the miseries of other people of nations befall upon you by your own government? At that point, and only at that point, do you decide to act against what you now deem as atrocity.

You can now salve your conscience and ally it to your ethics and become a freedom fighter and a terrorist at the same time, because evil must fall, and good must reign supreme.

Originally posted by s4196606
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

If you commit a terrorist attack, you're a terrorist. Pretty straightforward. Just because someone does it for a political reason doesn't change the fact that you're still a terrorist. I don't know much about the game (I think Tom Clancy's books and games suck) but its probably not without precedent. And fighting right wing terrorists seems more fun than the usual call of duty style 'shoot everyone with an accent in the face' style of shooting game, at least its something new
so I guess S + F, Tom Clancy

Much of what you say is true however its very clear they are seeking to pejoratize the word "patriot". This has clear psyop value.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by s4196606
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

I think that the US government hasn't killed tens of thousands of US citizens in the name of preventing terrorism? Maybe a few here and there

so you think it less a crime to kill citizens of other countries?

Most governments will eat their own young as well as others. Whoevers on the plate.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
"The 2011 Spike TV Video Game Awards showed off lots of interesting trailers, but the video for Rainbow Six: Patriots was definitely one of the most disturbing, showcasing a terrorist attack led by the game’s fictional ‘True Patriots’, a U.S. group that wants to exact revenge upon the banks and corporations on Wall Street for destroying the country’s economy."

news.softpedia.com...

This is starting to get insane. Pretty much anyone that doesn't agree with the state narrative is a terrorist.

edit on 15-6-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)

In a certain way. I can back your play.



And V is the number 5 for the five pointed star. Not like this ^. But like this V.
Remember remember the fifth of of NoVVVVV.

reply to post by randyvs


Just adding to your post:

The first unambiguous evidence of the use of the insulting V sign in England dates to 1901, when a worker outside Parkgate ironworks in Rotherham used the gesture (captured on the film) to indicate that he did not like being filmed.[21]

source:en.wikipedia.org...

Example:




The positive meaning of victory came later on (note that Crowley gets in the mix.there's more for Churchill if you look around). As if WWII wasn't shady enough already.