Apparently there's a level that features gunning down civilians in an airport. Activision is apparently trying fairly hard to get the videos pulled down.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/10/28/leaked-modern-warfare-2-footage-shocks
What do you think?

ActiBlizz have confirmed this has heavy disclaimers and the option to skip the sequence before loading. It happens midway through the first chapter (which spans about 7 levels or so). There's also heavy exposition making it clear that this is a fictional 'a hundred must die to save a million' scenario that's been used commonplace in stories since time immemorial.
It also seems that you can go the entire sequence without shooting a civilian yourself.
Overall, I applaud the decision to include it. It's not necessarily 'art' and it's not necessarily 'clever', but it's a sequence that a lot of people are going to feel uncomfortable with and question such things. Admittedly, a lot of moronic idiots are still going to play it going 'LOL HEADSHOTS' and not even twig that they're shooting up innocent bystanders, and unfortunately that's what the media will focus on.
Still, I'd rather they push the boat like this than never experiment with such gameplay and storytelling devices at all.

I think it's a game and people shouldn't get their panties in a bunch about it.

I think whether I approve of the decision depends really on how well it's done.
If I feel guilty for killing the civilians - it's well done. However, if it doesn't evoke any emotions, then it's just more bland controversy.

Yet again, another instance of people being thoroughly bewildered by an old concept simply because it's packaged in a new format. This sort of storytelling device isn't new. It's been done in movies and television many many times before as Gremmi pointed out. The idea of an extremist organization killing people to make a point isn't a good thing, but it happens. That could be one context for this, yes. Or, there's also the idea of an undercover operative infiltrating an enemy organization and being forced to commit atrocities in order to maintain their false identity. That's hardly a new concept, either. The only difference here is that it's in a video game - a medium that, for whatever reason, the general population hasn't come to accept the same way it has television and film.
So while nobody would so much as blink if something like this happened on a story arc of, say, 24, it becomes the most controversial thing EVER if it's included in a video game. Utter nonsense, but until people smarten up and realize that video games are just another storytelling medium in the same vein that film or TV are, you're always going to get garbage like this.

But.. but... games=kids! Everyone knows that. Kids play games to have fun, adults get drunk to have fun. If kids can't have alcohol then surely adults can't have games...

FINALLY!! I can now kill a civilian populated airport without remorse! YAY!

Anyone who has been stuck at an airport for hours will probably be considering buying this game now.

I really don't see the big deal. It's a game. It's not real.

It's real if senators and angry moms who bought there kids that game say it is. =)

I'm upset, but for a different reason. It seems that Infinity Ward are being pretty cocky, throwing stuff like this in and being all "whatever, people will still buy this by the bushel." This could greatly harm sales of the game.

I know you're being sarcastic, but... yeah. The mentality that video games are a degenerate medium intended only for those under the age of ten and therefore can't actually be used to address mature themes is just another example of why society isn't going to be ready to accept anything remotely like this in a video game any time soon. Which sucks. Not because I have any pressing need to pretend to be a bad guy, but because yet again, people who just don't know how to actual analyze something objectively and form their own opinions are going to resort to kneejerk reactions and still get their way.

Hell, I have campaigned for a horror game where *you* play the villain. I think this is making a mess over nothing.
I actually applaud Activision for having the stones to try something new, and mature for a change.
The footage is a little chilling, and I worry about the reactions the "typical console gamer" will have playing this (aka, 15 year old timmy who loves Family Guy and GTA), but in terms of IW and Act. taking on the issue of tough choices, with a terrorism backdrop, I have no problem with it's inclusion.
How is this any different than Splinter Cell Double Agent?

Splinter Cell Double Agent wasn't...really watched by the media if I am not mistaken.