Conservative Mag Calls Upcoming Gitmo Title “Al Qaeda’s Xbox Fantasy Game”

Rendition: Guantanamo, an upcoming Xbox 360 and PC game, has come under fire from The Weekly Standard, a conservative publication owned by Rupert Murdoch.

In a blog entry The Weekly Standard’s Thomas Joscelyn writes:

One of the more popular former [Guantanamo] detainees is Moazzam Begg, who regularly appears in anti-American documentaries on television… Begg is a big hit with the global left… Begg is upping the ante by trying to win even more hearts and minds with an Xbox videogame…


By the sound of it, the videogame will allow users to pretend they are Gitmo inmates shooting at American servicemen… The director of the firm that is producing the game, Zarrar Chishti, denies this, of course, saying that “no US or British soldiers get killed in it.” Chisti claims: “The only ones being killed are mercenaries.”


Joscelyn writes in detail about Moazzam Begg (left), linking him to reports of jihadist beliefs and Al Qaeda training:

[Begg’s] release [from Guantanamo] by the personal intervention of President Bush… was done, many think, as a political palliative to his friend and war supporter British prime minister Tony Blair, who was under much criticism at the time for not demanding immediate release of all British citizens held at Guantanamo…

Begg’s propaganda efforts will now include a disgusting video game in which Begg… gets to target “mercenaries” — in reality, stand-ins for American servicemen…

Meanwhile, CBS News reports that Zarrar Chisti expects Rendition: Guantanamo to sell well in the Middle East. Begg, who has a financial stake in the game, said that his earnings will be donated to a charity devoted to the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

UPDATE: Gawker reports that Microsoft has denied knowledge of Rendition: Guantanamo. That’s a key piece of information, since MS would have to license the game for it to appear on the 360. From Gawker:

In a statement, Microsoft said: "We are unaware of this game and have not been contacted by this developer. As such, we don’t have enough details about the game to even comment about it."

More info upcoming…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    State says:

    Yes I found the same as you did, that this company isn’t actually a proper games developer and it is most likely that this game has been commissioned by someone. As Microsoft have no knowledge over the product (which would be required for an expensive dev kit) it is likely to be sold on Xbox Community games.

    As Begg has been employed as a consultant over the game it may be possible that this game has been commissioned by a company or group that is anti-Guantanamo and hopes to spread this message to gamers (much like the PETA games), because if they wanted to create a balanced viewpoint on the game they would have employed one of the guards as a consultant too. But realism is lost too with the fact that mercenaries can be killed (I don’t remember their role in Camp X-Ray in real life), so I don’t believe that we will get a realistic view on what actually happened.

  2. 0
    Kiro-San says:

    This is a bit of a strange one. I just watched the trailer for the game and looks like a render, not in game footage. Also to be honest the graphics look like ass. Their Wiki page has some quotes from the companies founder saying the game is set in 2010 as they believe Gitmo will be closed by then. Stranger still is the company that’s making the game. They basically just make flash games and create database software for businesses and only employ six people. Something fishy going on here.


  3. 0
    Father Time says:

    I’ll see your conservatives and raise you Muslims.

    Seriously you can’t beat Muslims in the amount of crazy they posess


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  4. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Again, conservatives prove they have more fucknut crazies than any other group out there. Ever.


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  5. 0
    gamadaya says:

    "Chisti claims: “The only ones being killed are mercenaries.”


    So this douche is literally making stuff up to be outraged about. Why stop there. Why not just say you’ve played the game and it contains full frontal nudity and baby killing?


    Believe in something! Even if it’s wrong, believe in it! -Glenn Beck

  6. 0
    thefremen says:

     Actually I’m pretty sure the Al Qaeda Xbox Fantasy Game is Sunni Mario Bros. 


    You chase after a princess in order to behead her in order to enforce Sharia law.

  7. 0
    Father Time says:

    Is bill O’ being chastised and having legal threats against him for his speech, or is he just being heavily criticized for it. If it’s if the former than yeah that is probably violating free speech (I would say definitely but I don’t know the circumstances), if it’s the latter than none of his rights are being violated and the people chastising him are fully within their rights to criticize him for whatever reason.

    Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want and I can’t call you an asshole.

    It means you can say whatever you want and I get to call you and asshole for it (by the way I don’t actually think you’re an asshole I’m just giving an example).


     Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  8. 0
    Father Time says:

    Be careful though we do have libel and slander laws. Although I’m not a lawyer and don’t know how those laws work.


     Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  9. 0
    Valdearg says:

    As for the domestic Terrorism comment: Timothy McVeigh was a Veteran, The Knoxville shooter was a Conservative, and The guy who killed Tiller was a Pro-Life Christian. Seems to me like these are exactly the people the DHS report warned about.

    Also, if Slander and Libel applied in any way to the speech that people like Limbaugh and Hannity are spewing, you can bet your ass they’d have been sued and lost many, MANY times in the past. If you ask me, Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything, regardless of what you might be saying, however, there can still be consequences for that kind of speech. You can’t tell a guy you plan on banging his wife, without expecting a throwdown.

    My point is, if BillO thinks that he shouldn’t be scrutinized for calling a man a "Baby Killer" to millions of people around the country, which may or may not have caused someone to finally snap, making the decision to kill this man, you are sorely mistaken..

  10. 0
    Unruly says:

    Actually, freedom of speech allows you to say anything. Period. It doesn’t have to be the truth. I could say that I’m a tap dancing pony with a pair of scissors for a hand and you couldn’t stop me from saying it. Just like you can’t stop people from saying that Obama is a Muslim, George Bush hates black people, or that the current Pope is a Nazi. Whether those statements are true or not doesn’t matter in the slightest because freedom of speech means that I am free to speak, no matter what I feel like saying. I might have to face consequences for what I say at some point, but you cannot legally tell me that I have to speak the truth. Not even in a court of law can you compel me to speak only the truth, but you can charge me with perjury if I do not.

  11. 0
    State says:

    And on what basis would you be accusing me of terrorism? Because remember there was evidence to arrest each one of the detainees.

    In the UK it is standard practice to arrest people under the terrorist act to prevent an attack from taking place, but there isn’t enough evidence to charge them (even though the security services had reason to believe that they were terrorists) because the evidence obtained is not allowed to be used within court (such as wiretapped evidence, or even that from torture that has come from another country where torture is allowed).

    With the man in question, the American security services were not happy at the release of the detainee due to the evidence that they had against him, but due to international politics he was released.

  12. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    If your theory on freedom of speech is accurate, then explain why Nazis in America are arrested for being Nazis?  Even when they have no connection to any crime, outside of their extremist beliefs?  Also, why are retired military personnel being considered "possible domestic terrorists" by the Obama administration because of his lack of support for what they have done?  The fact of the matter is, freedom of speech doesn’t exist anymore.  Look at the murder of Dr. George Tiller.  He was murdered because a psycho didn’t like his views on abortion.  That doesn’t stop uber-liberals like the people who made this game from blaming Bill O’Reilly because he doesn’t like doctors who perform late-term abortion.  Bill O’Reilly is being chastised for practicing his so-called freedom of speech, thereby proving it no longer exists.

    Furthermore, do you know what "slander" and "libel" are?  If you do, then your post is wrong, and you know it.  If you don’t, then your post is wrong and you’re an idiot for going to a fight unprepared..


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  13. 0
    Drazgal says:

    So hypothetically if I were to accuse you of terrorism (making you a suspected terrorist) we wouldn’t be able to trust the post you just wrote?

    Or do I need a certificate to accuse people of terrorism first?

  14. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    So wait, you’re gonna trust the soldiers that performed torture over the people who had to go through it and never got charged? I see that innocent until declared guilty no longer has any meaning left.

  15. 0
    catboy_j says:

    I’m Not sure you understand how deeply twisted this view is nya. That’s like saying The word of the District Attorney is better than that of an accused theif or murderer.

    Also you’re basically saying "Can’t trust anyone, so I’m going to trust the government who is widely considered to be wrong on the matter."

  16. 0
    Ratros says:

    This is America.  Here you are guilty until proven innocent, and even then you’re still guilty in the eyes of others. 

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  17. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The reason why we haven’t heard that they consulted the U.S. Military about this game is because they didn’t.  The fact of the matter is, the people making this game think that Gitmo is "wrong," so they will twist what happened down there to piss more people off.  The fact of the matter is, the only people who know what happened down there are the people who are down there.  We can’t trust the military, because they couldn’t tell us the truth, even if it was good.  That’s what "classified" means.  We also can’t trust the detainees, because, after all, they are accused of terrorism.  Me, being an American, would take the word of a military person over a suspected terrorist, so any game made about Guantanamo Bay that doesn’t consult the United States Military is just completely fucked, as is anyone who doesn’t have a problem with such a game.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  18. 0
    Tacticus says:

    People are not Found Innocent

    They are innocent by default when you are unable to produce evidence to prove beyond resonable doubt that they are guilty.


  19. 0
    State says:

    Whilst the game looks incredibly poor (obviously a poor game trying to gain controversy in the hope of selling it), it would appear that we well get an incredibly biased view of Guantanamo, as it appears that potential terrorists and previous detainees (let’s remember that the detainees have not been found guilty, nor have they been found innocent) have helped in making this game, although I haven’t heard of any of the staff or the prison having their input in the game.

    Of course Joscelyn is completely right about the release of the British passport holders, in that it was a political favour to Tony Blair who was criticised over allowing British passport holders to be detained in the prison. It had nothing to do with their innocence or guilt, that didn’t matter. It simply looked bad for Blair. But regarding his other comments no one really knows the content of this game.

    In many respects it’s a shame that Six Days in Fallujah get cancelled, because that looked to be a well-balanced and well made game, and that it didn’t seem to be controversy baiting in the way that this game is. Rendition appears to be an amateurish game with seemingly biased opinions (perhaps it is a propaganda piece, but it is too early to tell), and is looking for easy controversy in the hope of making a quick buck, instead of actually making a good game.

  20. 0
    Daria_C says:

    I’m going to take this with a grain of salt, and not just because its from a politcly extreme peridical. How many times have we heard extreme reactions to false repords about video games? Examples would be…

    Mass Effect will have full out alien oragies!


    In Grand Theft Auto games you get more game points or "gamer cred" for beating defensless prostitutes with a bat.

    People who don’t play video games are the last people who should be reporting facts about them. In addition, a conservative newspaper the last place you should go for news on anything Muslim based.


  21. 0
    1AgainstTheWorld says:

    Of course it’s not a genuine Rupertism until they claim it’s also pornographic, and get a clueless pop psychologist to speak to that effect.

  22. 0
    Craig R. says:

    Sounds much like the whining by Chavez over Mercenaries 2.

    Oh, wait, did I just compare a right-wing conservative nutjob with a left-wing liberal nutjob? Yes, yes I did – nutjobs are nutjobs.

  23. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I called it, I GOD-DAMN CALLED IT!

    "He’s a terrorist because he was in Guantanamo. If he wasn’t, then he wouldn’t have been there, therefore this game is terrorist propaganda’!


    "The director of the firm that is producing the game, Zarrar Chishti, denies this, of course, saying that “no US or British soldiers get killed in it.” Chisti claims: “The only ones being killed are mercenaries.”


    Yes, the head of the firm HAS NO IDEA WHAT HIS GAME INCLUDE, but you, YES YOU YOU LOYAL CONSERVATIVE, have uncovered the sleazy truth.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Leave a Reply