Obesession 'Radical Islam's War Against The West'

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by GRIM, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #41
    Technically it might not be legal, problem comes to proving the intent of why they sent the DVD's out.
     
    GRIM, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  2. Divisive Cottonwood

    Divisive Cottonwood Peon

    Messages:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    35
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #42
    It's all up on YouTube...

    The only intention of this is to scare the shit out of people

    It's merely a montage of extremists issuing threats, and then they pull out that old chestnut of equating them to Nazis

    And 28m copies are distributed for free in swing states weeks before a national election...

    This is not a mere coincidence and the Clarion Fund have done so with the intent of influencing the election
     
    Divisive Cottonwood, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  3. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #43
    Grim, I'd developed an absence of fear on dangerous whitewater because I'd always managed to get outta bad spots... and the reality of why humans have fear in the first place snapped me back into reality when the absence of fear almost preceded the absence of breathing last April. Sometimes a reminder is a good thing.

    If people forget that there are real people that have a stated goal of killing us it isnt necessarily a good thing. Sticking our head in the sand and going thru the voting process with the absence of thought that people really did run jets into buildings and have been stopped on multiple occasions since trying to do us harm in other ways isnt a good thing. I sincerely hope we dont foget the President is also the Commander in Chief when we vote, or that picking someone that can handle that role is an important component.

    If someone sent out a video that does not mention a preference for either candidate... it breaks no law and it is their right to send what you consider junk mail as much as anyone elses.
     
    robjones, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  4. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #44
    I wonder if it's all about the election or if they're being sent to Canadians as well.
     
    LogicFlux, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  5. Divisive Cottonwood

    Divisive Cottonwood Peon

    Messages:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    35
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #45
    Yes it's all about the election and no they won't be sending it to Canadians
     
    Divisive Cottonwood, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  6. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    LogicFlux, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  7. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #47
    Exactly. If you want to bust someone for intentionally trying to influence an election with a direct attack on candidate, the name Michael Moore does come to mind again.

    No one is forcing anyone to watch the Obsession flick any more than they were forced to watch F 9/11. However, I encourage everyone to watch it.

    Pretending that radical Islamists do not exist or claiming to be offended by the obvious facts doesn't make the threat any less of a threat. It is a real threat and it is not the first time that it has reared its ugly head.

    For anyone who has not seen the movie, you can watch the trailer on the movie's web site:

    http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

    Judge for yourself.
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  8. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    Just judging from the twelve minutes or so that I found on google, it seems this film is more of a real documentary than any of Moore's films.
     
    LogicFlux, Sep 25, 2008 IP
    TechEvangelist likes this.
  9. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #49
    You have that right.

    I just added the movie trailer link to my last post. Let everyone decide for themselves.

    I see no evidence of fabrications or distortions. It is what it is.

    I suppose that you could claim that the thousands of radical Muslims chanting "Death to America" are really chanting "We love America", but I don't think that would hold water. :D
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  10. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #50
    Here's a link to the twelve minutes, BTW.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...ssion+'Radical+Islam's+War+Against+The+West'+
     
    LogicFlux, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  11. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #51
    What do people not get that sending a video out that people did not ask for is totally different than a film people have to go and see.

    :rolleyes:
     
    GRIM, Sep 25, 2008 IP
  12. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #52
    free education
     
    debunked, Sep 25, 2008 IP
    GRIM likes this.
  13. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #53
    You can always mark it return to sender and leave it in your mail box ;)
     
    bogart, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  14. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #54
    One could, that however is like saying 'well this illegal campaign material came in, oh well it's no big deal I'll just 'return to sender''

    Hell this anthrax came in, I'll just 'return to sender' Ok a bit over the top, but still the entire argument of 'return to sender' or 'not forced to watch' simply does not wash.
     
    GRIM, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  15. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #55
    GRIM, the part that you do not seem to grasp is that the video is not a propaganda film nor does it attack any one candidate or party. There is no violation of the law. It very accurately portrays what radical Islam is about, and makes a clear distinction between that and true Islam.

    It is not illegal campaign material and the only reason anyone could make that claim is due to the obvious weakness of one candidate. The same could be said about any global warming video shown on television just prior to the election, because the perception would be that it would benefit the Democrats. I don't think that any liberal would stop a global warming video from being shown just prior to the election due to concerns that it might unfairly influence the election. You and I both know that this would be a compelling reason to show it and if it stays politically neutral, there isn't any violation.

    The intent of the video is to make people aware of the reality of the threat, which may compel people to be more vigilant and keep pressure on our politicians in general. In that respect, sending out the freebie copies is brilliant.

    No one is forcing anyone to watch Obsession any more than they were forced to watch F 9/11. However, F 9/11 was so widely publicized as being "well research and accurate" by the giddy liberal media that one could make the same claim that they should have been prosecuted for trying to influence the election with illegal campaign material, which clearly was propaganda aimed at one candidate with the intent of influencing the election.

    The only distinction that exists between F 9/11 and Obsession is that one is pure propaganda and the other isn't. F 9/11 gave new meaning to the word propaganda because so many people mistakenly believe it is an honest assessment of Bush.
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  16. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #56
    You are incorrect on multiple points.
    #1 It is propaganda.
    #2 It does not attack a party, yet again any scare tactic such as this is going to give support to the Republican party. It does not have to state 'support Republican candidate X' in order to accomplish it's goals.
    #3 There very well could be a violation of the law.
    #4 There are reports of misinformation of the movie.
    Totally incorrect. Security issues go to the Republican side, you seriously are not this blind are you? Of course you're not as you bring up 'global warming' as you know that would go to the dems, 'yet' you argue the other way, a way of having it both ways in all reality. Difference is the 'global warming' is not being sent to people who did not request it, in battle ground states right before the election.
    Sure that's the intent, right before the election in only battle ground states. Come on now, I was not born yesterday nor were you, stop acting like you were.
    Yep keep bringing up F 9/11 when F 9/11 was not sent out to people in battle ground states that did not ask for it right before the election. This is a key difference you are so desperately trying to ignore as it's the main meat of the issue. Not the film itself but the method in which it was delivered.
    Incorrect yet again, do you need the definition of propaganda? Just because you are on the side of something and believe everything in it does not make it somehow not 'propaganda'

    The difference is in the DELIVERY for the billionth time.

    :rolleyes:

    Would I have any problem with the video otherwise? I would see it very similar to F 9/11, F 9/11 however was NOT sent out to people who did not ask to see it in battle ground states right before the election.

    Definition of 'propaganda' as some are obviously in need of it.
    http://www.answers.com/propaganda
    If you can't focus on the 'how' it was sent then seriously don't bother as your attempts to bring F 9/11 into it only show you have no real case about the 'how' it was done.
     
    GRIM, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  17. pizzaman

    pizzaman Active Member

    Messages:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    52
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    90
    #57
    pizzaman, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  18. debunked

    debunked Prominent Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #58
    If someone evenly remotely "conservative" or who was known to vote republican did that video, they would be hanged by the media and you would be screaming racist.
     
    debunked, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  19. earthfaze

    earthfaze Peon

    Messages:
    765
    Likes Received:
    20
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #59
    Yeah maybe, but Sara Silverman doesn't give a shit if she is hanged by the media or called racist so it's somewhat of a moot point. Read this http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html
    Now I want you to chant Hope Change Hope Change, then I want you to chant Freedom isn't Free, then I want you to tattoo demlibs on one teet and repuglicans on the other. Maybe get Faux news on one ass cheek and Liberal Media Bias on the other. That way you will have a visual reminder that shit comes straight out of the middle.
     
    earthfaze, Sep 26, 2008 IP
  20. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #60
    Somehow sending a video that raises an issue without mentioning a candidate to battleground states doesnt rise (or rather "stoop") to the level of an elected Democrat in Florida (a crucial swing state) suggesting Sarah Palin is a racist anti-semite / anti-black. Call me old fashioned, but this is the stuff that wreaks of pathetic lying crap:
    ABC News.com Story is here.
    He was trying to rally Jews to vote for Obama. This is about the lowest thing I've seen in this or any campaign. The fact that she hunts makes her a racist. God help anyone crazy enough to listen to this guy, much less the people that have him for an elected official.
     
    robjones, Sep 26, 2008 IP