Obsession: Islam's War Against The West

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, the article discusses how the US is in a state of disarray and both parties are focused on Iraq. It also talks about how the US is aware of Iran and that it is time for them to deal with it.
  • #1
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,142
1,755
This seems to be getting a lot of attention.
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

Personally, I think we are likely in for very bad times. I think that by invading a Muslim country and managing the effort so horrifically, Bush has lit the fuse on a pile of dynamite that has accumulated for decades. He has helped to empower our enemies in the worst way possible - he proved that we are a threat and will invade. However, what's done is done, and one thought that has been crossing my mind lately is that the people of the ME had better get these jihad nuts under control. What the world has seen these last few years from the US, and really for the last few decades, is a half-hearted pseudo-war strategy that was intended to prevent widespread conflict. Keep in mind that we haven't even declared a war to be official since WWII. We don't even have a draft! In short, you ain't seen nothin’ yet. We have been swatting flies and playing politics…and trying to prevent WWIII.

I believe that many people have no idea of the awesome military power of the United States. This especially includes those who are strapping bombs to their bellies. They have no idea of what we keep hidden, and they have no idea of the shear brute force that we can muster. For example, one US submarine could basically erase Iran from the map within a couple of hours or less. If our existence was truly perceived to be in jeopardy and the enormous power of the US were let loose, the entire ME could basically be gone in less than a day.

You people in the ME had better get your nuts under control. If this is really as bad as some say, we may ALL be lucky to survive. It we were to really cut loose and use our power, we would certainly pay a very heavy price [at the least], but the way things are going, we may not be able to keep our nuts under control much longer. Already we barely avoided Bush et al implementing the use of nukes as bunker busters. And even something as minor [relatively speaking] as 911 changed my country into a place that I barely recognize.

But no matter the consequences to us, if things get bad enough, you can be sure that the ME would end up as nothing but scorched sand and bones. You must stop this insanity before its too late.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ivan Seeking said:
Personally, I think we are likely in for very bad times.
That all depends on how we defend ourselves and our willingness to use force when neccesary.

Ivan Seeking said:
He has helped to empower our enemies in the worst way possible - he proved that we are a threat and will invade.
This statement defies all logic of martial strategy. :rofl:
It is the opposite, being able to demonstrate your willingness to use force is a clear military advantage.

Ivan Seeking said:
However, what's done is done, and one thought that has been crossing my mind lately is that the people of the ME had better get these jihad nuts under control.
At least something we can agree on.

Ivan Seeking said:
I believe that many people have no idea of the awesome military power of the United States. This especially includes those who are strapping bombs to their bellies. They have no idea of what we keep hidden, and they have no idea of the shear brute force that we can muster.
Amen to that!
 
  • #3
MeJennifer said:
Amen to that!
Amen to you too.
 
  • #4
It's not that easy, ivan you are asking for total submision, and that is imposible. even if things get worst and the US nuke the ME, then you will have trouble all around the globe just for nuking the ME. It's simple, the system that the us force on the world finaly leads to rebelion.
 
  • #5
What do you think about this opinion piece - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800848.html" [Broken] by Ari Shavit?
This is the way the wind is blowing on the Potomac. The Democrats are rejoicing over the fall of their foes, and the Republicans are licking their wounds. The realists - the opponents of democratization - are invading the city with Baker-Hamilton in the lead, while the neo-conservatives are preparing to fend them off in a holding action. However, both are up to their necks in Iraq. Neither are able to pay any sort of attention to any issue that is not Iraq. The Americans are well aware that Iran is there. They know full well that its time has come. However, following 45 months of fiasco on the Tigris, they have no emotional, nor intellectual, strength left for dealing with Iran. The superpower of the 20th century is bleeding, battered and bruised. It is approaching the moment of truth on Iran without determination or willpower; without leadership or vision.

This is also the case in Israel. Since the summer of 2002, Israel has known what stands before it. For more than four years Israel has known that it is faced with the greatest existential challenge since May 1948. However, for a long time now, Israel has been unable to come to its senses. At first it knew about Iran, but did not comprehend. Then came comprehension, but it did not act. In the end it took action, but failed. And, instead of taking advantage of the disengagement as a way of rallying the world against Iran, it continued on its trip from disengagement to convergence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Just to balance things out, maybe you should look at http://www.encounterpoint.com/". Though I don't agree with the basic aspects of this movement, I share the view that the best way to combat this violence is for ordinary people on both sides to meet and talk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Ivan Seeking said:
...Bush has lit the fuse on a pile of dynamite that has accumulated for decades.
Now what, precisely would that look like when it went off? Perhaps terrorists might knock down a few skyscrapers in New York...?
 
  • #8
Burnsys said:
It's not that easy, ivan you are asking for total submision, and that is imposible.

Who said anything about submission? What are you talking about?

even if things get worst and the US nuke the ME, then you will have trouble all around the globe just for nuking the ME. It's simple, the system that the us force on the world finaly leads to rebelion.

I don't know what would happen if we did cut loose, but it seems that everyone assumes that we never will, and that is an unjustified and dangerous assumption. If pushed far enough, we would. For one, there is no longer a Soviet threat to keep us in check. In fact, I would be surprised if half of their old missiles [controlled and maintained by whom?] even made it out of the silos. I would be even more surprised if the warheads were properly maintained. But beyond that, we've been preparing for WWIII for fifty years. We have spent trillions in today's dollars on weapons that we hope that we never have to use. But that certainly doesn't mean that we never would use them. If we would never use them under any circumstances, then we would never build them.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Yonoz said:
What do you think about this opinion piece - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800848.html" [Broken] by Ari Shavit?

superpower of the 20th century is bleeding, battered and bruised. It is approaching the moment of truth on Iran without determination or willpower; without leadership or vision.

This is part of what I'm talking about. Don't believe it for a minute. If we got serious about fighting a real war - if we were truly threatened - Iran would barely be more than an afterthought. Note that Iraq was supposed to be the fourth most powerful military in the world, and we took them out in about a hundred hours in Gulf I, and again in a few weeks with a "fast and light" force in Gulf II. This entire notion of a battered US confuses limited warfare fought with volunteers, with all out warfare and the full strength of the military and its entire arsenal of nuclear and classified weapons.

This shows that Bush made a terrible mistake. He has made us look weak by mismanaging a badly conceived strategy. This is dangerous because it empowers the enemy. It makes the enemy think that he could actually win when he can't. But if he thinks he can, if these nuts actually think they can take us out, the world is a much more dangerous place.

The only thing that makes us weak is the desire to prevent widespread conflict or WWIII. If we believe that WWIII can't be avoided and we act on that belief, God help us all.

As for the dems being weak, someone has been watching too much Fox news. Recall that it was a democrat that dropped the bombs on Japan after a long and hard fought war. The only other US President to authorized the use of nuclear weapons [gave military commanders the power to decide] was Carter, who was also labeled a weak democrat. Luckily the nukes were never needed.

Oh yes, and then there was the Cuban missile crisis: Kennedy, a Democrat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
I keep thinking about an excersise that was done for a time in high schools. Take thirty kids or so and ask them how many would authorize a nuclear strike that would start a nuclear war. Thirty kids [as a rule] say that they would never do such a thing. Then the kids are presented with real world types of problems like those faced during the cold war with the Soviet Union. Before long, most of the kids can be steered into a position where they would authorize a nuclear first strike.

The point is that perspectives can change drastically and quickly. What seemed impossible yesterday can be inevitable tomorrow.
 
  • #11
I believe that many people have no idea of the awesome military power of the United States.
Yes you do have a technically advanced military, the most advanced in the world, and we have all seen it in action. But unless you want to commit mass suicide, its highly irrelevant, in the current climate. What I mean by mass Suicide, is that if you let rip with some nukes, you have a very high probability of being nuked yourself.
This statement defies all logic of martial strategy.
It is the opposite, being able to demonstrate your willingness to use force is a clear military advantage.

Maybe in days of the duke of Wellington, or the thin red line but nowadays, it isn't not a military advantage to show your willingness to invade and use force. Especially when you *need* to win hearts and minds, or you will continue to be terrorised. Snap out of the cold war line of thought and get with the modern problem.

1 Man who hates you, with a rucksack can terrorise you!
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking said:
I believe that many people have no idea of the awesome military power of the United States. This especially includes those who are strapping bombs to their bellies. They have no idea of what we keep hidden, and they have no idea of the shear brute force that we can muster.
That is indeed very true but with our current technological evolution, one won't need an entire army to cause a lot of destruction. A small group of a few crazy people with access to the necessary advanced waepons will do the job just fine.

Having said that, indeed the USA are superior in military power, but will that make your country a better/safer place ?


greets
marlon
 
  • #13
Regarding the original topic, although islamic militants are in a war against the west, the truth exists on a grander scale. Islamic militants have managed to get into a fight with the hindus, they are waging a genocidal campaign against the black africans in Sudan, and they have even managed to start a war with the buddhists in Thailand (that takes talent). The truth is that they have managed to get into fights with people from just about every religion that they come in contact with including their own.

Also, the war against the west did not start with the invasion of Iraq. While the USA was leading a coalition to rescue the muslims in Kosovo from genocide at the hands of the Serbs (I was personally involved), islamic militants were planning and training to murder as many americans as they possibly could.

This is not a hate speech against muslims in general. It is simply intended to point out the truth.
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
<snip>But France is well on its way.<snip>
You seem to come back to this every time. There is nothing wrong with the French ecconomy Last time we look at this, we evaluated the DIFFERENCES between the US Economy and that of France.

France has a higher unemployment rate, yet has more percentage of people above the poverty line, than the USA. If your emphasis is on helping society rather than the grab culture, then France could be thought of as having a better Structure. I don't think this is true however, but I certainly wouldn't say on average Americans are far more happy with their life than that of the French

Regardless France is nothing to do with the USSR, and comparing the two systems as alike, or approaching one another, is funny at best.

IMO the reason why the European Growth is slowing, is because we are expanding and taking in very poor eastern countries. It will equalize in perhaps a decade, then our economic market purchasing power will outstrip that of the USA. The idea of the EU is multiple, only 1 of them is to do with increasing economic power.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Terrorist acts won't physically jeopardize the security of the United States unless they can be accomplished nearly every day. Psychologically, the nation would feel it faced a dire threat at levels a lot lower than that.

With isolated incidents, you would expect a rational response from US leaders. Specifically, nuclear attacks aren't a very effective weapon against terrorist groups. It would basically be a hope that the terrorist group would be so shocked by seeing civilians of their own country and religion killed that they would stop. It's not completely inconceivable it would work, although the odds of it working certainly aren't worth the consequences.

If terrorists did reach a certain success level within the US, counting on a rational response from the leaders of a country whose populace is completely beside themselves in screaming for retaliation would be extremely optimistic. At some point, someone would have to be blamed and face retribution and a nuclear attack would start to become a realistic consideration.

I don't know what level that would be, but I don't think we're anywhere remotely close to that. People living in the US and Europe forget what really bad wars are like - especially people in the US who have never had to endure high death rates from war. High casualty rates are on the level of what Europe went through in WWII (or, even worse, the 10,000 per day that the Soviet Union endured). On the other hand, having forgotten what war really costs, I don't think the US would accept even 3,000 deaths a month (very roughly, the paltry casualty rate Americans endured in WWII - at least paltry compared to Europe and the USSR).
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
Note that Iraq was supposed to be the fourth most powerful military in the world, and we took them out in about a hundred hours in Gulf I, and again in a few weeks with a "fast and light" force in Gulf II

apparently the seeds of the insurgency that is currently being fought in iraq came from the participation and training of the iraq army who largely survived the initial invasion. so i disagree that the impressive use of precision bombs in the invasion of iraq actually defeated the iraqi army.


regarding the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by the usa, i don't think that would achieve anything, least of all in favor of american security because the brutality of such an act would shock the world, alienating allies, infuriating the moderates and driving your enemy's to new levels of desperation and determination.

now if the iranian government could be credibly linked to a nuclear detonation on american soil, things could be much different. its unfortunate that the CIA has lost credibility after iraq because some credibility will be required to start another preemptive war on account of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a mad man.
 
  • #17
marlon said:
Having said that, indeed the USA are superior in military power, but will that make your country a better/safer place

That wasn't the point. The point is that if "terrorists" manage to sneak a nuke or biological weapon into the US and detonate it, the entire world will be brought to its knees. I just think people should know that. I'm not saying that I support the use of nukes or those who might use them, but we have them, and if cornered we will use them. Of that you can be sure. And it won't just be a nuke or two like the terrorists hope to achieve, it may well be hundreds or thousands of them if all hell breaks loose. There was a time when we were ready to launch something like 20,000 nuclear warheads.

The difference between the knuckleheads that we are fighting today and the Soviets is that the Soviets were smart enough to know just how dangerous we really are.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
devil-fire said:
regarding the potential use of weapons of mass destruction by the usa, i don't think that would achieve anything, least of all in favor of american security because the brutality of such an act would shock the world, alienating allies, infuriating the moderates and driving your enemy's to new levels of desperation and determination.

There wouldn't be an enemy. At least not any old ones. And if we get hit hard enough, we won't care what our allies have to say either. Just look at what happened after something as small-time as 911. What do you think the response would have been if we had lost all of New York?

apparently the seeds of the insurgency that is currently being fought in iraq came from the participation and training of the iraq army who largely survived the initial invasion. so i disagree that the impressive use of precision bombs in the invasion of iraq actually defeated the iraqi army.

Did you catch the part about a "light and fast" force of volunteer soldiers? That wasn't a war, that was a military exercise. But even so, we took the castle in three weeks and the king was found hiding in a hole. Also, there is no way to fight an effective war without an infrastructure, and precision bombs do a very good job of taking out the infrastructure - ie. command and control.

Also, with nuclear weapons there is no need for precision.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
A lot of the responses here tell me that I am absolutely correct. People have no clue of the incredible power that we have managed to keep corked in a bottle.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
the heading of this original post was Islam's war against islam this what western people think while in the islamic world people think its west's war against islam who are terrorists first we need to unnderstand that .People who reply to the Israeli tanks with stones are not terrorists people fighting for their their rights of freedom (like kashmir) are not terrorists. Wars are never the solution to problem humanity on the whole is on stake not because of terrorists but because of prejudice that exist in west for Muslims and in Muslims world for West . On the whole we need to dialogue and need to have peace .
 
  • #21
Virtual R said:
the heading of this original post was Islam's war against islam this what western people think while in the islamic world people think its west's war against islam who are terrorists first we need to unnderstand that .
Of course most people will understand that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter". :smile:

Virtual R said:
Wars are never the solution to problem humanity on the whole is on stake not because of terrorists but because of prejudice that exist in west for Muslims and in Muslims world for West .
Beautiful speech, but time and time again in history it has been proven that war is typically what solves a problems and introduces progression.

Furthermore, how do you suppose we can dialog with people who are willing to blow themselves up so that they can kill as many on the other side?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
MeJennifer said:
Beautiful speech, but time and time again in history it has been proven that war is typically what solves a problems and introduces progression.

True, but at a very very high cost.
 
  • #23
radou said:
True, but at a very very high cost.
That is relative. Usually after a big war we see an economic boom.
 
  • #24
MeJennifer said:
That is relative. Usually after a big war we see an economic boom.

I didn't mean material cost.
 
  • #25
Ivan Seeking said:
There wouldn't be an enemy. At least not any old ones. And if we get hit hard enough, we won't care what our allies have to say either. Just look at what happened after something as small-time as 911. What do you think the response would have been if we had lost all of New York?.

but... you still don't have the leader of that operation. after all the fireworks, the taliban and al-qaeda are stronger now then they were before

Ivan Seeking said:
Did you catch the part about a "light and fast" force of volunteer soldiers? That wasn't a war, that was a military exercise. But even so, we took the castle in three weeks and the king was found hiding in a hole. Also, there is no way to fight an effective war without an infrastructure, and precision bombs do a very good job of taking out the infrastructure - ie. command and control.


but there is still a lot of resistance to american control in iraq, to the point where the usa is considered to be losing the conflict there


Ivan Seeking said:
Also, with nuclear weapons there is no need for precision.

are we talking about a counter attack to a state sponsored nuclear attack or an independent organization like al-qaeda? because the two scenarios are vary different.
 
  • #26
MeJennifer said:
That is relative. Usually after a big war we see an economic boom.
After the Vietnam War concluded, the US spiraled into high inflation, and many jobs were lost. The Steel Belt became the Rust Belt.

The economy recovered moving into the Reagan years, but much had to do with huge federal budget deficits. The economic growth in the US has not been great - barely keeping ahead of inflation. Many high wage manufacturing jobs have been replaced with lower wage service jobs, and the aggregate debt of the US has increased significantly. With the current trend, there will be a point at which the cumulative debt (and interest) exceeds the ability to repay, and then things will get really interesting.

Just as we could ask the others to control terrorists in their part of the world, shouldn't we be controlling Bush and his brand of terrorism. Afterall, Iraq did not attack the US. The 9/11 hijackers, the majority of whom were Saudis, attacked the US. Al Qaida is a Sunni militant group.

I suggest one read "Fiasco", which I just started. Apparently, the Desert Fox campaign launched under Clinton finished off the remnants of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, which were pretty much destroyed. Now the neoconservatives blasted Clinton for a wasted effort. Post invasion intelligence reveals that Desert Fox was much more effective than the US understood. So the neoconservatives were wrong - as usual.

Interestingly, Saddam Hussein was an ally of the Reagan and Bush administrations, until the Iraqis invaded Kuwait.

If the US is attacked with WMD and it is not clear who did it, at whom will the US retaliate?

The west and Islamic nations do need a peaceful dialog, but is that possible in the current climate?
 
  • #27
Astronuc said:
If the US is attacked with WMD and it is not clear who did it, at whom will the US retaliate?

I think that it has already been shown that it may not matter who actually did the deed.
 
  • #28
Astronuc said:
After the Vietnam War concluded, the US spiraled into high inflation, and many jobs were lost. The Steel Belt became the Rust Belt.
That was not due to the Vietnam war but due to a generation of young people who were telling the older generations that they were all wrong about everything while the only thing they did was taking recreational drugs, listening to music and preaching love and peace.
 
  • #29
MeJennifer said:
That was not due to the Vietnam war but due to a generation of young people who were telling the older generations that they were all wrong about everything while the only thing they did was taking recreational drugs, listening to music and preaching love and peace.
Um, no. The young people had nothing to do with corporate managment taking excessive profits and failing to reinvest in their companies.

Read "The Wreck of the PennCentral", which analyzes the failure of management to properly run a large business. The US railroads had never fully recovered from the 'wear and tear' from WWII, and significant maintenance was deferred. Of course, costly union contracts and the fact that the US government for railroads to stay in the passenger business with its high labor and capital costs had a significant impact. The government (both democrats and republicans) subsidized airlines and highway transportation, which further undermined the competitiveness of the railroads.

The steel industry failed to innovate, and in fact much of the US manufacturing sector failed to innovate, and they couldn't compete with better and lower cost products from Japan and Europe.

And let's not forget the hold over from segragation and the denial of basic human (civil) rights of the African American population.

And Vietnam did cost a huge sum of money back then.

Many of the younger generation like me were busy getting through high school then working on a college education. :biggrin:
 
  • #30
devil-fire said:
but... you still don't have the leader of that operation. after all the fireworks, the taliban and al-qaeda are stronger now then they were before

Well, we never attacked al-qaeda. This has nothing to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as for the taliban, Bush has bungled Afghanistan due to his bungling of Iraq. It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of commitment and management. And we're not trying to win a war in these countries, we are trying to support the installation of peaceful goverments.

but there is still a lot of resistance to american control in iraq, to the point where the usa is considered to be losing the conflict there

...losing a poorly planned, and on the part of the administration, a half-hearted effort based on lies. Again, this was is really just a military exercise. It is not a failed military effort, it is a case of failed management and unrealistic goals. Though he never did, you can be sure that Saddam won't be attacking anytime soon. Iraq went from being the forth most powerful miltary in the world, to a broken country with no effective military, in three weeks.

are we talking about a counter attack to a state sponsored nuclear attack or an independent organization like al-qaeda? because the two scenarios are vary different.

Haven't you learned that it doesn't matter who attacks us? Did Iraq attack us?

You know, I would bet that about 10% of the US [or maybe 10% of men] would support an all-out nuclear attack on the Middle East today. How do I know this? I get tired of hearing the rants by people who feel this way. And we know who our enemies are. Don't think for a second that we can be pushed indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
There is something about the US that people need to understand. As was shown by our policy of MAD [mutually assured destruction], we are willing to take everyone else out with us rather than go down alone. It is the diplomacy of superpowers. If you all want to play, then you had better learn the rules.

The US can be forced to change for the better, but it won't happen by attacking us. That only empowers the aforementioned 10% and their kind, as we have seen in recent years. Instead, you need to win the hearts and minds of Americans. And the internet makes this possible; more now than ever before.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Ivan Seeking said:
There is something about the US that people need to understand. As was shown by our policy of MAD [mutually assured destruction], we are willing to take everyone else out with us rather than go down alone. It is the diplomacy of superpowers. If you all want to play, then you had better learn the rules.
Well this should not be a US specific.
It seems like a sound game theoretical strategy.
 
  • #33
It is THE rule for all superpowers. However, for now, we are the only one. And there can be no real threat to US power for some time to come; perhaps for decades to come.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Iraq went from being the forth most powerful miltary in the world, to a broken country with no effective military, in three weeks.
Iraq had the 4th largest army, but perhaps that was in number and pieces of equipment only. Actually, Iraq never recovered from the first war in 1991. The military was broken at that point, and only the Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam seemed to be intact. The quality of the equipment and personnel were much in question, and there were no WMD despite vehement assertions on the part of the Bush administration. So it was not necessary to invade Iraq - it was not a threat.
 
  • #35
Astronuc said:
Iraq had the 4th largest army, but perhaps that was in number and pieces of equipment only. Actually, Iraq never recovered from the first war in 1991. The military was broken at that point,


Point taken. And that only took 100 hours.
 
<h2>1. What is the main argument of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West"?</h2><p>The main argument of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" is that there is a global conflict between Islam and the Western world, fueled by radical Islamic ideology and terrorism.</p><h2>2. Is "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" biased or objective?</h2><p>There is debate over the bias of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West." While some argue that it presents a one-sided view of the conflict, others argue that it accurately portrays the threat of radical Islam and the actions of extremist groups.</p><h2>3. How does "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" address the diversity within the Muslim community?</h2><p>"Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" primarily focuses on the actions and ideology of radical Islamic groups, rather than the beliefs and practices of the larger Muslim community. However, it does acknowledge the diversity within Islam and the fact that not all Muslims support or condone extremist actions.</p><h2>4. What evidence does "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" provide to support its arguments?</h2><p>"Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" presents a variety of evidence to support its arguments, including footage of extremist speeches and actions, interviews with experts and victims of terrorism, and statistics on the rise of radical Islamic groups and attacks around the world.</p><h2>5. What are some common criticisms of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West"?</h2><p>Some common criticisms of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" include its potential bias and one-sided perspective, its portrayal of all Muslims as extremists, and its failure to address the complex historical and political factors that contribute to the conflict between Islam and the West.</p>

1. What is the main argument of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West"?

The main argument of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" is that there is a global conflict between Islam and the Western world, fueled by radical Islamic ideology and terrorism.

2. Is "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" biased or objective?

There is debate over the bias of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West." While some argue that it presents a one-sided view of the conflict, others argue that it accurately portrays the threat of radical Islam and the actions of extremist groups.

3. How does "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" address the diversity within the Muslim community?

"Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" primarily focuses on the actions and ideology of radical Islamic groups, rather than the beliefs and practices of the larger Muslim community. However, it does acknowledge the diversity within Islam and the fact that not all Muslims support or condone extremist actions.

4. What evidence does "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" provide to support its arguments?

"Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" presents a variety of evidence to support its arguments, including footage of extremist speeches and actions, interviews with experts and victims of terrorism, and statistics on the rise of radical Islamic groups and attacks around the world.

5. What are some common criticisms of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West"?

Some common criticisms of "Obsession: Islam's War Against The West" include its potential bias and one-sided perspective, its portrayal of all Muslims as extremists, and its failure to address the complex historical and political factors that contribute to the conflict between Islam and the West.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
978
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
934
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Back
Top