Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West

[Physia]

Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an "insider's view" of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. The film also traces parallels between the Nazi movement of World War II, the Radicals of today, and the Western world's response to both threats.

 

Part 1:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DBwCWaBhmDQ

 

Part 2:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suGOnwCUhBs

 

Part 3:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joqoMfh7cr0

 

Part 4:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1LETOk20X4

 

Part 5:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duiJZHKpF1w

 

Part 6:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbkwQYBnyM

 

Comments regarding this movie?

[ecoli]

I do not doubt nor deny the existence of the Radical Islam's strong anti-West and their dangerous control over the education and indoctrination of their youth, but I seriously doubt the West's ability to control this problem by the use of armed conflict.

 

The best we can do, in the the long run, is strengthen domestic security and keep our economy strong, so we can show them that progressive democratic/capitalistic ideals are far stronger than fanatical religious extremism.

 

This is how we ultimately 'took care' of the communist 'problem' in Soviet Russia and elsewhere.

[Realitycheck]

I watched through all of these clips and for the first half, it was mostly filled with clips of serious hate-mongering, over and over, delivered by a large number of the usual suspects - Nasrallah, Iranian propaganda, Hamas, etc. There were some feeble attempts to explain why they feel this way, but I don't feel like any justice was done to explain the underlying reasons behind the discontent thoroughly. Towards the end, better, more constructive points were made to try and explain it better, displaying some of the parallels between it and the Nazi belief system. It still does not really get into why they have become so fanatical about imposing their way of life on the rest of the world.

 

I agree with you quite a bit, ecoli, in that the hands-off approach is the only feasible solution when it comes to telling them how to run their lands. It's too bad that Israel is so caught up in the middle of it.

[ecoli]

I agree with you quite a bit, ecoli, in that the hands-off approach is the only feasible solution when it comes to telling them how to run their lands. It's too bad that Israel is so caught up in the middle of it.

 

well they are, quite literally, in the middle of it.

[Sisyphus]

I always wonder what "global domination" is supposed to mean. Unify the world under a single caliphate, right? That's what Rudy Giuliani has been warning me about, as if it's a real possibility. Well, how is that supposed to happen? Does Al Qaeda have plans to convert me and everyone I know to fundamentalist Islam? Because I don't think I'm very susceptible, and I haven't even heard a pitch, yet. I'm thinking nobody in that organization has really thought this through in the long term. I mean, hell, at least Hitler had a plan.

[Physia]

I was hoping to strike up the thought of Moderate Islam vs Radical Islam. There are more moderates in the world than there are radicals, yet we do not see demonstrations, or any diplomatic fights made by them against radicals. Here, in the United States (a state that practices freedom of speech to the fullest), Hizballah supporters were allowed to demonstrate in Michigan, against the United States, and step on U.S. flags in the U.S. with slogans such as "Death to America."

Where are the moderate Muslims to counter that? Are they afraid? If so, of what? Do they agree with it? If so, why is it when we make a comment such as "Islam is inspired by violence," a Muslim pops up and says: "That is not the real Islam, it is the radical Islam." But, what is the real Islam? How can we see it if they don't show it to us?

 

Here is an example of a ex-Muslim that left Islam and turned into a secular human being, moreover, she is fighting the ills of Islamic fanaticism and introducing the problems of it into the Arab world. The only thing I disagree with her about is that she is not differentiating between moderates and radicals, but as I said before; where are the moderates?

She is speaking in Arabic in those clips, but there are English subtitles. She is saying important things and I hope you watch them, we need more people like her:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYB4pG3kHIY

 

Violence is not a tool to solve anything, but if you are facing such a threat that denies your presence as a 'human being' and wants to kill you or you live like them, violence is the first tool that pops up to your mind.

 

This problem must be solved from within. If the moderate Muslims don't revolt against the old fundamental Sheikhs, we can get no where.

 

Muslims must ask for reformation inside their beliefs and teaching doctrines; otherwise, radical Islam will take over moderate Islam in no time.

[ParanoiA]

I always wonder what "global domination" is supposed to mean. Unify the world under a single caliphate, right? That's what Rudy Giuliani has been warning me about, as if it's a real possibility. Well, how is that supposed to happen? Does Al Qaeda have plans to convert me and everyone I know to fundamentalist Islam? Because I don't think I'm very susceptible, and I haven't even heard a pitch, yet. I'm thinking nobody in that organization has really thought this through in the long term. I mean, hell, at least Hitler had a plan.

 

I think they're off the mark on that one too. I do believe they are trying to unify the middle east into a transnational opposition to the west. I don't think they have any "plans" for global domination (although history shows we must concede the possibility since Power and Imperialism just seem to attract each other like man and woman).

 

But that's just conjecture, and it's irrelevent really since we, as in the US, should be a defensive nation rather than an offensive one, which will allow us to stay out of expensive wars and maintain a strong, cutting edge military.

[Bettina]

I do not doubt nor deny the existence of the Radical Islam's strong anti-West and their dangerous control over the education and indoctrination of their youth, but I seriously doubt the West's ability to control this problem by the use of armed conflict.

 

The best we can do, in the the long run, is strengthen domestic security and keep our economy strong, so we can show them that progressive democratic/capitalistic ideals are far stronger than fanatical religious extremism.

 

This is how we ultimately 'took care' of the communist 'problem' in Soviet Russia and elsewhere.

 

I can't agree with that. One reason communism fell was because they simply ran out of money to support the arms race with the west. This, to me, was the leak in the dike.

 

What is scary is that you can't compare communist ideology with religion. The USSR had nuclear weapons, but didn't use them with it's "war" with the west. I can't say the same for a country run by fanatical religious extremists. If they get hold of a nuclear weapon, they will use it as directed by their God.

 

So, no, you can't let that sleeping dog lie.

 

Bee

[ecoli]

I can't agree with that. One reason communism fell was because they simply ran out of money to support the arms race with the west. This, to me, was the leak in the dike.

one of the reasons we could sustain the arms race is because we're a capitalist society. But that's a different debate.

 

What is scary is that you can't compare communist ideology with religion. The USSR had nuclear weapons, but didn't use them with it's "war" with the west. I can't say the same for a country run by fanatical religious extremists. If they get hold of a nuclear weapon, they will use it as directed by their God.

I have my doubts about that. The leaders, who would have control over the nukes may be fanatical, but they're not stupid.

[Mr Skeptic]

I have my doubts about that. The leaders, who would have control over the nukes may be fanatical, but they're not stupid.

 

I thought one of the defining attributes of fanaticism was being irrational about a certain subject. Hence, they can't be counted on not to be stupid, even if they are quite smart. Of course, the leader could just pretend to be fanatical to be more popular.

[ecoli]

I thought one of the defining attributes of fanaticism was being irrational about a certain subject. Hence, they can't be counted on not to be stupid, even if they are quite smart. Of course, the leader could just pretend to be fanatical to be more popular.

Well, even fanatics can't rule over a nuclear wasteland. MAD is still a strong principle.

[PhDP]

one of the reasons we could sustain the arms race is because we're a capitalist society. But that's a different debate.

 

I'd say; mixed economy

[abskebabs]

I'd say; mixed economy

I agree with that.(sorry if what you were saying was a joke), but I think the US is getting much closer to corporatism than real capitalsim. I think a better example of true capitalism was Hong Kong before secession to China(maybe it still is).

[Physia]

I always wonder what "global domination" is supposed to mean. Unify the world under a single caliphate, right? That's what Rudy Giuliani has been warning me about, as if it's a real possibility. Well, how is that supposed to happen? Does Al Qaeda have plans to convert me and everyone I know to fundamentalist Islam? Because I don't think I'm very susceptible, and I haven't even heard a pitch, yet. I'm thinking nobody in that organization has really thought this through in the long term. I mean, hell, at least Hitler had a plan.

 

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

[iNow]

"They," huh?

[ParanoiA]

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

 

Sounds like our very simple plan too - convert to our cause or die. You're either "with us or against us" right?

 

Of course, their silly ideas of god and death wouldn't be a problem if we weren't over there with guns, tanks and flags for them to use as convincing recruitement props.

[Phi for All]

They do have a very simple plan. They either kill you or you convert to Islam.

That *is* simple. Simple-minded, I mean.

 

I can assure you, if radical Islam becomes *all* of Islam, the solution becomes much simpler. It is the moderates that give Islam a humanitarian image with the rest of the world. Lose that image and it will be an easy decision to eliminate the threat *completely*.

[Physia]

Sounds like our very simple plan too - convert to our cause or die. You're either "with us or against us" right?

 

Of course, their silly ideas of god and death wouldn't be a problem if we weren't over there with guns, tanks and flags for them to use as convincing recruitement props.

 

That's propaganda.

 

That *is* simple. Simple-minded, I mean.

 

I can assure you, if radical Islam becomes *all* of Islam, the solution becomes much simpler. It is the moderates that give Islam a humanitarian image with the rest of the world. Lose that image and it will be an easy decision to eliminate the threat *completely*.

 

'If' is the problem. But, those so-called 'moderate' Muslims who do not stand against radical Islam, approve of it.. Don't they? Otherwise, why wouldn't they stand against it?

 

The only way to defeat them is to bomb Mecca. Those who know about Islam will understand the reason behind this .

[ecoli]

That's propaganda.

 

Claiming that radical muslims are going to kill us or convert us is propaganda, my friend.

 

 

'If' is the problem. But, those so-called 'moderate' Muslims who do not stand against radical Islam, approve of it.. Don't they? Otherwise, why wouldn't they stand against it?

 

The only way to defeat them is to bomb Mecca. Those who know about Islam will understand the reason behind this .

Moderate muslims do stand against it. If I offered you proof of that, I'm sure you'd ignore it. I have many moderate muslim friends as anecdotal proof.

 

And bombing mecca? I couldn't think of a stupider plan. Why don't we nuke washington because Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma city.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Physia, you have put forth a classical false dichotomy. Either moderate Muslims stand against radicals, or they approve of them. You are seeing the issue as vastly less complex than it is.

 

There are several questions that came to mind when I read your post. The foremost was simple: what do you propose these moderate Muslims do? They clearly do not support the radicals (or they would not be moderates), but they cannot "stand against" them. How does one "stand against" a terrorist organization? Issue a statement saying "I do not approve of this message"? There is no central church in Islam. There is no Pope in a turban to say "we do not approve of these radicals."

 

I can assure you, as ecoli can, that there are many moderate Muslims who disagree strongly with the actions of radicals, but they are helpless. They do not have the bombs you wish to use. Their choice is to not support the radicals, and that they do.

 

Second, I question your decision to bomb Mecca. What, exactly, do you propose that will achieve? It will prove to the world that we are an intolerant and hateful nation. It will kill innocent civilians. It will give those moderate Muslims a very good reason to become radical Muslims. It will, in short, turn the tide against us.

 

Bigotry, whether you are faking it or not, is not appreciated on this forum. I would like to remind you of rule 2.1.c, and your obligation to abide by it.

[Physia]

Claiming that radical muslims are going to kill us or convert us is propaganda, my friend.

 

I don't think so. Enough priests and sisters in Palestine and Iraq were killed that prove that. They claim that they are fighting the Jews, because in the Torah 'supposedly' (something they claim), it says that the Jews believe they are the 'chosen' people on earth, while all other religions do not and should not exist. Their actions, actually, contradicts with the reason they are giving for fighting the Jews. They're putting that claim on them.

 

Moderate muslims do stand against it. If I offered you proof of that, I'm sure you'd ignore it. I have many moderate muslim friends as anecdotal proof.

 

And bombing mecca? I couldn't think of a stupider plan. Why don't we nuke washington because Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma city.

 

Don't worry bud, I know many, many moderate Muslims as friends, in fact my girlfriend is a Muslim, from a well-known family in Muslim history. But, that's not what I am suggesting here. I do not care about individuals who oppose radical Islam. I am talking about the bigger image. A few moderate Muslims here and there won't do anything. Moderate Muslims need to protest, protest, and protest. They need to have their voice heard by the radicals. They need to prove to the world, and to other Muslims, that radical Islam is wrong, that it does not portray the message of Islam.

 

Bombing Mecca will trigger reform inside Islam. In their Quran, it says that Mecca is surrounded by a cover and it can't be bombed. Make conclusions about what will happen if it was bombed.

 

Physia, you have put forth a classical false dichotomy. Either moderate Muslims stand against radicals, or they approve of them. You are seeing the issue as vastly less complex than it is.

 

There are several questions that came to mind when I read your post. The foremost was simple: what do you propose these moderate Muslims do? They clearly do not support the radicals (or they would not be moderates), but they cannot "stand against" them. How does one "stand against" a terrorist organization? Issue a statement saying "I do not approve of this message"? There is no central church in Islam. There is no Pope in a turban to say "we do not approve of these radicals."

 

I can assure you, as ecoli can, that there are many moderate Muslims who disagree strongly with the actions of radicals, but they are helpless. They do not have the bombs you wish to use. Their choice is to not support the radicals, and that they do.

 

Second, I question your decision to bomb Mecca. What, exactly, do you propose that will achieve? It will prove to the world that we are an intolerant and hateful nation. It will kill innocent civilians. It will give those moderate Muslims a very good reason to become radical Muslims. It will, in short, turn the tide against us.

 

Bigotry, whether you are faking it or not, is not appreciated on this forum. I would like to remind you of rule 2.1.c, and your obligation to abide by it.

 

If there are moderate ordinary Muslims, then there must be moderate sheikhs. These sheikhs should issue Fatwas condemning redical Islam. These sheikhs must teach that radical Islam is wrong. They should preach moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims must protest and make their voices heard.

 

As I told ecoli, I am not talking about individuals, for they can't do anything really. They must be in large groups, in large protests, in order to get attention, lots of it.

 

Moderate Muslims, especially sheikhs, must go on Al Jazeera tv to preach moderate Islam.

 

Muslims do have religious references (Khamani'i for Shiites and the Saudi king for Sunnis, in addition to many religious leaders), sadly most of those are radicals. If there are some moderates from those, these are the ones that perform a great danger on those radicals.

 

The choice of not supporting radical Islam does not really do anything. It is like saying there is nothing such as 'moderate Islam.'

 

Now, to the issue of bombing Mecca, and I explained it to ecoli.

It will trigger reform inside Islam, and that is what I want. At the peak of Christian extremism, reform was the only way that changed that.

Again, I am speaking about the bigger image.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If there are moderate ordinary Muslims, then there must be moderate sheikhs. These sheikhs should issue Fatwas condemning redical Islam. These sheikhs must teach that radical Islam is wrong. They should preach moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims must protest and make their voices heard.

That's what they must do to not approve of radical Islam? Sure, I'd love for them to do these things (and I believe some have been done), but inaction != consent.

 

The choice of not supporting radical Islam does not really do anything. It is like saying there is nothing such as 'moderate Islam.'

What?

 

Now, to the issue of bombing Mecca, and I explained it to ecoli.

It will trigger reform inside Islam, and that is what I want. At the peak of Christian extremism, reform was the only way that changed that.

Again, I am speaking about the bigger image.

I don't see how it will trigger reform. I can see it triggering hatred (all those moderate Muslims will hate you) but not reform.

 

What would you do if someone nuked the Vatican? Say "oh, well, we needed the reform" or decide to kill the guy who did it?

[Physia]

That's what they must do to not approve of radical Islam? Sure, I'd love for them to do these things (and I believe some have been done), but inaction != consent.

 

These are the guidelines to show that they do not approve of radical Islam, not the guidelines to disapprove of it. That they can do amongst themselves, but this they must show in public.

 

What?

 

What is the point of having moderates that disapprove of radical Islam, but don't do anything about it? Are they making any difference? Of course not, hence it is like they are not present there.

 

I don't see how it will trigger reform. I can see it triggering hatred (all those moderate Muslims will hate you) but not reform.

 

What would you do if someone nuked the Vatican? Say "oh, well, we needed the reform" or decide to kill the guy who did it?

 

It will create contradictions inside the Quran, which will lead to reform. Hatred.. That's already present, it should not be a worry at all. Even if they are moderates, that doesn't mean they like you.

 

The Vatican issue is totally different., review my reply to ecoli about the Mecca comment if you please. Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed. The Vatican, on the other hand, is just like any other place, hence the consequences of bombing the Vatican differ from the consequences of bombing Mecca.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It will create contradictions inside the Quran, which will lead to reform.

I do not see how you jumped from your premise to your conclusion.

 

Hatred.. That's already present, it should not be a worry at all. Even if they are moderates, that doesn't mean they like you.

So you deny that there is a population of Muslims that does not hate America. Very well. I can provide counterexamples.

 

Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed.

Source?

[mooeypoo]

Mecca is said to be 'unbreakable,' a place that can't be bombed.

 

Source?

 

Forget about source... -- RELEVANCY!?

 

~moo