Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam

UPDATE: Deutsche Übersetzung - Hier Klicken.

This film really speaks for itself. Absolutely stunning. Don't expect to see anything like this in German media. They are too busy bashing America to wake up. The sad realization is how similar the rhetoric of many in German media and society on the USA is to the rhetoric of the most radical Islamists and dictators.

Part 1 (above)

Part 2 (above)

See the Glenn Beck version below:

12 MINUTE MOVIE TRAILER HERE.

ORDER FULL-LENGTH MOVIE.

VISIT THE MEMRI WEBSITE FOR MORE.

Endnote: We know that some of our politically correct friends out there will dismiss us for showing something from FoxNews. They may actually see FoxNews and American conservatives as a greater threat to the world than radical Islam. F**k em. This is too important not to show. It's time to face reality.

Comments

[WhatDoIKnow]

You define YOUR view as healthy, theirs as unhealthy and that was that. Your view is reasonable, theirs per se never.

Exactly. As I said, if you apply reason to the events in the world you come to realize that "their" reason is not really reason. Reason is based on *reality*. "They" ignore reality in their constructs. Their process of thinking can be called anything else - projection, paranoia - but it has nothing in common with *true reason*.

You simply ignore that i already agreed to the message "radical islam is dangerous". I wonder why you so vehemently do that

I would appreciate if you could point the exact line(s) where I "vehemently" denied that.

A wise man once said:"When they start insulting you, they lost the argument"

Well, then let me do it again for good measure: you are boring in your writing, make little sense and make some awfully idiotic remarks. (Please note the the word "idiotic" relates to your post, not your personality).

You waste again lots of space on DMK's servers by saying that basically there shouldn't be a documentary on terrorism because everyone knows the danger of terrorism. This is the very idiotic remark I was talking about. Then I guess there is no need for documentaries on... nature, animal life etc. "Discovery Channel" and "National Geographic" also shouldn't exist, because they make documentaries about the same things, over and over again, only from different angles each time. You see how you managed to sound idiotic?

Fox chose to make a documentary exclusively about terrorism. You claim, foolishly, that people don't need that because they know about the danger of terror. Really? Is this why Bush is considered a greater threat than Osama & Co.? Your entire criticism is built on false premises. Too many people in the Western world are not aware of the danger of terror. This is not my subjective opinion, it is reflected in poll results.

Deist, there is so much nonsense in what you wrote that you make perfect sense... only in your head. Not in the real world. Do your keyboard some good and give it a break.

[Deist]

I just had to ;-)

"You see how you managed to sound idiotic?"
I managed to understand how you can hear me as idiotic.

"Well, then let me do it again for good measure: you are boring in your writing, make little sense and make some awfully idiotic remarks."
Perhaps i am just too stupid or my english is TOO bad...or you dont really read my text ...

""You simply IGNORE that i already agreed to the message "radical islam is dangerous". I wonder why you so vehemently do that""

"I would appreciate if you could point the exact line(s) where I "vehemently" DENIED that."
denial = ignoring ... didnt know that....will keep that in mind for the next time

"You waste again lots of space on DMK's servers by saying that basically there shouldn't be a documentary on terrorism because everyone knows the danger of terrorism."
documentary on terrorism = show telling you radical islam is dangerous
Now you show me the line i said that ! I spoke about the obvious fact that radical islam is a thread, not about a general documentary about terrorism. Actually i ASKED for a real documentary about terrorism instead of this show !
Which brings us again to "idiotic" remarks.... or lets rather say "conclusions and analogies"...
"Then I guess there is no need for documentaries on... nature, animal life etc. "Discovery Channel" and "National Geographic" also shouldn't exist,"
To make the analogy fit you would have to take a "documentary" that doesnt tell you more in its 15 minute program besides a "dogs have 4 legs". If you call that documentary about "dogs"... fine. I dont. I call it a show telling you dogs have 4 legs.

"Too many people in the Western world are not aware of the danger of terror. "
You mean (too) many people have a different perception about the relations of the threats posed by radical islam versus other "perceived threats" ? That certainly IS true !
Doesnt mean that nobody is aware that radical islam is no threat !
But in the end we argue about something very simple:
We two argue about the means to change that !
And your solution ?
In order to assess the SCOPE of the thread a one liner named "hey radical islam is dangerous" is all you need ?

You might rightly call me boring, but i guess "nonsense" and a lack of reality is better suited to your view here.

Sorry ... my opinion here stands. A show, Moore and Jazeera style.
It would have been better to make a real documentary with more information and less ambience.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Deist

You simply IGNORE that i already agreed to the message "radical islam is dangerous". I wonder why you so vehemently do that"

I can only ask you again: where did I "vehemently" IGNORED that? I would appreciate an answer.

Let's continue to try to make some sense of your rant.

I said:

You waste again lots of space on DMK's servers by saying that basically there shouldn't be a documentary on terrorism because everyone knows the danger of terrorism.

To which you answered:

Now you show me the line i said that !

Unlike you, I am happy to oblige:

Telling me that "radical islam" is a threat ? I know that. You know that. I guess everybody with a brain knows it. Do you really need a "documentary" to tell you that ?

Does this sound familiar?

Deist, it makes absolutely no sense to "debate" you, since you obviously are not fully aware of your own ideas. Besides that, you have this almost obssesive idea that a documentary on terrorism shouldn't focus only on ... terrorism.

The German media is full of people like you, who know somewhat the danger but feel they have to somehow present it ... differently, whatever that might mean. Fortunately there are alternatives in today's world, so keep complaining about Fox. Nobody cares.

[James W.]

@Deist

I don't think enough people are aware of just how dangerous radical Islam is. If it takes a little background sound effects to get a larger audience's attention...then more power to them. In a world of "reality tv" and Jerry Springer, you better do something to make them wake up and take notice. Hell, most of the music came from damned anti-American music videos from Iran! What's important for me is that they get the message out in a media where it is very difficult to get fair time. Glenn Beck said it took him months to get this show on the air, and that it should have been done years earlier. It was also made clear that not all Muslims are radicals.

I saw nowhere in the videos where it may have looked like the audience is being deceived. This is not true with M. Moore. Moore intentionally cuts, splices, spins and lies to create his "documentaries". Please show me where you think Fox or Beck did this. The radicals in those videos, I'm pretty damned certain, were not taken out of context--their words were clear: "What makes Allah happy is when (non Muslims) get killed."

Moore and Jazeera my ass!

[Deist]

@WhatDoIKnow
It indeed doesnt make sense to debate here.
How should i explain to you that a show telling you "radical islam is dangerous" and a "documentary on terrorism" are two completely different things ? If that basic (and it really is one of the most simple) distictions is not visible to you then i cant really do much.

@James:
My point was and is simply that i am against "effects to get a larger audience" in a documentary.
Per se. I like to make my own assessments of the situation and i dislike being told a preinterpreted view EVEN if i agree with the view. Thats the very reason i dont like german media, the very reason i dislike arab media (which really makes my blood boil time and time again).

When it comes to the question about "how dangerous" something is then (i think) you should put it in the greater scope. You cant simply state "its dangerous" to tell people "how" dangerous it is. It would be wiser to think about how many radicals exist, how many nonradicals and how many "inbetweeners". It would be good to inform more about the points that might aid those that seek new recruits (for the good or the bad cause). It might be good to discuss possible solution scenarios. In short it might be good for a real assessment of the danger to give everybody some more info.
And i can only say it again: INFORMATION is NOT "ENTERTAINMENT".
I have a strong dislike for such things and i openly tell you that it IS a form of manipulation. Using WhatDoIKnows healthy reasoning will show you pretty well what simple effect it has if i only let the music play in a simple walmart while people shop ! Go pick one of the numerous studies.
You say now that you want a bigger audience and that (indeed) obviously is the way to do it. Its just the same way others do it too.
You say Moore intentionally cuts (to which i agree) but Fox didnt do that here. Moore has a similar message: "The Bush government is dangerous and we must make people aware of it". And yes he truely does "that" by using what suits him and leaving out any wider scope. And Fox doesnt do this now here ? Apart of them telling you a story you agree to and wish to be spread ... why would you not see a similarity ?

Or really to make it short and for everybody:
What is soooo wrong in the demand of a real and objective documentary which gives us the means to assess the dangers ? Answer me THAT question please. Only that one !

[James W.]

I like to make my own assessments of the situation and i dislike being told a preinterpreted view EVEN if i agree with the view.

That's where I think, as WDIK put it, "healthy reasoning" comes in--knowing what to take from it. You would need more of a mini-series (I'm game). But remember, the difficulties just getting a one-hour show on the air. Is "Obsession" running in theaters around the world? As you stay with your opinion, I stay with mine. You've got to get this out with the most impact--otherwise, you're going to be drowned out.

You say Moore intentionally cuts (to which i agree) but Fox didnt do that here. Moore has a similar message: "The Bush government is dangerous and we must make people aware of it". And yes he truely does "that" by using what suits him and leaving out any wider scope. And Fox doesnt do this now here ?

Oh no you don't. Moore uses scenes and snippets that sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with the scene he's trying to CREATE. If you can show me where Fox has done this, then yes, I would put them on the same level. I've never seen it. Furthermore, when I agree with something shown on Fox, it's in agreement with other things that I have learned about the situation. I do my checks. I have yet to find a Moore or al Jazeera template--saving similarities in special effects and graphics.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Deist

If you watch the trailer it says clearly in the beginning:

Obsession - Radical Islam's war against the West

And then it says:

This is a film about the global threat of radical Islam

And that's it. That's what it does. It presents the threat of radical Islam. End of story. It's not a 10 episodes production that starts at Adam & Eve, it's a one hour (or even less) compressed production on Islamist global threat.

You have a huge problem with it, because it was not made the way you wanted it. And because of that, you deny its value completely. You put it on the same level with Moore and aljazeera, which to any healthy reasoning person is ridiculous (James W made that point very clearly). But you don't stop here. You go further and make another outrageous claim, namely that people in the West don't need something like that because they know the danger. As I said before facts and polls contradict your claim - people are NOT fully aware of that. However, you graciously ignore that. You need support for your claim and if that means bending the truth "a little", so be it.

I was always baffled by people who are so inflexible that they can not accept anything beyond the horizon of their own expectations. I never understood this mindset. Intuitively I knew that something is wrong with that thought process, but I had no clue what that might be. Fortunately, Dr. Sanity, Shrinkwrapped and a few others psycho-bloggers (all of them mean conservatives) came along and I understood what drives an otherwise sane person to be so rigid. It was very simple in fact - it's called narcissism. That's what you display "in Hülle und Fülle" in this instance.

[joe]

Diest,

Do your assessments contribute to your defnition of your reality?

An fear not. Fear can prevent you from taking action. Also never fear man.

[Deist]

@joe: I fear only one thing.
@James: I understand your points. I also almost agree with them except for the simple point that i believe in the lazyness of people. We have a saying here: "if you get a horse as a gift you wont control his teeth".
From my perspective its a relatively simple claim that when you get a show or clip that offers you something (expecially something that is tuned in to your emotions) then you wont verify it accoring to the same standards that you would apply to an objective claim or a show that contradicts your views.
Its as simple as that.

I dont mind the claim, i dont mind Fox (generally). I only have my problems with this kind of presentation. You say you will use your reasoning with Fox, Moore etc. Congratulations on that.
My point is that everybody will tell you he does, but most dont. Using one of WDIKs famous statements: "as the polls show" MOST people here in europe or in arab countries either didnt do reasoning about Moore (might be the claim of conservatives) or used "another form" of reasoning (might be the claim of leftists) and agreed to Moore.

I always prefer to force people to think on their own instead of expecting them to know what to filter from a show.

WDIK:
I agree with you conserning one sentence: "I have a huge problem because its not it was not made in the way i want". Thats the point yes. Contrary to other people that often have problems with something because it doesnt say what they want it to say. That would be a person that doesnt accept anything beyond his own "expectations".