Obsession

[WingZero94]

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

Preview at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HXEtjbtTWk

This is a real threat. These 'people' should be taken seriously. This was an eye opening movie.

 

[fskimospy]

2 problems with that movie. First, no reputable director would have an endorsement from Michael Medved as his most prominent one.

Second, the whole comparison of todays radical Islamists and the Nazis is a joke. The idea that a segment of the planet that is largely impoverished, dependent on a single natural resource, and consumed by racial, social, and ethnic tensions is as large (or larger!?!!) a threat to the world as a power that controlled Europe with millions and millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of tanks, airplanes, and the like... is a stupid idea.

Yeah, they indoctrinate their kids and that's bad. Yeah they blow up things and that's bad. In order to fight them effectively we need clarity of vision as to what they really are... and world dominating nazis they ain't.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
2 problems with that movie. First, no reputable director would have an endorsement from Michael Medved as his most prominent one.

Second, the whole comparison of todays radical Islamists and the Nazis is a joke. The idea that a segment of the planet that is largely impoverished, dependent on a single natural resource, and consumed by racial, social, and ethnic tensions is as large (or larger!?!!) a threat to the world as a power that controlled Europe with millions and millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of tanks, airplanes, and the like... is a stupid idea.

Yeah, they indoctrinate their kids and that's bad. Yeah they blow up things and that's bad. In order to fight them effectively we need clarity of vision as to what they really are... and world dominating nazis they ain't.

With the current heading of Europe's demographics, they'll eat Europe from within in 25-50 years. Islam is NOT just another religion; It's a way of life and government. In this regard, it's very much like Nazism.

 

[Moonbeam]

You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Religious fanatics are going to be the end of mankind.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Really? Are you THAT different? Look at what you're doing here...instead of treating the average Muslim as an individual who may or may not be a coldblooded fanatic, you've decided that they are all guilty of the crime of being part of some sort of radical religious element of society that is comparable to the Nazis simply because of their religion. The unspoken part of "them" being at war with "us" is that we need to make war right back, on all of them. After all, what's the solution to a war being waged by "Islam" other than wiping out all the Muslims?

YOU sound more like a Nazi than they do. "Reality" is that there is a small but vocal and violent minority of Muslims who think extremism is the answer and our best chance of dealing with them is to get the the average, NON-extremist Muslims on our side. Your "reality" is a thinly veiled excuse to wage religious war against a religion you don't like. No offense, but we already have Osama and friends doing that...we don't need fanatics like you on OUR side too.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Religious fanatics are going to be the end of mankind.

No they aren't. Religious fanatics are "fanatic" because they KNOW their time is over. Today's religious fanatics were the mainstream of society a few hundred years ago. The Spanish Inquisition was conducted by "Christians" not all that unlike "Muslims" who strap explosives to their chests and blow up a marketplace. The only difference is that the former group was the authority in the world and absolutely controlled society. That's becoming less and less true, and the fanatics know it. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but on a sociological scale, their time is already over...what we see now is really the reaction of a group of people who don't want society to ever make it past their primitive views. But we're moving towards that direction, don't let the fanatics fool you...if they start getting quiet, THAT'S when you should worry.

A far more peaceful example of the more fundamentalist religious people in America. You look at them and how loud they are becoming and you might conclude that society is becoming more religious. But we're not, we're becoming LESS fundamentalist, that's why the fundies are making so much noise. Nobody used to talk about "creationism" because that was the accepted "truth". It wasn't until evolution took center stage that the creationist folks started making all that racket.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Hehe, right. You wouldn't be psychotic if you didn't think you knew what reality is. Your psychosis is your conviction. You always become what you fear.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Hehe, right. You wouldn't be psychotic if you didn't think you knew what reality is. Your psychosis is your conviction. You always become what you fear.

Are you one of those "BELIEVE IN JESUS"-cardboard carrying weirdos who roam the streets? Really, I'm all for having a fresh point of view, but yours is just completely alien.

To the point, do you really believe all of mankind have a united goal and are just in disagreement about how to obtain it?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, right. You wouldn't be psychotic if you didn't think you knew what reality is. Your psychosis is your conviction. You always become what you fear.

The likes of you are good only at criticizing others, yet have no opinion when asked a concrete question.

Let's put you to the test: what should be done, given the past terror attacks, the rioting in france, and other hate propaganda (which has already claimed lives, like Theo Van Gogh) ?

Try to stay on subject, i.e. no calls for introspection...

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Really? Are you THAT different? Look at what you're doing here...instead of treating the average Muslim as an individual who may or may not be a coldblooded fanatic, you've decided that they are all guilty of the crime of being part of some sort of radical religious element of society that is comparable to the Nazis simply because of their religion.

Let me explain myself:

1. There have been members of the Nazi party who weren't looking for the extermination of all jews, for example. Does this grants any sort of legitimacy to the Nazism? The fact that some good people are members of something evil does not make it any less evil, only makes these people victims of circumstances.

2. Who is the "average" Muslim? He probably practices Islam every day, does not support womens right, objects America and the free world and happily lives under a despotic regime. True, he might not actively be participating in terror.

The Muslim you and I would LIKE to think of as "average" is actually the exception.
The so-called "average" Muslim who objects fanaticism, supports free society to some degree and embraces the West is quite rare, and almost non-existent in Muslim countries. These people, like Salman Rushdi, are usually exiles, or dead.

The unspoken part of "them" being at war with "us" is that we need to make war right back, on all of them. After all, what's the solution to a war being waged by "Islam" other than wiping out all the Muslims?

I truly don't know. US tried making their lives better in Iraq, but failed miserably. It's not just us-vs.-them, it's them-vs.-them to the same or greater degree. If there was some magical way of drawing them into the 21st century, I'd happily support that.

Do you really think I'd like to see Muslims exterminated just because I don't like them?

YOU sound more like a Nazi than they do. "Reality" is that there is a small but vocal and violent minority of Muslims who think extremism is the answer and our best chance of dealing with them is to get the the average, NON-extremist Muslims on our side.

Again, false perception. As noted above, the "average, NON-extermist" Muslim is actually very different than what you think, and sees the world through very different glasses than you. Their mentality is completely different than yours, and they wouldn't join "our" side as long as its up to them.

Your "reality" is a thinly veiled excuse to wage religious war against a religion you don't like. No offense, but we already have Osama and friends doing that...we don't need fanatics like you on OUR side too.

My ONLY problem with their religion is its effect on my life at the 21st century. I don't care about their religion, only their ideology, which like the Nazi ideology, I'd like to see disappearing from our world. I wouldn't mind Islam one bit if it will take a peaceful role as a RELIGION - NOT a form of government, NOT a regime, NOT a way of life - alongside the other religions.

I'm as atheist as they get, so I'm not looking for another religion to take the place of Islam.

Unfortunately, Islam at its current form just doesn't fit the 21st century.

 

[Craig234]

Doesn't it strike the right as a little funny that the 'radical islamicists' haven't changed much in a very long time, but that they are only now suddenly a major world threat in a 'clash of civilizations'?

Doesn't it strike them that the islamicists are launching this bold new war to take over the world at the same time that the US, if it *were* pursuing world domination itself, would be aiming at that region of the world about now, just as the Project for a New American Century laid out? And that if we were, demonizing the islamicists would be part of doing so?

When complaining that they have an ideology leading them to kill people, who was it who had an ideology leading them to go thousands of miles outside their own area and kill two million people who were trying to be free of foreign domination, in Viet Nam? Don't we fit the description of ideologues who are a menace better than the islamicists?

Of course, we've also been a world leader at battling tyranny, most notably in WWII and the cold war - our history is not all good or bad, it's a mix.

To answer dna, one of the first things we should do is to start to recognize the truth that most of our nation is ignorant of, of the history of the middle east, of things such as the US role in perpetuating tyranny there, supporting regimes staying in power who torture and otherwise are nasty.

When we start to have a more honest set of policies which are fair and good for the masses of people involved, we're well on our road to peaceful co-existence. Note how millions of Muslims live peacefully in the US now, when you consider the demonizing.

Consider how we have done things like put the Shah into the role of brutal dictator in Iran, replacing democracy, and ask how you would react to that being done to you as you evaluate the hostility some of them have.

I'm a lot more concerned about the economic decline of the US in coming years, in contrast with the rise of China and her illeberal policies - something you hear nothing about, really, from our government - than I am with the Muslims.

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Religious fanatics are going to be the end of mankind.

war lovers and those think we could solve everything by nuking the sh!t out of thing.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Doesn't it strike the right as a little funny that the 'radical islamicists' haven't changed much in a very long time, but that they are only now suddenly a major world threat in a 'clash of civilizations'?

Not too familiar with history, are you.. The Muslim world is growing more and more religious. For example, PLO, formed in '64, had little to do with religion. Now they've been replaced with Hamas, who are the religious allies of Iran. Lebanon underwent the same process of becoming ever-so-religious, same for Iran.

The past terror committed by Muslims was driven by nationality, now it is by religion.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Craig234
To answer dna, one of the first things we should do is to start to recognize the truth that most of our nation is ignorant of, of the history of the middle east, of things such as the US role in perpetuating tyranny there, supporting regimes staying in power who torture and otherwise are nasty.

When we start to have a more honest set of policies which are fair and good for the masses of people involved, we're well on our road to peaceful co-existence. Note how millions of Muslims live peacefully in the US now, when you consider the demonizing.

Typical excuses: they never have to share the blame. Even now, as Iran funds terrorist such as Hamas and Hezbollah -- effectively destroying any possibility for peace -- we have to re-examine past actions and make amends.

A week ago, two journalists were on the radio to talk about their experience and observation in Iraq (as they've been there prior to 2003). One noteable thing they mentioned is that Iraqis blame everyone except Iraqis: it might be the Syrians fault, the Jordanian's fault, Iran's fault -- anyone but them.

I agree with SamurAchzar: the moderate muslim is quite a rare animal -- perhaps even endangered.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

With the current heading of Europe's demographics, they'll eat Europe from within in 25-50 years. Islam is NOT just another religion; It's a way of life and government. In this regard, it's very much like Nazism.

Exactly. Add to this that they blame the US and the "West" for all their problems which are actually caused by their inablility to get along amongst each other and their inablility to instate a proper government and you have the fundamentals of the problem.

 

[Craig234]

Typical excuses: they never have to share the blame. Even now, as Iran funds terrorist such as Hamas and Hezbollah -- effectively destroying any possibility for peace -- we have to re-examine past actions and make amends.

A week ago, two journalists were on the radio to talk about their experience and observation in Iraq (as they've been there prior to 2003). One noteable thing they mentioned is that Iraqis blame everyone except Iraqis: it might be the Syrians fault, the Jordanian's fault, Iran's fault -- anyone but them.

I agree with SamurAchzar: the moderate muslim is quite a rare animal -- perhaps even endangered.

Typical excuses - avoiding any responsibility. I never said the Mulsims cannot share blame, cannot have blame for their own mistakes entirely. You took absolutely zero responsibility for your nation's wrongs.

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't completely evil - they exist in part in reaction to excessive wrongs done to populations by others, including us. You, if like others on the right, support tyranny by having no objection to our supplying vast military aid to one side in conflicts there, which is used for right or wrong that you don't watch too closely.

When I see indigenous 'terrorist groups' form, the rule seems to be that there's at least some injustice why, whether they're the American founding fathers, the resistance groups against Axis occupation in WWII, the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, the FMLA in El Salvador, the Jews in Palestine before Israel was created, and more.

One of the problems is that power seems to blind people to the moral issues. If you are on the *receiving* end, it's easy to see. We have no doubts of the wrongs the English did to our founding fathers; we have no problems criticizing the USSR for its violent suppression of dissidents in Hungary, of the Chinese communists in Tiannamen Square. But let the issue be that the tyrant was us, and suddenly people have no interest - knowing that the British had an exploitave setup to get oil below market prices from Iran, that Iran finally got a real leader in office who represented the nation by demanding a fair price for the oil, England asked the US to help them prevent that, and the US ending democracy to install a brutal dictatorship, and you see the right-wingers change the topic, virtually never say "our bad, sorry".

You are guilty of the same whitewash of our side. Part of your errors includes your misrepresenting the liberals' position as others not 'sharing blame'. You have a propaganda phrase for the argument, "blame American first". That's not their position - name a nation, I'll show you where they share the blame, and may be far worse than the US.

But you avoid the responsibility for your own nation's wrongs.

 

[fskimospy]

Samur, you are completely wrong.

Lebanon, Iran, hell.. even the occupied Palestinians originally were run by relatively secular people because their states were secular constructions built by England and France in the Sykes-Picot treaty. They installed secularists in power, because that's what they wanted. The population has NEVER wanted secular government. The only possible exception was post Ataturk Turkey, and even in that case the military has intervened THREE times to prevent the formation of an Islamic theocracy. Their motivations have always been the same.

Saying that islamic people will eat europe in 50 years is ignorant. First of all... that same logic was leveled against "The Chinaman!" a century ago, and against the Hispanics more recently.

Finally, the relative comparison to the Nazis is still wildly off base. Are you familiar with Godwin's Law? It is usually applied to mean that the first person to compare whatever you are discussing to the nazis automatically loses the debate. This law exists because people can compare just about anything to the nazis if they so choose, no matter how tenuous the link. Islamists aren't nazis. They don't control significant industrial resources. They aren't well educated. They don't have access to advanced technology. Finally, the nazis (including war deaths) were responsible for nearly 50 million deaths over a 6 year period. Islamists don't even qualify for the Nazi farm team.

 

[SamurAchzar]

eskimospy, honestly, good post.

However;

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Lebanon, Iran, hell.. even the occupied Palestinians originally were run by relatively secular people because their states were secular constructions built by England and France in the Sykes-Picot treaty. They installed secularists in power, because that's what they wanted. The population has NEVER wanted secular government.

True, but the population, on the other hand, didn't have such a large base of radical Islamists. The despotic, secular leaders used to have a much better hold on their population - e.g. Saddam - and there was no Internet to connect all the madmen of the world together.
In past times, wherever there has been a Muslim uproot against a secular Arab regime, it would be oppressed with brutal means, like what Hafez Assad did in the Hama massacare or, to some degree, King Hussein did in Black September or Mubarak did (and still doing) with the Muslim Brotherhood. And there was also Saddam Hussein who didn't let radical Islamists raise their collective heads.

Saying that islamic people will eat europe in 50 years is ignorant. First of all... that same logic was leveled against "The Chinaman!" a century ago, and against the Hispanics more recently.

The Hispanics come from a vastly different background, and while those who come to the US from outside have a somewhat conservative mentality, it's not completely alien to that of the "white man". They integrate relatively well, and have no religious aspirations. You wouldn't get the Shariah law from Hispanics.

Finally, the relative comparison to the Nazis is still wildly off base. Are you familiar with Godwin's Law? It is usually applied to mean that the first person to compare whatever you are discussing to the nazis automatically loses the debate. This law exists because people can compare just about anything to the nazis if they so choose, no matter how tenuous the link. Islamists aren't nazis. They don't control significant industrial resources. They aren't well educated. They don't have access to advanced technology. Finally, the nazis (including war deaths) were responsible for nearly 50 million deaths over a 6 year period. Islamists don't even qualify for the Nazi farm team.

Between Nazis with access to nukes and Iran with access to nukes, I'd take the former. At least Nazis had some value to their own life and did not believe they were acting on the behalf of god.
Nukes can yield the same damage no matter who's pressing the red button. Iran doesn't need significant industry to cause havoc.
The new breed of Islamofascist aren't any better than the old breed of atheist fascist. It's just that the new ones believe god is on their side.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You first make your enemy a demon so you can rest easy morally when you kill him.

Psychotics need you to share their madness so they don't feel alone in their insanity.

We are all the same.

Maybe YOU are the same as the average Arab mob who aspires to be controlled by religious, insane, fascist dictators like in Iran. I beg to differ.

Only psychotics look at reality straight in the eyes and refuse to embrace it.

Your crazy for that last post before this one.
I dont think there are many arabs in Iran.
google vidYou can see the full video on Google videos

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, right. You wouldn't be psychotic if you didn't think you knew what reality is. Your psychosis is your conviction. You always become what you fear.

The likes of you are good only at criticizing others, yet have no opinion when asked a concrete question.

Let's put you to the test: what should be done, given the past terror attacks, the rioting in france, and other hate propaganda (which has already claimed lives, like Theo Van Gogh) ?

Try to stay on subject, i.e. no calls for introspection...

There is no spoon.

 

[sandorski]

There is an Obsession alright, this thread is part of it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
2 problems with that movie. First, no reputable director would have an endorsement from Michael Medved as his most prominent one.

Second, the whole comparison of todays radical Islamists and the Nazis is a joke. The idea that a segment of the planet that is largely impoverished, dependent on a single natural resource, and consumed by racial, social, and ethnic tensions is as large (or larger!?!!) a threat to the world as a power that controlled Europe with millions and millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of tanks, airplanes, and the like... is a stupid idea.

Yeah, they indoctrinate their kids and that's bad. Yeah they blow up things and that's bad. In order to fight them effectively we need clarity of vision as to what they really are... and world dominating nazis they ain't.

They're determined to kill us, and they're all slowly obtaining nuclear technology. It's clear what the threat is. Our struggle is to not allow the Churchill?s of today to sign off millions of deaths tomorrow. We must not permit this threat to continue to grow, or the blood of the millions that they kill will be on our hands.

Unfortunately, I believe we already have the blood of our families on our hands. No one today is willing to do what is necessary and kill them before they kill us. We will learn our lesson harshly.

 

[Craig234]

They're determined to kill us

Oh, really? What, exactly, in the last thousand years has suddenly changed that they want to kill us?

I say it's more likely that we're the ones who have decided we need to kill thm and so it's time to demonize them to justify it, the usual plan.

I know of nothing they can do to threaten us seriously. The radicals were becoming irrelevant until we proved their message right about our behavior.

...and they're all slowly obtaining nuclear technology. It's clear what the threat is. Our struggle is to not allow the Churchill?s of today to sign off millions of deaths tomorrow. We must not permit this threat to continue to grow, or the blood of the millions that they kill will be on our hands.

Unfortunately, I believe we already have the blood of our families on our hands. No one today is willing to do what is necessary and kill them before they kill us. We will learn our lesson harshly.

Countries have every reason to want a nuke for self-defense. Yes, that's enormously dangerous. Who can we blame for making that the case, giving them reason to fear that there is nothing to protect them if the most powerful nation wants to ignore the law and go after them? Oh, right.

The lesson we need to learn is not yours - yours is the lesson of Viet Nam, kill millions first and later say "oh, gee, they didn't have the agenda we thought they did." The lesson of Viet Nam is to pursue co-existence, to stop being the mass-murderer as in that nation with 2 million killed.

You meant Chamberlein's, not Churchill's - and even that lesson doesn't hold up. Not every foreign leader is Hitler. Churchill himself realized this when he tried hard to get the US to pursue peace with the USSR, and was very frustrated by the US blinders in the McCarthy era.

The people who are calling for killing millions are the menace. The post above wants to kill millions. He's the menace.

Nuclear prolifiration is important - and the US needs to lead on it, including giving up our own nukes and demanding the rest of the world do the same. Our current regime is doing the opposite, leaving anti-proliferation treaties (and exposing an anti-proliferation CIA asset), and pursuing new nukes and space-based weapons.