Sign in to follow this  
davidedney123

C & C Generals

Recommended Posts

Now I'm not someone who offends at all easily, and find all the usual jokes about various nationalities as funny as everyone does (secretly or otherwise), but I must say that I truly and honestly found the way Arabs (and don't give me any stinker about how they were meant to be terrorists and I just associated that with Arabs, just listen to the pathetic accents) were potrayed in that game was extremely offensive. I enjoyed playing the game, but that really has soured my impression of it. Here in the west we really think we're clever, looking at people in the middle east buying into their leaders pathetic and transparent propoganda without question, but when you see trash like this it really makes you realise that we are just as much victims of propganda, but it is usually slightly more subtle. Or am I mistaken, and is this truly how the majority of Americans view Arabs? I have never, ever felt moved to complain about anything of this nature before, but I thought this was absolutely sodding awful. Cheers for listening to my rant,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree on this point. Firstly, they are not the "Arabs". This group is called the "Global Liberation Army" and is meant to imitate Al Qaeda in most respects. I think it may overstep some bounds, but Al Qaeda operates with tunnel networks, suicide bombers, etc, so most of it is somewhat accurate. People are very sensitive to issues with 9/11 influence, and I think care is needed before passing judgement.

Now I'm not someone who offends at all easily, and find all the usual jokes about various nationalities as funny as everyone does (secretly or otherwise), but I must say that I truly and honestly found the way Arabs (and don't give me any stinker about how they were meant to be terrorists and I just associated that with Arabs, just listen to the pathetic accents) were potrayed in that game was extremely offensive.  I enjoyed playing the game, but that really has soured my impression of it.  Here in the west we really think we're clever, looking at people in the middle east buying into their leaders pathetic and transparent propoganda without question, but when you see trash like this it really makes you realise that we are just as much victims of propganda, but it is usually slightly more subtle.  Or am I mistaken, and is this truly how the majority of Americans view Arabs?  I have never, ever felt moved to complain about anything of this nature before, but I thought this was absolutely sodding awful.  Cheers for listening to my rant,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware that they were called the GLA, but all of the accents were piss poor attempts at middle eastern accents and it really was crystal clear that they were not our own, home grown, terrorist groups. The way that the GLA was portrayed in the game may fit in with the view of the rest of the world that CNN present to the US, but does not fit in at all well with the facts. I have no paticular love of Arabs but I think that the way that all of the media has rejoyced in inciting racial hatred against them is truly sickening, and is a fantastic example of how the very intelligent people behind the mass media pander to the fears and prejudices of the ignorant. We all like having someone to hate, after all.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't most (if not all) of the 9/11 terrorists Saudi Arabian? Isn't that an Arabic country? Aren't most of the Palestinian suicide bombers that attack Israeli civilians funded by Syria, Iran and Iraq? Those are Arabic nations as well. Yes, it is wrong to portray all Arabs and/or Muslims as terrorists, as it is quite clear that most of them are not. It is only the extremists who taint the image of their brethren. However, I think the game was solely depicting a terrorist organization - not the entire Arab or Muslim world. It is similar to C&C: Red Alert's depiction of the Communist Soviet Union. On a side note: while no country is perfect in their handling of foreign affairs, I have yet to hear any powerful Muslim cleric denounce terrorist attacks. Any person understands that killing anyone on the name of God is wrong. Islam was not founded upon killing, and its true believers must work to stop suicide bombings in the name of Allah. Davidedney123, your extreme bias against America is duly noted, as it is quite evident you fail to see both sides of the world's dilemmas. Let's not forget Britain's former empire ("the sun never sets on the British Empire"). India, Hong Kong, South African regime's, etc. The UK's handling of foreign affairs is not morally superior to anyone's, lest we forget centuries of history. French and German critics must also look at their own nations' sordid pasts before they scream moral outrage against US and Israeli "war crimes." No country is innocent of such acts, but we all must strive towards a peaceful solution. Sometimes, there is no peaceful solution. Self-righteous people who conveniently forget their own history while claiming to be the moral authority are the truly sickening ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the UK Governments handling of foreign affairs is any better than that of the US or just about any other country. The British empire was a particularly bloody, brutal and ugly period in world history for the citizens of the "colonies", but it is in the past and so nothing can be done about it. It just seems a shame that nothing has been learned from that episode regarding the treatment of nations less powerful than your own. Regarding your comments on terrorism, you would do well to remember that a terrorist organisation is only labelled as such until it wins - then they are remembered as freedom fighters. Their tactics of indiscriminate killing are disgusting and shameful and it is made worse by the fact that they do it in the name of religion, and I fully understand why so many people in the US feel so strongly against them. If it were a single nation rather than a spread out nest of rats who had organised the attacks of september 11th an appropriate response would be far more forthcoming, but the current US answer of the age old strong arm tactics is not likely to work in this case and will most probably make the problem worse by giving the terrorists a new rallying call. How many times will we need to learn the lesson that you can't fight guerillas by conventional means? Any more civillian deaths strengthen their cause. Unfortunately they do have reasons to be disgruntled (again I stress that I in no way support their actions, and I believe a lot of the members of these organisations are driven merely by hate and a lust for killing rather than any noble ideas about freedom), and their organisations are like mangy garden weeds, with very little viewable under the surface but a large network of near indestructible roots underneath. I think the aim of eradicating these groups is unachievable, and the most important efforts should be directed towards intelligence so that we can stop as many attacks as possible before they occur. In the UK we never managed to get rid of the IRA and our efforts to do so managed to do little more than strengthen the feeling against the British in Ireland and make the organisations stronger - all of these situations are so awkward because you cannot do nothing, but all of the things that you know to do will most likely just make things worse. Strange that you never get games where the enemies are the Irish and the good guys the British, or where the bad guys are the anarchists, religious fanatics or ant establishment crazies in the US - it is always along racial grounds that the good guys and the bad guys are set. The truth in situations like the one we are in is that both guys are as good and as bad as you want them to be depending on who you are, your point of view, and who you listen to.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that the UK Governments handling of foreign affairs is any better than that of the US or just about any other country.  The British empire was a particularly bloody, brutal and ugly period in world history for the citizens of the "colonies", but it is in the past and so nothing can be done about it.  It just seems a shame that nothing has been learned from that episode regarding the treatment of nations less powerful than your own.  Regarding your comments on terrorism, you would do well to remember that a terrorist organisation is only labelled as such until it wins - then they are remembered as freedom fighters.  Their tactics of indiscriminate killing are disgusting and shameful and it is made worse by the fact that they do it in the name of religion, and I fully understand why so many people in the US feel so strongly against them.  If it were a single nation rather than a spread out nest of rats who had organised the attacks of september 11th an appropriate response would be far more forthcoming, but the current US answer of the age old strong arm tactics is not likely to work in this case and will most probably make the problem worse by giving the terrorists a new rallying call.  How many times will we need to learn the lesson that you can't fight guerillas by conventional means?  Any more civillian deaths strengthen their cause.  Unfortunately they do have reasons to be disgruntled (again I stress that I in no way support their actions, and I believe a lot of the members of these organisations are driven merely by hate and a lust for killing rather than any noble ideas about freedom), and their organisations are like mangy garden weeds, with very little viewable under the surface but a large network of near indestructible roots underneath.  I think the aim of eradicating these groups is unachievable, and the most important efforts should be directed towards intelligence so that we can stop as many attacks as possible before they occur.  In the UK we never managed to get rid of the IRA and our efforts to do so managed to do little more than strengthen the feeling against the British in Ireland and make the organisations stronger - all of these situations are so awkward because you cannot do nothing, but all of the things that you know to do will most likely just make things worse.  Strange that you never get games where the enemies are the Irish and the good guys the British, or where the bad guys are the anarchists, religious fanatics or ant establishment crazies in the US - it is always along racial grounds that the good guys and the bad guys are set.  The truth in situations like the one we are in is that both guys are as good and as bad as you want them to be depending on who you are, your point of view, and who you listen to.

Dave

Oh yes, 'violence never solves anything'... If you look at how Iraq treats nations less powerfull than its self. (over running them to rape, plunder and pillage) we treat Iraq very nicely. Do you think if saddam had nuclear weapons, and a massive army, he'd not take over the middle east, or do other dasterdly acts, as he as done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean he might behave how the west has been doing in the Middle East and the rest of the world for the last 400 years? Anyway, nobody has presented any evidence worth pissing over to link Iraq to terrorism. Iraq was, of course, our friend when they were fighting Iran as the Taliban were our friends when they were fighting Soviets but that fact occured long before the last ad break on TV so most people seem to have forgotten about it. If you truly believe that the motivation behind what happened in Afghanistan and in Iraq were entirely noble and just, and were about bringing freedom to poor opressed people then you'll belive just about anyone. The arguments about how badly he has treated his own people can't be used as a reason to attack Iraq because our best buddies the Saudi Arabians have done the same and then some, as have most nations through the Middle East, and attempts to link Iraq with international terrorism have provided no evidence that would even be considered suitable for prosecution by Columbo. That's the most mysterious thing about what is happening there - there was clear motivation for attacking Afghanistan, but there isn't really anything new going on in Iraq to justify this attack. The North Koreans are a far greater risk to international security as they actually do have weapons of mass destruction and the often overlooked delivery systems, but then I suppose that attacking them may annoy China, so it is far better to attack a country that has already proved to be virtually defenseless and has no potent allies to back it up. Violence does solve a lot of things, but it helps if you know what you are trying to solve first. I do, however, think that the problem of international terrorism will (sadly) not be solved by satisfying violence on it's own. Earlier today there was a story on the news about the UK and US embassies in New Zealand (might have been Aus?) recieving crystals of cyanide through the post along with letters that more was to follow - terrorism of this nature isn't a large organised force like an army or a nation, it is a brotherhood of crazy sods who are loosely affiliated and perform acts of violence for a common cause. There isn't a central command that you can destroy, because all it takes to wreak havoc is a few motivated and sufficiently mad people - all the military might in the world will not stop a determined man from strapping explosives to his back and running into a crowded building. The only chance you have of stopping that is to try and pick up on who's been buying explosives who shouldn't be, and who's been stockpiling arms and suchlike - but that doesn't make for the same satisfaction as carpet bombing and dropping stinker down caves so isn't as popular. It's also very boring for the current affairs programs. I would imagine that the US intelligence community is smarting a little from failing to pick up on the events of September 11th before they happened, and hopefully have re-evaluated their techniques to stop anything that large and organised happening again.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, rant or not your posts are just too difficult to read with out paragraph breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to exclude any talk about history and US government foreign policy. I will just stick to C&C: Generals.

I agree that if the GLA was supposed to be an accurate representation of Arabs around the world, then yes it would be insulting. The fact is that it's not. They have piss-poor accents yes, but the accents for the chinese are equally bad (not to mention that they NEED to speak english for us to be able to understand). Some things in the game may be inappropriate, but previous C&C titles were no better in that regard.

The truth is that if this game had come out before the 9/11 attacks, this would really not be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about the paragraph breaks - didn't realise I was doing it! So what did everyone think of the game otherwise? I've been playing it over a LAN with two others, so just three in a game and it keeps pausing for a second or so at a time, even though none of the machines playing it are in the slightest bit weedy. Also I found the single player campaigns were very short, although it seems to me that games in general are getting shorter.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came in this thread to read what others thought about the game C&C:Generals (which I recently bought) and I find some dude who is offended about a tangential and semi-obscure ethnic gaming reference.

Man, get some perspective already!

Are you equally offended when 12 little birthday girls are blown up at a Pizzaria on BenGurion street by some crazed Palestinian suicide-bomber?

Are you equally offended when a young couple dancing in a club in TelAviv--whose greatest desire is to live the rest of their lives together--are smeared on the wall along with 20 other people by the explosive force of 500lbs of TNT ?

Are you offended when PETA nutjobs compare the beef industry with the Jewish Holocaust?

Are you offended by these things?

If I searched the forum index would I find previous postings from you decrying these crimes against humanity?

Here is the reason the game C&C doesn't have American/or Jewish terrorist groups as their antagonist in the game: it would not be believable. It is believeable to put Arab terrorists in a game. Why? They flew passenger jets into 2 really tall buildings and killed thousands of people!!!!!!! And then they did a little dance of joy.

Maybe if someone cloned Timothy McVeigh 500,000 times--- maybe, but otherwise, it is a no go.

Your complaint is not based in reality man.

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just gets my goat that "liberals" are always trying to censor other people (in this case a fantasy computer game) to fall into line with their pre-conceived notions of diversity and fairness.

However, in the real world, they are never "offended" by tyrants, murderers, despots, and totalitarians.

Saddam Hussein (who, incidentally is an Arab-- his regime is a close mimic of the GLA- he wants to be a modern Nebuchadnezzar ) has literally murdered one MILLION people in various hideous ways with chemical weapons, torture, and rape. He has broken one thousand thousand mother's hearts and brutalized just as many maiden's dreams of the future. He has stifled free-think, bridled imagination, subdued creativity, and suppressed individuality. His hands are drenched in the blood of a people....

And yet, we hear that the enemy of humanity is George Bush.... and to top it off the defenders of our freedom want you to know that "C&C Generals" is criminally bigoted.

Let's just hope that Saddam doesn't get a copy over there in Bagdad. He might get his feelings hurt by the intolerant and insensitive programmers.

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point that far worse things happen in the world than racist bigotry in computer games, but the defense that "other people have done much worse things, so I should be able to do this" is not a particularly strong one. Also, I will take your suggestion that I am a liberal as a deep and personal insult :D

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey man, sorry about using the "L" word.

Seriously, if I had known you weren' one, I would have been less pejorative. I was in a particularly irritated mood that day.

I had recently watched Rosie O'Donnel on the Donahue show here in the states saying that if anyone should have their weapons of mass destruction taken away, it should be the U.S. (because we are the only ones who have used the 'bomb' in wartime). Arghh! Such stupidity.

Anyway, sorry about the passionate post. I will try to tone it down a notch or two.

Waterdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody once said a terrorist is a freedom fighter in disguise or the reversals, if this is so then it must follow that America is a country of terrorists sorry I mean freedom fighters because back in the time of freedom fighting the natives Indians were terrorized by these freedom fighters and not forgetting the British and I suppose all that means is if you have a big enough stick or weapon you are a freedom"terrorist " fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more the case that a freedom fighter is just a terrorist who won. Terrorism is abhorent when you are on the recieving side, but for the perpetrators it is often the only way they believe they can fight for their cause. The Nazis probably viewed the French Resistance as terrorists during the 2nd world war, and as you said the British probably saw Americans fighting for independence as terrorists.

Inidiscriminate blowing up of innocent people is always a shitty thing to do, but we always do it in every war we fight, so in our own way we are just as bad, but we always win so present ourselves as "fighting for freedom". I'm sure most terrorist groups believe that they are also defending/fighting for freedom and that God is on their side. They're all talking bollocks really, we're just fighting over economic control and that is how it has always been.

When we pretend that we're bombing Iraq back into the stone age for the good of the people that live there, to free them from the tyranny of their current administration we are just trying to make ourselves feel better. I'm don't think I or perhaps most of the population know the real reasons why we are attacking Iraq, but it's certainly not for freedom and I doubt it is because we are all shaking in our boots about their missiles with a 100 mile range and whatever pathetic imitation of western weapons they have to strap onto them and fire into Israel (who would respond by reducing Iraq to molten slag, if the Iraqi weapons could hit a target that small).

Dave

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone figure out why we're attacking Iraq? I can't. Nothing really seems to make sense (though perhaps it comprises many small things). Bush makes no sense on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone figure out why we're attacking Iraq?  I can't.  Nothing really seems to make sense (though perhaps it comprises many small things).  Bush makes no sense on this.

I think he wants to attack Iraq for a number of reasons:

-get a large number of US troops in the very center of the Gulf and establish a lasting military presence and a "friendly" (read: puppet) government.

-annoy Iran, Syria, Saudi-Arabia and the small ex-Soviet republics.

-destroy the UN as a meaningful political organisation. If the UN does as the US wishes it only becomes a lackey. If it doesn't the US will attack anyway and the UN loses all credibility. I'd call this a win-win situation.

-let the military use their toys once a decade and they're happy, especially when they can beat the crap out of a defenseless country. I don't see the US attacking, say, China, India or Israel.

-perhaps he has a testosterone problem? (among others)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, thanks, HMTK, but I was looking for *his* motivations, not the actual outcomes. Only the first and last really seems to fit that.

-get a large number of US troops in the very center of the Gulf and establish a lasting military presence and a "friendly" (read: puppet) government.

Why? Why bother? Why war?

-perhaps he has a testosterone problem? (among others)

Cowboy-itis. That's as good a reason as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

over a long period of time the American politics has bean to control and influence the politics of the world Hence the Iraq crisis,your president has already made it quite clear when he stated you are for us or against us and regardless of what the U.N. decides it will be the American way.

no one's country should have the right to dominate the world's politics and have no illusions just because you have one or two yes man countries on your side and a number of other countries which only god knows what tactics was used on them such as "I'm going to make you an offer that you cannot refuse " doesn't mean that you have the rights as a country to do as you like .

I would accept a war was acceptable with Iraq If there was a unanimous decision from the united nations without interference from the USA after all possibilities has been exhausted .

and one last thing never forgets it was American politics that installed Saddam Hussein in the beginning and gave him the possibility to wage war against Iran with America's blessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this