Fake military identities fuel online war debate hostility

Fake military identities fuel online war debate hostility

There is a scene that repeats in a corner of the internet dedicated to war: someone describes a man who, in his mind, is a US soldier returning home to find his partner waiting for him. He watches videos, writes as if he were in Vietnam, and when he walks through town, he tells tall tales of a conflict he never participated in. Mockery is the driving force, but underneath lies something more interesting: how credibility is built and destroyed in real time.

The matter begins with a message ridiculing a participant to whom this military fantasy is attributed. From there, the exchange turns into a war of attrition: some accuse the other of being a provocateur pretending to be neutral, who, as soon as they are pressed, reveals their sympathy for one side. Others respond with contempt and labels like "pilingui" (a derogatory term for Pilingui supporters), terms that the original author uses to dehumanize their interlocutor.

The core of the conflict is not the war, but who has the right to speak about it. One side claims the other arrived feigning indifference—"it doesn't affect us"—and that within three minutes they were already pointing at a foreign leader as a "junkie" and a military alliance as responsible for everything. The other side responds that the first is a "zascandil son of a bitch" who spends time digging through old messages to find ammunition. The discussion turns into an exchange of low blows, without data, without sources, and without anything that can be verified.

---

The factory of fake identities in war forums

The phenomenon is not new. In spaces where a military conflict is discussed, identity becomes a weapon. Invented biographies are attributed to the adversary—an imaginary soldier, a pilot flying over the town, a patient leaving a psychiatric ward—and repeated until they seem true. Mockery works as social punishment: if you cannot win the argument, you ridicule the person holding it.

In this case, the mechanics are explicit. One participant describes the other as someone who "in town tells stories of when he was in Vietnam (in his head)." Another adds that "he thinks he is a pilot and flies around town." A third claims that "he does the goose step through the house" and has the neighbors below bored. None of these scenes are verifiable, and that is precisely the point: they are not looking to inform, they are looking to discredit.

The targeted person's response is not long in coming. "You really are pathetic, you zascandil son of a bitch," they write, and subsequently accuse their interlocutor of having come "to act all neutral" only to later reveal their true position. The accusation of hypocrisy is the most repeated argument in the entire exchange. The discussion is not about whether an invasion is just or unjust, but whether the person defending or criticizing it does so consistently.

---

The argument that is never discussed: the real war

Amidst the noise, there is hardly any room for substance. One participant poses an uncomfortable question: "If it were true that you win by saying it, what do you gain? If it is a lie, what do you gain?". It is the only intervention that attempts to break the loop of insults and pose a rational analysis. It receives no answer.

Another message introduces a different element: the suspicion that both sides of the conflict share hidden interests. A foreign leader is mentioned as a "friend of Jews" and there is talk of "wholesale sale of children to the Zionist elite." These are claims without any proof, the kind that circulates on the fringes of digital conversation and which are thrown here without any context other than prejudice itself. There are no data, no sources, no possible verification.

The conversation drifts toward personal insults. One participant writes in all caps: "HAHAHAHA CHEER UP YOU SON OF A BITCH GO TO HELL HAHA YOU FOUND THE WESTERN TURCOCHINA FAGGOT HAHAHAHA". The style is not accidental: the aggression is part of the spectacle. The more vulgar the response, the more visibility it gains within the space.

---

The attention economy in news forums

A single comment introduces a reflection that transcends the specific case: "If they were already bombing with propaganda when there were only rudimentary communication media, imagine now, where anyone can become a CM (Community Manager) and create free content for their masters." The idea that propaganda has been democratized and peine is, perhaps, the only meaningful analysis in the entire exchange.

Another participant suggests ignoring the "psychopathic zascandil" and letting them stay "in a bubble" so they only see their own messages. It is a containment strategy: do not feed the troll. But the very functioning of the space contradicts it. Every new response—including those asking to be ignored—adds visibility to the matter.

The dynamic repeats in the final messages. Someone points out "the pilingui raging because the empire of risia is losing. them." Another responds with a "Great." And a third closes with "Call of Duty veterans," summarizing the general tone: war as a video game, foreign policy as a football match.

---

What remains when the noise stops

The underlying issue—the conflict between two countries, with its dead, its displaced, and its economic consequences—appears only in passing and is never developed. Not a single figure, not a date, not a verifiable piece of data on the ground. The conversation is, in essence, a battle for the narrative, not an analysis of the facts.

The question hovering over the entire exchange is the one posed by one of the participants that no one answered: what is gained? If the story of the imaginary soldier is true, the one telling it gains attention. If it is a lie, the one debunking it does too. In both cases, the prize is the same: visibility.

And meanwhile, the real war continues its course, oblivious to this small shadow theater where everyone accuses each other of being what they are not. The last message of the exchange, a simple "Call of Duty veterans," makes it clear that, for many, all of this is nothing more than a game.