Black Ops 2 An Unintentional Pakistani Perspective on The War on Terror

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981

For "there is "significant evidence" of the practice of "double-tap" strikes in which rescuers arriving at the scene are targeted in follow-up attacks"

And this evidence can be found where exactly?

Follow the link:

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf

page 88 on the pdf or 74 of the actual report.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

For everyone who didn't have China yell at the US for allowing the Cordis Die to control US drones, don't kill Titan Zaho and see what happens.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Drone attacks coordinated by the Pakistani army(like in Musharraff's time) is something I would support. Those are people who know exactly what a Pustoon wedding or funeral looks like. They know what is Panchayat is, they know what a Madarassa is. They know how to differentiate between one bearded guy with a turban and AK47 from another bearded guy with a turban and AK47. They know that almost everyone, Taliban or otherwise in certain parts of Khayber PukhtoonKhua(NWFP) and Balockistan is armed and some of those arms are used against the Taliban.

In Black Ops 2 China would not know the difference between US-controlled drones and Cordis Die-controlled drones. Should it be allowed to destroy every drone and drone control outpost or launchpads (along with their entire crew) it sees?
In real life the US can't be expected to know, with complete certainty, the difference between a Pukhtooon civilian and a Taliban.

 

[srm79]

Are you implying that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism accepted a bribe to concoct false investigations?

No, as it turns out they don't actually require a bribe. They're quite capable of coming up with utter bolleaux all by themselves. Guess who the latest organisation is to be facing financial ruin after wrongly accusing a British Peer of sex crimes? The very organisation which produced the BBC Newsnight item that kicked it all off. And who could that be?

Step forward, er, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism...

Who, while pretending to be independent, are in bed with that stalwart of honesty and integrity in journalism, the BBC.

Just sayin'...

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This is just a list of rationalizations. The morality of an act shouldn't be measured relative to WWII. Punching you in the face isn't as bad as WWII, but that doesn't mean it's OK.

stopped reading here:

What is and is not okay is not the same as what is and is not necessary.

Which has exactly nothing to do with my point.

Further more, the very fact that you're making comparisons between complicated issues with multiple variables and interacting (often opposing) viewpoints and ideologies to a simple and direct scenario with no context at all (You punching him in the face) is absurd.

No it isn't. You are cramming an argument in there that I never intended to make. Just take my words for what they actually mean and no more.

Edit: To clarify, I don't exactly disagree with you, but find the logic used to construct this argument to be questionable at best.

I'm not sure what you think the "argument" even is.

Are you implying that the Bureau of Investigative Journalism accepted a bribe to concoct false investigations?

No, as it turns out they don't actually require a bribe. They're quite capable of coming up with utter bolleaux all by themselves. Guess who the latest organisation is to be facing financial ruin after wrongly accusing a British Peer of sex crimes? The very organisation which produced the BBC Newsnight item that kicked it all off. And who could that be?

Step forward, er, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism...

Who, while pretending to be independent, are in bed with that stalwart of honesty and integrity in journalism, the BBC.

Just sayin'...

Regardless, their methodology in documenting the facts relevant to this discussion was thorough, conservative, and corroborated by third-party sources. If they are being seriously challenged by anyone who doesn't work for the White House, I have yet to hear of it. So are we accepting the veracity of the evidence relevant to this discussion or not?

 

[Frission]

It's still just the words of some journalist or other third party. It doesn't make it fact.

Huh, you did hear about the death recent deaths of Pakistani soldiers by U.S drones right? The whole reason the U.S had an even worse relationship with Pakistan?

Don't even make me mention the funeral that Rooster mentioned earlier. A U.S drone killed several people including a village elder. I won't even on the message I quoted above.

U.S drones may be a better way to fight than ground troops, but trying to rationalize civilian deaths or "collateral damage" in areas which should be our allies is pretty despicable (including the allies, see the Pakistani soldiers example above). Especially considering the fact that Pakistan repeatedly asked the U.S to stop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18320431

Besides, the part about the journalists strikes me that you would ignore sources and just believe whatever you cooked up.

 

[albedo]

Food for thought, we take care care of our crazies in-house! SHOCKER! And you know, no one has complete control over anything, I can understand that. I certainly wouldnt blame Pakistan just because we found Bin Laden in a hole somewhere in some remote region.

Oh wait...we found him in the Pakistan version of the HAMPTONS. And then the government proceeded to go after the people who helped us find him!

You know, before we found Bin Laden I believed that Pakistan took a neutral position in the whole conflict. I thought they did not want to piss off either side too much and profit from both. A reasonable position, can't blame them for doing that. And then we found Mr.Binny. Rather than...you know...be quiet and let the fact slide that we found him in a mansion near a prominent part of pakistan which proves that SOMEONE high up in the government knew where he was, they instead went on the offensive. Hmm, that is not what someone who is sitting on the fence would do. They get caught with their hand in the cookie jar from playing both sides the more pertinent thing to do is to try to let the issue die as fast as you can.

Sorry, I trust Pakistan about as far as I can throw them. But hell...im sure this is all India's fault somehow. Whoops, isnt that what Pakistan does? Blames India for anything and everything that ever happens, has happened, or will happen?

And why isnt this in the R+P section where it belongs?

 

[Knight Templar]

I don't think the situations in Bloops 2 and Pakistan are similar at all.

I don't see it at all.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

I don't think the situations in Bloops 2 and Pakistan are similar at all.

I don't see it at all.

Don't complete the final strike mission. Then, the political situation the US finds itself in is the same as the one Pakistan finds itself in. I should have mentioned the not killing Titan part in the first post.

 

[zumbledum]

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

which country are you from? for i cant think of many that either dont or havent had complete control. and not all nations are blessed with wealth and technology

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Food for thought, we take care care of our crazies in-house! SHOCKER! And you know, no one has complete control over anything, I can understand that. I certainly wouldnt blame Pakistan just because we found Bin Laden in a hole somewhere in some remote region.

Oh wait...we found him in the Pakistan version of the HAMPTONS. And then the government proceeded to go after the people who helped us find him!

You know, before we found Bin Laden I believed that Pakistan took a neutral position in the whole conflict. I thought they did not want to piss off either side too much and profit from both. A reasonable position, can't blame them for doing that. And then we found Mr.Binny. Rather than...you know...be quiet and let the fact slide that we found him in a mansion near a prominent part of pakistan which proves that SOMEONE high up in the government knew where he was, they instead went on the offensive. Hmm, that is not what someone who is sitting on the fence would do. They get caught with their hand in the cookie jar from playing both sides the more pertinent thing to do is to try to let the issue die as fast as you can.

Sorry, I trust Pakistan about as far as I can throw them. But hell...im sure this is all India's fault somehow. Whoops, isnt that what Pakistan does? Blames India for anything and everything that ever happens, has happened, or will happen?

And why isnt this in the R+P section where it belongs?

Other people hijacked the thread, I was discussing the symbolism in Black Ops 2.
Also here is an update about the Bin Ladin raid.
http://dawn.com/2012/11/17/pakistan-didnt-know-whereabouts-of-osama-us/

And the doctor, he was spying for a foreign country, that is a criminal offense the world over, just because he was doing it for the US we should let him go?
We already let Raymond Davis get away with murder of innocent civilians.
We let you army get away with killing Pakistani soldiers on Salala check-post and Obama did not even apologize and tried to blame us. Just imagine the outcry if a Pakistani helicopter did that to NATO in Afghanistan.
Zardari constantly lets you get away with drone attacks.
Why don't you just nuke us already, would another war make you happy?

 

[Erttheking]

...seriously, please take this to religion and politics. Enough flaming goes on on a regular basis in this thread, we don't need to add onto it with bringing up politics.

 

[sageoftruth]

While drones may be less destructive than some alternatives, nonetheless the responsibility for the deaths they cause is ours. Despite the shameless lies of U.S. officials, many civilians are killed in drone strikes on a regular basis. Beware of false dichotomies. 'Drone strikes versus carpet bombing' was never the choice before us.

You sound a bit more knowledgeable about this than me. I think the important question right now is, what should we do? I only support drones because as far as I can tell, they seem like the best way to reduce civilian deaths, aside from pulling out of the field entirely, which I'm undecided on. In the field, with their lives at stake, soldiers cannot always be counted on to be composed enough to consider civilian lives, and I cannot think of a more calculated and safe way to offer military support than by using drones.

Are you arguing that we pull out completely? If that's the case, then that would certainly be the best way to reduce innocent deaths, but I'll need to do more research before I can discuss whether or not it's a good idea.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

...seriously, please take this to religion and politics. Enough flaming goes on on a regular basis in this thread, we don't need to add onto it with bringing up politics.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this now.
Every one of my posts on this thread was linked to Black Ops 2, but other people want to drag politics into this(without relating it to Black Ops 2 or other games and metaphors they can be used as).

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

snip

There was also a rather entertaining slight at president Obama as the Obama carrier is used to fuck everything in the world up.

Call me old fashioned, but a nation should be responsible for the people within its borders. If it can't govern that, then its not much of a nation and can hardly complain when someone else cleans up their mess.

I agree with this sentiment


Also, was I the only one who noticed that the only drones to go rogue were the some of the aerial drones? The satellite kinetic weapons still worked, the quads still worked, the CLAWS still worked...

I thoroughly enjoyed the game though, and I am tempted to go back through to see what the outcomes of various other choices are. Also...I feel bad for Chloe xD poor girl.

So you are a war-mongering Republican? I think you would enjoy that Doorfighter game much more than Black Ops 2.

Also, the game was praising Obama and David Petraeus(who is probably the Secretary of State in the game).
And you can save Chole by

Spoiler

saving Farid

But I do support the way the drones were used during the Bush era when Pakistani approval was sought before use, there was much less chance for collateral damage and they weren't a propaganda tool for the terrorists, Guantanamo Bay and Dr. Asia was the biggest tool they had back then, and they weren't very useful on most of the population.
Now, weather or not they cause civilian deaths, the ARE a propaganda tool for the Taliban(I live in Pakistan, I have more perspective on this, you are commenting from the sidelines).

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I really don't know what could be done to stop Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drone bombings aren't the right way, though. We're not at war with these countries per se, just certain elements within them. It seems the west kills more civilians than terrorists. Whilst civilian casualties are tragic but understandable in actual country v country warfare, it's not right to endanger the lives of civilians for the purposes of the war on terror.

All that being said, something needs to be done about the Taliban etc. I just don't know what. you certainly can't defeat such a deeply entrenched mindset over night. You can't reason with terrorists.

I got as far as this is the thread before I felt an overwhelming need to speak, so I guess good job for that.
The reason so many civilians die is because these terrorist organisations are using them as human shields, not because they are being targeted by NATO or the US forces. There is no way we can possibly engage them while they're firing at us from behind what's essentially a wall of noncombatants. Not only are they hiding behind these seemingly unarmed people, but they're spread among them. The problem with guerilla warfare is that we don't know who's an enemy and who's neutral. We can't possibly know this without seeing a weapon, and by then it's usually too late for some of our soldiers. Add on the fact that terrorist organisations tend to use bombs and IEDs, which kill mass quantities of civilians and maybe some soldiers, and there is no way we can successfully keep civilian deaths from happening. Even now, our Rules of Engagement regarding how to respond to hostile action in the Middle East are so restrictive that they can essentially fire on our forces without fear of any retaliation.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

I never saw where it praised obama in there, as I said I saw it more as a underhanded slight instead.

I didnt even see it as a slight. I saw it as "We name most of our carriers after presidents[footnote]USS George HW Bush, USS Harry Truman, USS Ronald Reagan, USS Dwight Eisenhower, USS Theodore Roosevelt, etc. The oddballs out are the USS Carl Vinson (a senator from Georgia who helped the Navy alot) and the USS Chester Nimitz (head admiral in WW2)[/footnote]." Although, now that you mention it, I could see that though.

On the Chloe matter, See this is a good direction for CoD to take, encourages multiple play through. I will probably start on my second next week, hopefully I can access all my unlocked guns from the start this time.

Yes, very much so. I havent really liked Call of Duty since the original Modern Warfare (Black Ops 1 was good though), but Black Ops 2 was AWSOME.

OT: I didnt really see this as a "this is what its like for Pakistan" as the game. No, it was something else...something I have already been preaching and am very adament about. It is sumed up in a quote by Woods in the announcement trailer. "We built computers, robots?whole unmanned armies and no one ever asked: What happens when the enemy steals the keys?" I saw this game as being critical of warfare becoming more reliant on drones than on human fighters, and this is something I already believe is a problem.