Video Games blamed for US Massacre in Iraq

[JWAN]

So... do they just get away with accidentally killing 12 people? Mistake or not, that is multiple homicide caused by unnecesary violence... am I right?

Not if you happen to be in the military. That's simply a casualty of war.

Laws for Civilians and Laws for Military Personnel in a battle situation are very different.

You still get prosecuted.

 

[evilninja60]

wait

so...did they get the high score?

They would have, but they got points deducted for each civilian killed. If it wasn't for the mission complete bonus they would have actually lost points.

wait...you get points deducted for civilian kills? crap that means i'm in the negatives...haha its funny cause i'm actually in the US military haha

 

[ImpostorZim]

So... do they just get away with accidentally killing 12 people? Mistake or not, that is multiple homicide caused by unnecesary violence... am I right?

Not if you happen to be in the military. That's simply a casualty of war.

Laws for Civilians and Laws for Military Personnel in a battle situation are very different.

I see... But the guy in this video said they COULD be prosecuted. This is very hard evidence.

 

[Void(null)]

So... do they just get away with accidentally killing 12 people? Mistake or not, that is multiple homicide caused by unnecesary violence... am I right?

Not if you happen to be in the military. That's simply a casualty of war.

Laws for Civilians and Laws for Military Personnel in a battle situation are very different.

I see... But the guy in this video said they COULD be prosecuted. This is very hard evidence.

Except the Military had already conducted an investigation into the incident and had determined that the rules of engagement had been followed and those whom were involved in the incident had done nothing wrong.

 

[Samcanuck]

I'll tell you whats to blame. The United States and its electorate.
Jesus.

 

[Syl4r]

Yes, because obviously there was never massacres in wartime before video games! All armies were kind, polite, and good mannered, and were one hair on a civilians hair touched, all the soldiers were reprimanded for being naughty!

Yes, there really is no depths to which the anti-videogame people will drop to, even if it means cheapening the deaths of innocents, to make us look like maniacs. How pathetic.

What those soldiers were doing, utterly abhorrent though it was, is no different then what other armies did in the past. It exists from a military culture that makes it its goal to desensitize its soldiers, not videogames. Look at footage of smiling Japanese soldiers taking potshots at Chinese civilians during Nanjing and tell me that's any different.

This.
Simply, this.

 

[JWAN]

So... do they just get away with accidentally killing 12 people? Mistake or not, that is multiple homicide caused by unnecesary violence... am I right?

Not if you happen to be in the military. That's simply a casualty of war.

Laws for Civilians and Laws for Military Personnel in a battle situation are very different.

I see... But the guy in this video said they COULD be prosecuted. This is very hard evidence.

You can still be prosecuted up to life in prison. Considering this is a straight up accident the gunner and whoever ID'd the target will get reprimanded. They followed all the rules

 

[JWAN]

So... do they just get away with accidentally killing 12 people? Mistake or not, that is multiple homicide caused by unnecesary violence... am I right?

Not if you happen to be in the military. That's simply a casualty of war.

Laws for Civilians and Laws for Military Personnel in a battle situation are very different.

I see... But the guy in this video said they COULD be prosecuted. This is very hard evidence.

Except the Military had already conducted an investigation into the incident and had determined that the rules of engagement had been followed and those whom were involved in the incident had done nothing wrong.

Exactly
It was an awful accident

 

[Chester41585]

Not this bullshit video again.

 

[Audio]

"Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle"

Surely it's their fault they where carrying Box shapped guns and acted suspiciously by running away from being shot at *rolleyes*

The reference to computer games was a low blow...the classic cliché of low 'soldier IQ' fits better.

 

[BonsaiK]

Are you fucking kidding me? Who the hell is stupid enough to think that this was caused by video games???

Nobody. Obviously you've made the same mistake that the OP has. Read my post at the top of this page.

I didn't make a "Mistake" simply because I do not agree with your point of view. It is an unreasonable and prejudiced comparison to make, and its one based upon the point of view that all gamers are desensitized psychopathic killers in the making.

That happens to be my point of view, that point of view differs from yours... that does not make me "Mistaken."

Actually, yes it does. You're loading completely gamer-neutral language with your perceptions as a gamer, just because gaming was mentioned, and thus twisting the meaning of the statement into something that isn't actually being said, or even remotely inferred. It's a subtle grammatical distinction, but an important one. I'll attempt to explain this in as simple a way as I can for you:

Do (some) gamers enjoy virtual killing? Yes they do, absolutely. (Let's face it, if the gamer playing a game where they have to shoot stuff isn't enjoying the virtual killing, it probably isn't a very good game.) I'm one of them, I absolutely love it, if a day passes where I don't get to virtually headshot someone, then I am a sad panda. I think we can all agree on this point that some gamers do enjoy virtual killing.

The Wikileaks man is arguing (correctly or incorrectly) that the soldiers in the video who are killing people in real life, are enjoying the real killing in the same way that a video gamer might enjoy virtual killing.

He is not saying:

* that enjoying virtual killing is bad, in any way, shape or form
* that virtual killing desensitizes people to real killing
* that virtual killing makes someone more likely to engage in or enjoy real killing
* that gamers are somehow potential murderers because they enjoy virtual killing
* that the incident shown was directly related to, or the fault of, gaming in any way

He is drawing a metaphorical relationship between two unrelated things (virtual killing and real killing) in order to illustrate his point: that the military react to the violence as if it is virtual, not real - in the manner that a computer gamer might react to virtual violence. He is not saying or inferring any more than that, and to extrapolate from his statement that he somehow is prejudiced against gamers or thinks that gamers are violent or sociopathic is completely incorrect. Using something as a metaphor doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement, and it definitely doesn't in this case.

Your OP and thread title, as they stand, are encouraging knee-jerk "how dare they blame gaming" reactions from people too lazy to actually read the article, watch the videos and decode the message for themselves.

 

[mrdude2010]

or the massacre at mai lei [sp?] that was before video games too? didn't the plataeans of ancient greece slaughter some theban hostages at one point? thats about 2,500 years ago can we blame that on video games too?

 

[pwndnoob]

It's not a high score. That was soo 1993. They're obviously trying to get achievements. The best achievement is "Complete whole game without losing a life".

Why don't they turn friendly fire off? That would make everything easier!

 

[mip0]

HA! I don't believe that's very true that video games caused that or that there has been any massacre at al ok byebye what.

 

[the idiot computer]

Let's look at this as a what if scenario.

What if they were insurgents armed with RPG's and AK's, who would be to blame then? The pilots for not waiting for permission to shoot? Look let the horse rest in peace instead of being idiots and blaming others.

And besides nobody cares about highscores anymore.

 

[Void(null)]

He is drawing a metaphorical relationship between two unrelated things (virtual killing and real killing) in order to illustrate his point: that the military react to the violence as if it is virtual, not real - in the manner that a computer gamer might react to virtual violence. He is not saying or inferring any more than that, and to extrapolate from his statement that he somehow is prejudiced against gamers or thinks that gamers are violent or sociopathic is completely incorrect. Using something as a metaphor doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement, and it definitely doesn't in this case.

"The organization that broke the code of the video believes that it shows that the rules of engagement are far to lax and shows the reality of Generation X-Box at war."

How is that drawing a metaphorical relationship? That to me pretty clearly says: "Gamers are jaded sociopaths who lack the ability to make the distinction between fantasy and reality and treat murdering civilians like its a game" with absolutely no metaphorical relationship between two unrelated things.

Once again:

The reporter:
"The organization that broke the code of the video believes that it shows that the rules of engagement are far to lax and shows the reality of Generation X-Box at war."

From the Founder of Wikileaks:
"And the behavior of the pilots is like they are playing a computer game, their desire appears to be that they want to get high scores in that computer game."

 

[the idiot computer]

Call me mad but don't the military have simulators which have virtual killing? Does that make every engagment to blame for videogames? If anything they should help a soldier, not destroy them.

 

[Normalgamer]

Thanks to these assholes who don't check before they shoot, we now are going to have more martyrs! WOohooo! USA! USA! [/sarcasm]

 

[BonsaiK]

He is drawing a metaphorical relationship between two unrelated things (virtual killing and real killing) in order to illustrate his point: that the military react to the violence as if it is virtual, not real - in the manner that a computer gamer might react to virtual violence. He is not saying or inferring any more than that, and to extrapolate from his statement that he somehow is prejudiced against gamers or thinks that gamers are violent or sociopathic is completely incorrect. Using something as a metaphor doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement, and it definitely doesn't in this case.

"The organization that broke the code of the video believes that it shows that the rules of engagement are far to lax and shows the reality of Generation X-Box at war."

How is that drawing a metaphorical relationship? That to me pretty clearly says: "Gamers are jaded sociopaths who lack the ability to make the distinction between fantasy and reality and treat murdering civilians like its a game" with absolutely no metaphorical relationship between two unrelated things.

Once again:

The reporter:
"The organization that broke the code of the video believes that it shows that the rules of engagement are far to lax and shows the reality of Generation X-Box at war."

From the Founder of Wikileaks:
"And the behavior of the pilots is like they are playing a computer game, their desire appears to be that they want to get high scores in that computer game."

I still think you're reading too much into it. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.