Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games

Leaked Modern Warfare 2 Footage Causes Outrage 543

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-this-bothers-you-avoid-the-dexter-game dept.
eldavojohn writes "Game Politics makes note of criticism over leaked footage from the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 release. (Spoiler warning.) Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists (relevant video begins at about 1:50, second source in case of DMCA). Several game sites are asking if this is taking things too far. Probably just advertising at work, but the footage is indeed controversial — the question remains whether or not it is out of context."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Modern Warfare 2 Footage Causes Outrage

Comments Filter:
  • WOW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by longfalcon (202977) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:44PM (#29899895) Homepage

    someone is managing the launch of this game really well....

    • The more publicized someone can get a product, the better.

      And the more controversial the product, the more that the people want to see what's up with it. Bam! Sales!

      And that's the American Way.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jgtg32a (1173373)
        Controversy only works on stupid people, not that I'm disagreeing with your point or anything.
      • by v1 (525388) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:33PM (#29900671) Homepage Journal

        It is called Modern Warfare. Terrorism is a very big part of modern warfare. Terrorists that know you'll do anything to avoid civilian casualties pretty much have you under their thumb. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the campaign involves making some hard decisions like getting a few civilians killed while taking out a pack of terrorists.

        People need to quit saying they want a "realistic" game, but just remove all the real stuff that we don't exactly like. No, you want realism, here it is. deal with it.

        • by Decameron81 (628548) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:51PM (#29900915)

          People need to quit saying they want a "realistic" game, but just remove all the real stuff that we don't exactly like. No, you want realism, here it is. deal with it.

          I think at least some of the people that want realism are referring to the physics mainly. In any case, I don't particularly enjoy games because of how much they resemble reality. Same for movies. I know the difference between a real war and a game, and I'm glad there IS a difference.

        • by Brian Gordon (987471) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:53PM (#29900935)

          Did you watch the video? It's a squad walking around a shopping mall slaughtering everything that moves. A crowd of people just standing around, someone trying to pull a friend to safety, screaming bystanders trying to run away..

          Anyway TFA says that the scene depicts some evil russian squad, not the "good guys". You're supposed to be horrified at the carnage and then want to stop them, which is apparently the objective of the single player campaign.

          • by kmankmankman2001 (567212) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @04:24PM (#29902107)

            Did you watch the video? It's a squad walking around a shopping mall slaughtering everything that moves.

            Ahhh, Blackwater.

          • by Stupid McStupidson (1660141) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @04:57PM (#29902505)
            For christ's sake, it's a game! You aren't killing anyone. Nobody is dying. Nobody is killing you. It isn't real. Driving fast on Forza or Pole Position does not make me want to speed IRL, shooting cartoon people in TF2 doesn't make me want to shoot cartoon people IRL, and stealing endless amounts of cars in GTA doesn't make me want to steal cars or be a 'banger' IRL. There are no moral decisions because you aren't really a soldier, those aren't really people, and those aren't really guns. For fucks sake.
            • by caitsith01 (606117) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @06:05PM (#29903311) Journal

              So your thesis is that everything fictional is acceptable, not only from a legal perspective but also such that it may not be criticised or the subject of moral or ethical censure?

              I don't think you understand free speech. Free speech doesn't mean "free from all consequences", it means "free from legal consequences". If you say something which disgusts me, it is not inconsistent with "free" speech for me to express my disgust and encourage others to do the same (in fact, it is consistent with my corresponding right to free speech).

              People saying that this footage disgusts them is not only legitimate, it's healthy and (IMHO) reassuring.

              Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the player has no level of investment or involvement in the events that occur inside modern games, which is patently wrong.

        • by Drewmon (815043) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @05:21PM (#29902775)
          My wife can't bear to watch the History Channel when it has any war time footage running simply because it bothers her to see people suffer or die. Accordingly, she changes the channel. Pretty simple concept and it serves her well... People that think the game is too extreme should move on and buy something else more to their limits/liking. If parents chime in and fear for the safety of their children's minds, it isn't much different. We need to realize the ills of war and making an interactive game of it is not any worse than watching the evening news or video clips depicting current events which is even easier to access than this game. Manage the content your children see as best you can and be prepared to answer questions as best you can. Burying one's head in the sand only makes the world a "safer" place by being uninformed and unrealistic while evil prospers in a wide open playground. And then there's the whole free speech debacle that I won't even go into... Ugh.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by thinsoldier (937530)
      hmm... I'm pretty sure I've killed 5 or 6 times more civilians than that in just the first 2 hours of playing Prototype. And once you've leveled up enough to pick up a bus you can just hold it sideways and literally "mow" down the sidewalks full of people. Like cutting grass, screaming, blood-soaked grass.
  • anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:45PM (#29899911)

    and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

    • by TheKidWho (705796)

      It's your choice whether or not to kill those civilians. Besides, COD6 is approaching photo-realism while GTA is clearly very cartoony.

      • Re:anonymous (Score:5, Interesting)

        by poetmatt (793785) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:28PM (#29900597) Journal

        somewhere, stupid people decided that the realism of a VIRTUAL game is somehow parallel to how "realistic" an idea is. Barring the fact that even if X action/activity/verb in a video game were ever realistic enough to be 100% as real mentally/etc, why would anyone have a problem with anything being virtually where it isn't going to affect anything? Ohh, you did (verb) to your (noun), look at the end result to the virtual world? 0.

        Oh right, there's no study showing an actual link between violent behaviors and violent people, as the point of doing things virtually is release stress.

        I can only hope some day people actually realize this and don't use it as an excuse for moral outcry.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Besides, COD6 is approaching photo-realism while GTA is clearly very cartoony.

        So, the number of pixels on your screen and the precision in which the colors are calculated determines if a game is ok or not ok?

    • Re:anonymous (Score:5, Informative)

      by kylemonger (686302) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:53PM (#29900051)
      Death Race [wikipedia.org] got there first.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Probably because gta was not attempting to mimic an actual event and there's a level of cartoonishness within the character designs and there actions that makes it more easily for an average viewer to separate it as a game.

    • Re:anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by royallthefourth (1564389) <royallthefourth@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:00PM (#29900161)
      Because it's too close to the truth for people to be comfortable with it

      People want the sugar coated war they see on TV. Very few people would support the war if they knew what it actually meant.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)

      and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?

      Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA. If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers. Kind of insensitive to the victims. I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square

    • Re:anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SlipperHat (1185737) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @03:40PM (#29901543)

      Because a gangsters are the bad guys. People are alright with to accept bad people doing bad things (some people may refer to it as conditioning, but I like to avoid labels that have connotations). When soldiers - good guys - do bad things it bothers normal people because its outside their comfort zone. Soldiers and other members of the armed forces are heroes in the eyes of many - up there with firefighters if not higher - so the outrage scales similarly.

      Personally, I have a deep respect for the armed forces and the sacrifices they make for civilians each and every day. However, it seems that the anecdotal soldiers don't ask questions and politicians don't answer questions has made the world a less safer place.

  • Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vertinox (846076) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:45PM (#29899917)

    This is just a ploy by Infinity Ward to make everyone forget about the dedicated server fiasco!

  • Good name (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:46PM (#29899925)

    Sounds like naming it "Modern Warfare" was spot-on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TooMuchToDo (882796)
      Yep. What's wrong with playing a game where you're the bad guy?
      • Yep. What's wrong with playing a game where you're the bad guy?

        My guess is the idea that it would make you more sympathetic to bad-guy tactics.

        • I don't see anyone getting in an uproar over movies/films that show the terrorist's perspective and are perhaps somewhat sympathetic to their plight. A good example would be the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            I don't see anyone getting in an uproar over movies/films that show the terrorist's perspective and are perhaps somewhat sympathetic to their plight. A good example would be the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

            You don't get out much, do you? Seriously, hit up Michell Malkin or Big Hollywood or dozens of other conservative sites to see how prissy American conservatives get when John Wayne doesn't always win the day.
        • My guess is the idea that it would make you more sympathetic to bad-guy tactics.

          It might. On the other hand, it might not. It all would depend on whether you have a brain. Most 18 year olds are assumed to have at least a rudimentary one.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:15PM (#29900365)

        Just someone who is willing to do what is necessary, even if it is distasteful.

        In the real world you DO run in to situations where the idea of "greater good" has to be considered. You do something that taken in isolation might be purely bad, but looked at from a larger context was necessary to prevent an even greater evil. It isn't always a simple choice, and sometimes there isn't a right choice, just maybe a less wrong one.

        Nothing wrong with a game wanting to have the player in that situation. That is, in fact, the sort of thing that special forces or CIA officers may face.

        If that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you for entertainment, nothign wrong with that, don't play the game. But I can't see why people would get mad.

      • by tenco (773732)
        WOOOOSH!
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nhojovadle.> on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:47PM (#29899933) Journal
    This stuff seems to be going down faster than it's getting replicated--indicating it probably is real footage. As the submitter, there were a number of sites I was able to reach this morning that had a lot more footage and has apparently been taken down. From CNN's iReport to China's 56.com and youku.com video hosting sites.

    For an official statement, G4TV [g4tv.com] quotes Activision (when asked about the footage being in the game) as saying:

    Yes it is. The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player’s mission to stop them.

    Players have the option of skipping over the scene. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled.

    Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes, which means it is intended for those who are 18 and older.

    Sure to raise controversy, sure to garner eyeballs and sure to sell copies it looks like. Just the right amount of controversy I guess.

    • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:53PM (#29900053)

      Life is controversial, people do horrible things to each other, and sometimes part of games and movies is depicting those horrible things.

      To me this just says that games are finally reaching a level where they're willing to make a statement and are willing to make the audience uncomfortable to do it, they aren't treating significant subjects with kid gloves anymore. Movies have been making the audience uncomfortable about horrific things for a long time, a lot of the time by tricking them into enjoying it on some level (combining nudity and violence for example...), in this instance a game is doing the same by combining completing the game with slaughtering civilians. That in and of itself isn't anything new but there's a pretty big difference between being explicitly told by the game to open fire on a crowd of innocent people and finish off the wounded afterwards in a serious situation and GTA/Saints row style blood comedy.

    • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:56PM (#29900087) Homepage Journal

      I'm confused.

      This (from TFA and Activision):

      The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.

      Does not equal this (from TFS):

      Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

      Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Knara (9377)

        I'm confused.

        This (from TFA and Activision):

        The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.

        Does not equal this (from TFS):

        Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

        Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

        The player, presumably, has the choice of participating as a member of said rogue unit. It's not uncommon in these sorts of games to switch between roles amongst different actors in the storyline. CoD: Modern Warfare 1 had 5-6 different characters that the player assumed the role of during the course of the game.

      • by Zibblsnrt (125875)

        Which one is it (or is it both somehow)?

        If news coverage of it's saying one thing - that the player's gunning down civilians - and the company producing the game is saying another - that it's effectively an interactive cutscene whose point is to say that These Guys Are Bad - I'm inclined to give Activision the benefit of the doubt, even if they're still deep in the failure mines with other aspects of the game.

      • by quantumplacet (1195335) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:21PM (#29900471)

        it appears to be both. from the video, it looks like you are a CIA operative undercover in a terrorist cell, and you join in with them on a terrorist operation. unclear whether you HAVE to kill the civilians with them, or just CAN.

      • Not confusing me (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sibko (1036168)

        I'm confused.

        This (from TFA and Activision):

        The scene establishes the depth of evil and the cold bloodedness of a rogue Russian villain and his unit. By establishing that evil, it adds to the urgency of the player's mission to stop them.

        Does not equal this (from TFS):

        Footage shows the player engaged in killing civilians with terrorists

        Which one is it (or is it both somehow)? This sounds like a bunch of uproar over a cutscene nobody understands the context of.

        It seems pretty simple: You play as a terrorist for one mission, and then the next mission you play as a counter terrorist.

        I saw this leaked video even before there was much commentary or controversy on it, and this point was still exceedingly clear. You seem to be trying to imply that Infinity Ward is pulling a fast one, when they clearly are not.

    • Also, from IGN [ign.com] (spoilers!!):

      Further Analysis From what we can gather from the dialogue and gritty video, the role of the playable character is that of a C.I.A. operative who has infiltrated the group in order to gather intel. The loading screen, which reveals the transition between playable characters and factions, begins with a C.I.A. logo and morphs into the logo of the Russian ultranationalist organization which the game's antagonist, Vladimir Makarov, leads. The graphical transition is accompanied by an alteration to the C.I.A. text directly below the logo, which is then extended and followed by illegible words, presumably identifying the official title of the ultranationalist faction. Clues after the loading screen are hard to identify, however, the theory is later reaffirmed when Makarov shoots your character as you attempt to climb into the getaway van, and says "Here's your message," almost teasing your character for the presumption that your infiltration had gone unrecognized.

      So you are undercover, and can probably get away with not shooting anyone yourself.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:48PM (#29899953)

    Terrorists mix in amongst civilians and some say even use them as shields, and a military response never has pinpoint accuracy despite the best technology.

    This is happening all over the world in modern warfare.

    The weirdly sanitized worlds of war games causes me more outrage. If real war is hell, why cant games have elements of that?
     

  • OK, new policy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:49PM (#29899979) Journal
    Anybody who whines more loudly about a game that involves killing civilians than they do about any of the real wars that involve really killing civilians goes on my bad list.
  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by snarfies (115214) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:49PM (#29899989) Homepage

    I heard there's a game where you can carjack people and then run them over with their own car, leaving blood streaks on the road. You can then pull your car up to a prostitute, pay for her services, then get out of the car and cave her skull in with a baseball bat and take your money back.

    Kinda makes the getting shot with a gun seem a little nicer by comparison.

  • by Dunbal (464142)

    People will be insisting that those potions you drink in Fantasy RPG's have prior FDA approval...

    Dear people who call for censorship: It's not MY fault that you have trouble separating reality from fiction. If you have trouble doing this, you are the one who needs help, not me.

  • This is where violence belongs, in games, not in the real world. Case closed :-
  • by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @01:59PM (#29900145) Journal

    the words of Robert E. Lee:

    It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it.

    • by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:26PM (#29900553)

      Good quote.

      So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general? Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?

      I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc. My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?

      Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?

      I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play. The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening. However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.

      In my worldview, people are bad to begin with. Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are. It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience" ... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are. It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.

      So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent. What should we do?

      • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @04:19PM (#29902057)

        My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?

        Because play, at all levels, is based on training for the future. Puppies play fight, chase, hunt, and hump because those are all things they need to be able to do as adults. Humans are the same way. We play at running a house, at being parents, at hunting/escaping, and yes, we play at warfare. Even organized sports, for the most part, boil down to ritualized tribal warfare or atleast competition.

        What people don't realize is that playing violent video games today is no different from playing cowboys and indians 20 years ago. It's done to satisfy the same instincts and desires, which is to prepare the brain for situations that are rare, but dangerous.

        • The reason being that dogs and cats, despite being much mentally simpler animals, still can clearly separate play fighting and real fighting. My cat still likes to play fight, despite being old. He'll play chase the laser dot, and chew on my arm and so on. However, he doesn't hurt me, he doesn't try to cause actual damage. He's playing, and it is a clear separation.

          Same deal with humans. We can play at things that we don't want to actually do. You can play a war game without becoming a violent killer. You a

  • Modern Warfare (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:00PM (#29900155)

    Post-Modern Warfare
    Modern Warfare
    Romantic Age Warfare
    Victorian Era Warfare
    Industrial Revolution Era Warfare
    Age of Enlightenment Warfare
    Age of Discovery Warfare
    Ottoman Empire Warfare
    Middle Ages Warfare
    Dark Age Warfare
    Roman Empire Warfare
    Ancient Greece Warfare
    New Kingdom Warfare
    Old Kingdom Warfare
    Mesopotamian Warfare

    Obviously this sort of thing is a modern problem due to our culture of violence. It's only recently that our soldiers and the people they were fighting resorted to detestable acts in the furtherance of their causes.

  • by jockeys (753885) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:01PM (#29900167) Journal
    I seem to remember most of Prototype was running around killing/eating innocent people, who would shriek and occasionally beg as you ate them, also the player (Alex Mercer) was a bioterrorist who killed millions... where was the moral outrage there?

    Sometimes the player character isn't the hero. Get over it.
  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:04PM (#29900215)
    They need a better gimmick if they want me to buy it. No server = no buy!
  • In the first Modern Warfare, when the president is being driven to his execution you see civilians being lined up against a wall and then executed. How is this different? Because they're in a hostage situation? People need to STFU.
    • by scubamage (727538)
      Nm, watched the video. Article doesn't mention that the player actually does the shooting. Still doesn't bother me, as it builds drama. Though I think the point may be lost on a lot of people who will consider it a shooting gallery game.
  • Freedom Fighters? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Conchobair (1648793) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:05PM (#29900221)
    Those might not be "Terrorists", they could be "Freedom Fighters". Those so-called innocent civilians very well could be part of the oppresive regime that is due for a change in the name of liberty and freedom. Let's not rush to judgement until we find out if which side of this conflict is going to bow to Western authority.
  • by thewils (463314) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:09PM (#29900273) Journal

    Before jumping to conclusions I'd like to see the context for this scene. Infinity Ward have done a bang-up job with the franchise so far so I'll cut them some slack by not taking things out of context thank you very much.

  • I hope no one tells them about DEFCON [introversion.co.uk]. You can kill billions of civilians in that game.

  • Content Warning... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Landshark17 (807664) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:19PM (#29900423)
    According to the article, there will be unskippable warnings that suggest that the upcoming content may be disturbing. I understand where they're coming from on this, but if it's rated M on the box, I expect M-rated content. Don't spoil surprises for me with specific in-game warnings. If it's really that bad, give me the option when I start a new game to skip "objectionable content" and then don't bother me again with it. A mid-game warning breaks the fourth wall and lets you know something is going to happen rather than just shock you with it. It loses emotional impact that way.

    Call of Duty is arguably my favorite series of games (at least the installments made by Infinity Ward), and part of what made Modern Warfare so powerful was the unflinching portrayal of war. A portrayal where even the good guys do bad things from time to time and the consequences of actions are brutally rendered. Would the game have been nearly as powerful if you'd had the option to skip the sequence where you crawl out of a downed helicopter and died of radiation poisoning from a nuclear explosion because it was "potentially disturbing"?
  • by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:22PM (#29900483) Homepage
    Innocent slaughter has been part of games from the beginning. I mean think of all the poor harmless asteroids which have been blown up over the years by a little wedge for the sole crime of moving in a straight line.
  • AC-130 mission (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 (1525137)
    In COD4, in the AC-130 mission, do you really think all those buildings you dropped 155mm howitzer and 40mm shells on were empty? You're basically leveling an entire village to take out maybe a company's worth of bad guys. Not really much of a difference.
  • Virtual civilians (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dindi (78034) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @02:45PM (#29900835) Homepage

    I am not trolling, but you might want to add "Virtual" civilians to your sentences. Yes, even though I am vegan I cannot resist shooting the bunny in Arma 2 when it is hopping around on the battlefield.......

    Shooting virtual things is not the same.....

  • Still viewable at (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vikstar (615372) on Wednesday October 28, 2009 @05:50PM (#29903113) Journal

    At time of posting only the first video is viewable:
    http://www.mapmodnews.com/article.php/Forced-kil-civilians-Modern-Warfare-2 [mapmodnews.com]

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson

Working...