@ Rastre: I hope that you change your way of thinking because one day you’ll be shot for saying that.

But basically I’m pretty sure the game is trying to draw attention to the dilemma which the US finds itself in.

If you DON’T kill the “terrorists”, they blow up, innocent civilians are killed, and the US gets blamed.

If you DO kill the “terrorists”, you WILL create casualties, and the US gets blamed.

There is no way to prevent “collateral damage” at the given moment. The US Army is composed of humans. Humans make mistakes, especially under extreme pressure as is the norm in wartime. There are certainly ways to minimize the damage, and to be fair I think the US cases are getting overblown because… well, it’s the US. You know Russia and the Beslan Hostage Crisis? Although that certainly is an extreme example, it seems we’re making more of a big deal over a single US incident than the entire fiasco of a “rescue operation” that occurred.

No, I don’t mean to say it’s better for some people to die that others; it’s not. However, that’s the nature of this beast called war. Human lives are valuable, but sometimes you have to make extremely difficult calls, because there are just some situations where some can’t be saved. Even if you pull off a spectacular raid where you kill all hostage takers with zero collateral, you still couldn’t save the hostage takers, right?

OKAYYYYYYYYYYYYY I think I’ve ranted long enough lol. I just wanted people (like diasp0ra lol) to understand another point of view. Until we can make an army of super-perfect uber robot soldiers who do everything perfectly (until they turn on us), chances are, situations like this will continue to happen until the human race gets over its love of killing itself (in which case, the robot soldiers are infinitely more likely to happen first :P)

Tyrnek out.

Because it is one thing to kill 2 civilians to stop a terrorist from killing 20, but… it is also treating terrorists like they are cockroaches that materialize out of thin air, “hating freedom” and making casual suicide bombing in a whim. It is precisely this senseless killing of civilians that create terrorists in the first case. If you generated more terrorists for each civilian killed, then I think the point would be clearer (that is, if I’m not misunderstanding the point altogether, but any other point would be tasteless and senseless).

…aaaaand that’s what the game is all about. Yay games!

Way to prove yourself to be a moron twice in half a line of text.

It’s beyond disrespectful. And people like Raestre prove why games such as these are problematic.
Anyway, enjoy the “game”.

But as i said. If you disregard the innocent civilians in order to complete your goals, how are you any better than the Terrorists?

Tasteless game. So if you need to butcher countless innocents to stop the “OMG TERRORISTS”, how exactly are you any better than them?

“this is obviously a game where you kill civilians by accident because it’s more important to your mission to stop suicide bombers from detonating.”

Sounds more like an excuse for the high civilian death toll in recent years.