Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Media The Military Games News Politics

Game On War In Syria Explores Ongoing Conflict 62

arclightfire writes "So while games have come under spotlight via the debate about the causes of the tragic school shootings in the U.S., it is worth remembering that games are now a broad medium and far from all games are FPS games. Even those about war are not now just about shooting, as Endgame:Syria shows by covering an ongoing war; 'The subject matter for Endgame: Syria should not however be looked on from a trivialized angle; people and civilian casualties are dying every day over in Syria.'" The game is part of a series from Auroch Digital.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game On War In Syria Explores Ongoing Conflict

Comments Filter:
  • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <> on Sunday December 23, 2012 @09:15AM (#42374575) Journal

    Replying off-topic but the summary doesn't mention this very relevant bit of information: The game is not an FPS, it's a card strategy game. Like Magic or something.

    Which is disappointing, I was hoping it was an FPS and that some Russians and Iranians could play from the rebels' point of view.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 23, 2012 @11:31AM (#42375145)

    Unfortunately, all the things AC wrote are indeed happening.

    Indeed! What is being painted by the Western media as the Syrian edition of the Arab Spring uprisings that have installed Islamic regimes in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt is actually a thinly disguised civil war between the majority Sunnis of Syria vs the rest of the population, which form the backbone of the Baath Party and are under that umbrella. The situation in Syria is more (conversely) similar to Iraq or Bahrein, than to Egypt or Libya.

    Honestly, there is little to choose between the 2 sides. The Assad regime backs, and is backed by Hizbullah, as well as the mullahs of Iran. The whole philosophy of Baathists is to gather Arab national socialists who don't fall within the majority Islamic sect in a given Arab country, and maintain power by force in order to prevent them from getting eviscerated. In Iraq, Saddam did that by uniting Sunnis, Christians and Turks behind him, and suppressing the majority Shias. In Syria, Hafez al Assad and after him, Bashar al Assad did that by uniting Alawites, Shias, Druze, Christians and Kurds behind him, and suppressing the majority Sunnis. Reason for both was simple - if these countries got Islamic regimes, then they would have assumed the majority sect as their official religions - Shia in Iraq (as is the de facto case now) and Sunni in Syria, and all other groups would have been persecuted and marginalized. In Iraq, that's already happening - almost all the Christians in Iraq have fled to Syria, and now they, along with Syria's Christians, will flee to Lebanon, if and when they see this regime collapsing. So neither could Saddam nor the Assads be faulted - Muslims ain't the 'Live and let live' type at all. If they are not oppressed, they'll be the oppressors. As they're showing in Iraq (towards Assyrians and Sunnis), Egypt (towards Copts), Tunisia (towards Jews), Lebanon (towards Maronites and Sunnis) and Libya.

    This is not to glorify or exonerate the Baathists, who were and are just as vile anti-Semites. Saddam was a major supporter of Hamas during his regime, and it was in Baghdad that Abu Nidal was killed shortly before the US invasion of Iraq. Assads were previously a sponsor of the Lebanese Shia group Amal, which later merged into Hizbullah, and on top of their support to Hizbullah, they also hosted Pali Islamic Jihad as well as PFLP in Damascus. So it's not like any of the parties are opposed to Jihadi terror.

    So the ideal solution really is the civil war, which thankfully is showing no signs of ending. Iran and Hizbullah have thrown in what they have in support of the regime, and on top of that, Russia and China, which stand to lose their last customer of military hardware, are offsetting Western attempts to topple this regime. This is a good thing - honestly, it's inane of the West to support groups that are backed by the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. If the Assad regime falls, then instead of the Shi'ite crescent that runs from Teheran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, there would be an Ikhwan crescent that would run from Damascus to Cairo, probably swallowing Amman and Beirut as well. It would be a rerun of 1967 if that happened. So the best thing is for all Jihadi factions to converge in Syria and fight out the civil war there and destroy each other, so that they can't destroy anyone else. Non Muslim powers, such as the US, Russia, China, EU et al should simply stay out of it, or just maximize their profits by arming both sides to the teeth.

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger