Open main menu

Comments:Mass delivery of anti-Islamic DVDs in swing voting states

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Should the film have been distributed to private homes? Have you seen the film?Edit

What next, propaganda bombs full of leaflets saying "You must vote for Bush/McCain or you will die painfully! And don't ever dare to ask any real questions or you will die!"? This is ridiculous. 05:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, not democrat Azmi 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy before me is kind of an idiot.Edit

I live in Florida and recieved this documentary. It is not incendiary towards the Muslim community at large, simply the movement in Islam that seeks to destroy our civilization and has stated that as being it's objective. It does not mention anything about George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, or the election. It deals strictly with radical Islam and how it is a big problem in our world. If you feel like Obama can do a better job handling it than, by all means, vote for him in November.

Also, this article is written in a bias manner. I enjoy the concept of wikinews, but I often feel like the information presented is written by passionate fools, perhaps I will get my news elsewhere. Really, calling a man a "talking head" in a supposedly objective article. You should be ashamed of yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're serious about "talking head" being a biased term? Is it left or right? cuz I thought everyone had a head, and everyone talks.....are you missing a head?
I live in the same state as you and I did not shit.-- 13:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why you feel the need to insult everyone 132. If you feel that "talking head" was a bad word to put (and I don't feel it was, as they were talking heads as far as I had been told by the various sources. I also called them analysts, counter-terrorists, etc, in other articles, and most of the time, yet you conveniently ignored that). If the talking head is the only instance of bias in the article you have (and I did put in collaboration that I was having a difficult time keeping it neutral as every source was very heavily biased), then go right ahead and change it. And yes, it was an election issue. Sending a mass, expensive amount of terrorist-related DVDs to swing states is an election issue. Please stop pretending, it's laughable. Again, if you see a problem, change it, but as far as I see others find it neutral enough (I challenge you to write any article 100% neutral). --Poisonous (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a "talking head" is a standard term used in the television/movie industry to describe a scene in which there is no action and the shot focuses largly on the dialog of the speaker and his image. This is most notable in news, interviews and monologs. It in no way is derogitory or degrading. It's quite litterally a description of the type of scene and used throughout world media. (I've worked in broadcasting on a national and international level for the past 7 years). — 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic videosEdit

The most alarming aspect of "Obsession" is the speech of the Mullahs in the mosques. Their earnest exhortation of the audience to slaughter Jews and the audience response is appalling. An undercover video (google "undercover mosque video") in England will show the same thing. CAIR and other apologists for Islam know this is going on, they just hate having it revealed. James Johnson

Hate speechEdit

This sort of racist islamofascistic rubbish that is quoted in the DVD video documentary has no place in the world.


The intent of the founders, particularly the Anti-Federalists, was to create a government where all religions were kept separate from state affairs. What people do with their religions in the private sector is their own business. The people who made this film may or may not be racist, hateful, fearful, or whatever, or perhaps not -- that sort of opinion depends on your own prejudices (and don't think you don't have them) -- but the government has no place intervening in their right to have their opinions and pronounce them to anyone who wants to hear. If you receive this film and don't like it, throw it away like any other junk mail -- they can't make you watch it or make you agree with them. Also, as far as "hate speech" goes: that's about as fascist as one can get. The minute you start dictating what opinions people can or can't have, YOU are the one advocating the Thought Police. "Hate speech" is SPEECH, and "hate crimes" are CRIMES. If a crime is committed, you punish the crime -- you can't (or, rather, shouldn't) dole out extra punishment because the person has an opinion you don't like. Who's the real hater, here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... name-calling and an attempt to silence critics by force... gee, you don't happen to be exactly the kind of Muslim this video is there to warn us of, do you? The ironee... she burns! 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that the post these originally applied to has disappeared.
It was Freedom *From* Religion, by using freedom of religion as a tool. The idea was that if the religions were too busy fighting each other's ideology, then they wouldn't have any effort left to spend attempting to interfere with the government (one of the central tenants of the founding father's ideology was that Monarchy is a bad idea, and it was well known at the time that religion and monarchy worked together to prop each other up and repress the people. That's where the strong anti-religious sentiments of the founding fathers originated. Well, that and the fact that they were all Deists, which is an anti-religious philosophy by its nature very). Gopher65talk 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see, 66, is that these were delivered to people's homes without their asking. It also targeted a religion that several of the people who got the DVD are a part of. And that it was focused on swing states is even worse. But you are right, it's hate speech, not hate crimes. No one wants to bar them from distributing or having or making videos like this: but delivering them to people's homes without their permission is rude and could frighten Muslims who may perceive it as a threat.--Poisonous (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I say again: "If you receive this film and don't like it, throw it away like any other junk mail -- they can't make you watch it or make you agree with them." Also, I didn't say it's hate speech -- I simply said "hate speech" (whatever someone might consider that to be) should not be silenced, and "hate crimes" (whatever someone might think those are) should not receive extra punishment. Crimes are crimes, opinions are not; and the notion of free speech exists specifically to protect the opinions of people you disagree with. The minute opinions become crimes, and speech is no longer free, we're all in big trouble -- which, it seems, is how it may already be, and it's only getting worse. And, incidentally, anything (and I do mean anything) can be PERCEIVED as a threat. Punishing people for maybe-threats is tough. Unless someone is willing to state a threat plainly, it's hard to be reasonably certain of their intent. (Further, even if someone intends a threat does not mean they intend, or are even able, to follow through ... but that's straying from the subject at hand.)

1) Deism is not anti-religious. 2) while many of the U.S.A.'s "founding fathers" were Deists, it was far from all of them. 3) if the "founding fathers" were anti-religious, they would not have added the "free excercise" clause to the First Ammendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Because radical Catholicism adamantly opposed to radical Islam is different. It's for the good of the people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackdat (talkcontribs) 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


I try ordering it on Netflex and it is on very long wait. -- 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... let's examine the film from a different perspective. We'll replace Muslim extremist with Judeo-Israeli/Christian-American-Right Wing-neocon extremist alliance.

Ah look, the video is not attacking ALL Americans/Israelis, just ones that meet certain criteria. Most of the people with their religion are OK, it's just these certain members with influence that are extreme... Wow, look at all these videos of these people using war machines against civilians.

Now listen to their jingoism and hate rhetoric (think hardcore Israeli "settlers" and jackass rednecks talking about 'hadjis.'

The point is that it's pretty simple to make a group look like it's at war with you.

So the question is: why do you want to do this; what are the motives?

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Herman Goering

Bah, you know what? I don't have time for small minded people who want to fight a perpetual war against Muslims and whose basis for thinking their own country or culture is righteously superior to others is a nagging anxiety if you try to go against the repetitive programming you received in childhood. You're obviously fearfully-oriented, propaganda-susceptible, xenophobic people who already have your minds made up, so what's the point? I had more to write, but it really is futile. Cheers to your successes. May it lead to a new chapter in your religious tomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be available on VeohTV in multiple languages. I just now started watching it so I don't have a conclusive opinion, but it does appear quite propagandist and sensationalist in style and rhetoric. 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Junk that goes into the garbageEdit

The organization responsible here is not far off from the likes of the stormfront idiots but look for those groups to adopt this tactic soon too. They probably have the same advisors. That is the downside of cheap movie making technology. Even the crazy kooks and loons can make them and then throw them at you. Looks like I'll have to start throwing away junk DVDs as well as junk mail. 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Let's use images of burning WTC towers as a reminder of all the radical Arab Muslims that want to destroy America! Spread again and again "never forget" bumper stickers. God Bless America.

And to add to that, if I recall on the day of 9/11, pretty much every news channel showed the Towers getting smashed repeatedly, over and over and over. Never forget. But then, why could'nt they show one single clip of anything hitting the pentagon? Should we forget about that? So many conspiracy "theories" yet not one shred of proof otherwise. Just that all tapes were confiscated, and no information disclosed. "Its a matter of national security". Why? why is a plane hitting the WTC not a matter of national security but a plane hitting the pentagon is. I'm confused and i think that's exactly what our administration wants.

Maybe the videos show an explicit footage of some official there boinking his secretary —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Why not go after all fundamentalism/radicalism? Notice how the cover of the DVD says Radical Islam, not Islam, you don't need to cry racist just because someone documents a radical group, as long as they use sound facts. Not all Muslims want to go out and kill, in fact, very few do. All radicalism is evil and needs to be defeated (not necessarily by interventionism...), but calling people racists or bigots will only give radical groups what they want. 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's true that most muslims aren't tolerant, but those who just go out and kill IMHO can be summed up in a 2 or barely 3 digit number. no reason to send out DVDs with a production cost of 50 million US$. This thing is probably up to no good :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A Clever IdeaEdit

Fantastic movie/documentary! The film provides data and accounts, but does not mention or support any political party. Its goal is to educate the American people on radical Islam, and provide testimonies and data not from the American media. However, the clear underlying goal is to make voters think ideas such as, "look at the danger of Radicals!" or "How can I protect myself from the growing popularity of Radicalism in the world?" After I saw the movie, I felt an enormous wave of patriotism, and all of a sudden saw new (but not complete) justification for any war on terror anywhere. Not showing any bias, but as these ideas relate strongly to Senator John McCain, I would surmise that the distribution of this film is for voters to support the war on terror and feel strong patriotism, both of which are ideas stronly tied in with Senator McCain. I will not say which candidate I support, but I must say, though both candidates have produced thoroghly clever propoganda programs, this is a particularly excellent idea.

"Both" candidates? There are more than just two. Thinking there are only two is what has gotten us into the big heaping mess we're in now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"..I felt an enormous wave of patriotism.." hahahah yeah baby let's go out and kick some muslim ass woo woooo.. retard

Cant You See ?Edit

Granted, it is not incendiary towards the Muslim community at large, simply the (radical / fundamental) movement in Islam that seeks to destroy our civilization and has stated that as being it's objective. But all radical / fundamental movements of any beliefs are dangerous to any society, correct ?

Indeed, it does not mention anything about George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, or the election. But why the DVDs were distributed ONLY in swing voting states ?

We should be ashamed of ourselves if we can't see what's the grand motives behind and get provoked.

Nevertheless, I agree this DVDs distribution is a clever idea to stirr up the public opinion in swing voting states using radical/fundamental Muslim issues. Simply put, hitting two birds with one stone. Yet not smart enough to anticipate the reactions from people who already fed-up with such non-sense propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This Doesn't Worry Anyone?Edit

Not that there are radical Muslims out there, but that so many people can be tricked by this one video. Of course there are that small group of radical Muslims. But there are also groups here like the KKK and the Nazis, not that they go around killing people any more. But I know a bunch of Muslims, and they don't want to kill every thing and every one to do with Western Civilization. They are just like you and me. Anyway, these radical Muslim leaders lie to their people, and trick them into fighting. Just like our great government of the U.S. did with Iraq. They said they were the ones who attacked the World Trade center, but that wasn't true. They used Americas fear into rallying us behind them. Finnaly, I got that DVD with the paper, but I didn't watch that garbage. Anyone who has completely one sided views on a group of people is stupid (actually, that right there sounds a little hypocritical). But they act like every Muslim wants to kill any Jew they meat. I have Muslims and Jews as friends, and they don't want to kill each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckwariorrandom (talkcontribs) 11:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You got the DVD, you didn't watch it, and yet you call it trash. If you had even read the cover of the DVD you would have noticed Radical Islam, not anything even to the effect of ALL TOWEL-HEADS ARE BAD KEEL EM. "They said they were the ones who attacked the WTC, but that wasn't true.", so the Stockholm Effect is responsible for this? In my opinion, watch the DVD before you tell everyone how "they act like every Muslim wants to kill any Jew they meet." Please put a few fire-crackers in your dominant hand, wrap your fingers around 'em REALLY tight, and light the fuses. You are an idiot. 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it =Edit

If it's this easy to scare people into compliance, why doesn't Obama just make up some sort of superflu to make people clamor for his free health-care system? --Smackdat (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is trueEdit

If this video were not true, I would not have been walking with a friend past a poster showing the faces of people killed in terrorist attacks and have her point to one and say "That's my cousin."

My friends would not have gone to Israel this summer to work with children traumatized from the loss of a parent or sibling.

Kobi Mandell would not have been murdered.

Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser would not have been kidnapped and held dead for two years.

I would not have spoken to an Israeli soldier who stopped a mentally retarded Palestinian boy at a checkpoint and found him carrying bombs, because he was told that if he blew himself up the girls would like him.

The Twin Towers would still be standing, and those who worked there would be alive.

You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. But please, open your eyes. Yes, there are people in this world who want to kill us.

-- Jew [disclaimer: This is my personal opinion. The above are my personal experiences. I do not speak for all Jews or all North American high school students. I speak for myself.] —Preceding comment was added at 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the election!!! SIKE!!!!Edit

If this is so informational why was'nt I informed of it?? Am I not important enough to get the DVD??? Why was it only swing states if it has nothing to do with the election? Apparently this information is only important for the swing states, so why should the rest of the country care??? AND why is the source of funds being kept secret? secrets?!?!?!....especially when it has to do with terrorism DVD's.

Why would it be related to the election? because McCain is all for finishing in Iraq, and Obama is for getting out. To the GOP getting out means letting the "terrorists" win and will completely undo everything we've done there for the past 6 years. To the Dem's it means ending the death count for our soldiers, letting Iraq take care of itself already, and focusing on more important issues (Domestic). Now you can argue all you want about the war in Iraq, the fact of the matter is we are helping Iraq, not ourselves....

Absolutely yes! it's imperative to see itEdit

It is not about al Muslims, but about the radical Islamic fascism (fascism in the name of Islam) force. And CAIR is a very radical Islamic organization that its founders have stated that 'Islam isn't in America to be equal but to DOMINATE!' besides, CAIR is a pro Hamas group (that still haven't rejected its genocide of the Jews Hamas reiterates goal of world domination by Islam - annihilation of Israel -establishment of Caliphate in Jerusalem [1], oh! Don't lie to me that they're about "land") and is linked with Al-Arian that raised funds for the terror organization. CAIR Is basically a HATE 'wolf pack' organzation masked in "civil rights group" sheep cloting.

I agree that "you must watch obsession because CAIR doesn't want you to know the truth about radical Islam". [2]

Americans Agianst Hate CAIR Watch CAIR = Hate & Terror Ohio against Terror Anti-Cair, Defending America from the CAIR threat The CAIR Files —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokftt (talkcontribs) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Islam is a religion like all others. It provides sanctuary and spiritual guidance to its followers. Also like other religions it has radical, self-righteous members who hide behind the name of their religion while they commit atrocious acts. I don't feel like the DVD did anything to mar the reputation of the huge majority of peace-loving Muslims. It did show us what radical zealots will do when they feel justified in hiding behind the name of their god. The comparison of these Islamic radicals to Hitler's Nazis was not a comparison of Muslims to Nazis. It was a comparison of ideolgies. Both groups are extreme, racist, self-centered and very dangerous. The intent of the DVD was to make us all pay attention to the danger that these extremists present. ---Grace 17 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously people...Edit

The main issue one should have with this video isn't it's content, which is designed to spread fear and remind all of us of the dangers of terrorists that are lurking around "every" corner, but rather its manner of release. Lets send all the voters in swing states a movie about radical islam which society at large now associates with the word terrorist. That doesn't sound politically motivated at all. Not one bit. That is the main issue with this production.

And to all the people who have said that it's their right to free speech to produce and send out this video... Keep in mind, all people, whether extremist, american, british, african.... etc are people. Videos like these are what dictators use to incite hatred. What they should focus on is not that they exist but why they take such a harsh anti-west view. If you stop and think about history and all, our country has poked its nose into other countries business for centuries. We go in, kill their leader, set up a puppet government which then turns into a horrible mess and so we try and fix it by using force. It amazes me that our conflict in Iraq hasn't made more people see this. Our actions there have bred more terrorists, caused the collapse of stability, and killed hundreds upon hundreds of their people. How could people in that environment not be swayed by radical thoughts. They view it as protecting their homes from the American terror. We as Americans should stop and think how we would feel should another country come and tell us how we should be governed or try to empathize with those people who live in those countries. We are taking our influence over the world and rather than trying to benefit humanity, we are greedy and selfish. America isn't the fairytale that they try and teach you in elementary school. If we respected other countries better and tried to actually aid the people in them rather than fulfilling our own interests the world would be a better place and we wouldn't have pissed off millions of people who then turn that hate into action. WE dug our own grave when it comes to anti-west sentiments in the middle east. We should learn from this, defend ourselves, but also seek to rectify the situation rather than push fear into the hearts of our people. Because fear leads to hate. And hate leads to violence. And the cycle will only continue. So I implore you to think outside the microcosm of your life and think not of how they hate us... but why.-- 01:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I live in NY state, and I received one of these films. It's honestly one of the most hate filled propaganda flicks I've ever seen, and as a Muslim, I find it highly offensive that it was mailed to my house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not instigate peopleEdit

I think it is very wrong for the dvd to have been distributed to private homes.Though i have not wacthed the movie it is wrong to scare the American voters through such crud method, if we are sincere with ourselves can we really say the war in iraq is justified or are the producers of the movie now scared of what outcome the war will endager the coming generation of American.Why dont the American voters ask the republicans to produce evidence the chemical weapons found in Iraq.Must they the American voters allowed themselves to be deceaved in this 20th century? most of the developments going on in Saudi Arabia is being done by American firms.why take their money and still paint the islamic religeon bad just because of some few misguided people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifewire67 (talkcontribs) 17:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My two centsEdit

I believe that one of the problems is the terms we use. Some may call it semantics, but unless you've been subject to stereotyping you'll never understand. (I'm a mix of Irish/German/Filipino) I don't consider terrorists part of the religions that I respect, despite what they claim otherwise. First of all "fundamentalist" should not automatically conote terrorism. It's about following the original and literal precepts of your ideas/ideology. Second, "radical" should not be associated with terrorism. In reality, it's about wanting change from the existing system, for better or for worse. Finally, "extremist", in some ways can be used to describe a terrorist, however, I feel it should be done in context of the person and their individual beliefs rather than as a prefix to a belief system they claim unto themselves. My reasoning for these ideas is that I have each of these "terms" within my own family. I have an uncle who is a Jehova's Witness, which we can think of as a fundamentalist Christian. My brother and I do not strictly adhere to many of the practices of Catholics, therefore we can be thought of as radicals. My grandmother in the Philippines used to walk on her knees to church, until she got too old and started watching church on TV, could be considered an extremist. None of us are terrorists. I propose that those misguided people who are known to be terrorists should not be connected with their claimed religions, their actions are not representative of any of the world's religions. 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)