Since when did Islamic fundamentalists who commit terrorist acts become liberals and card carrying members of the Left?
Indeed, when have prominent liberals and Democrats ever jumped for joy that US soldiers were killed — anywhere? Or claimed that US soldiers deserved to be killed?
The truth? Islamic extremists who commit acts of terrorism and violence do so based on perverted religious beliefs that justify murder. They are not liberals or Leftists or or Socialists or Marxists, nor do liberals support their violent actions. Indeed, one of our principle criticisms of the Bush administration was that it failed to protect us from these extremists and then pursued policies that allowed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to reorganize and rearm while fighting a needless war in Iraq.
Islamic jihadists have more in common with the extreme elements of the Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists in America who find nothing wrong with the murder of Dr. Tiller or the actions of Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph, than with liberals who believe in the rule of law. Both groups believe their religion is the only true faith and both believe they have the right to employ violence to convert and intimidate non-believers. Their ultimate goal is a government dominated by their own religious faith and which excludes other faiths. Both hate homosexuals, oppose rights for women, and have no problem with torture and other human rights violations if done in pursuit of their goals or to enforce belief in their version of “God’s law.”
The claim that liberals and Democrats don’t “support the troops” and want to see them killed and defeated by Islamic terrorists is an Urban Myth at best, and a conservative Big Lie at worst. Just look at the makeup of Congress. The percentage of Democrats who served in the military is significantly higher than the percentage of Republicans who did. The party that has consistently voted to cut Veterans benefits? Republicans. The party that passed increased veterans’ benefits? Democrats. The party that courts and favors the extremists in the religious right,a nd uses violent, eliminationist rhetoric against liberals? Republicans. The party that adopted racism as a political strategy? Republicans. The party that includes among its prominent members and funders white supremacists and Christian Nationalists? Republicans. The party that denigrates the rule of law and attacks the judges who are required to uphold it? Republicans. The party of torture and warrantless wiretapping and and the abandonment of habeas corpus? Republicans.
And who is the party that courts and favors Islamic fundamentalists who advocate violence? Uh, there isn’t one. Certainly it isn’t the Democrats who pushed for increased funding for homeland defense when President Bush and his Republican controlled Congress kept cutting funding.
But that won’t stop the more extreme elements of the right, and their mouthpieces in the media (Fox News, Limbaugh, wingnut bloggers like Michelle Malkin, etc.) from pushing this load of bull crap on the American public. Their hatred is so great, and their belief in the righteousness of their “cause” is so strong, that they will say anything to slander those of us who disagree with their political or religious views. They have no viable solutions for the challenges and problems we face collectively as a nation. All they have is their festering bilious ire.
The First Amendment gives them the right to express their vicious ad hominem attacks and bigoted statements. And maybe that why they are losing adherents. Maybe most Americans have finally grown sick and tired of the politics of hate. Let’s hope so. Because the rhetoric of the right and its corrosive effect on our national discourse has not only coarsened our politics, but it has made these outbreaks of violence by their more deranged members and followers more likely, not less.
Liberals want to save the country we love for all Americans. We’re the good guys. Right Wing Republicans and conservative extremists? They want us to fail. And they don’t care who gets harmed in the process, because failure is their only possible path back to power. I think you know what that makes them.
you know, when the country was obsessed with communism, it was at least true that there were communist sympathizers on the Left. There are no al-Qaeda sympathizers on the Left.
.
See my new diary … No Liberal But Jihadist from Yemen
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Your diary is referred to in my third update to this story.
There also aren’t a whole lot of Marxists involved in radical Islam. In fact, Islam and Marxism are pretty much like oil and water, not least because Islam doesn’t tend to make the church-state distinction, and Marxism is actively hostile to all religion. This isn’t to say that there aren’t any Marxists in the Islamic world, but they certainly aren’t very numerous, and those that are Marxists tend to be rather secular.
I can’t speak from personal experience with Islam, but I sure can as an old school socialist of the Trotskyite/Menshevik school of thought. Religion is not welcome at all on the far left; radical religion even less so.
Of course, we all know the right wing is just flinging out epithets to see what sticks without regards to whether it makes sense or not. As an actual socialist, it makes my head spin when some wingnut refers to Obama or pretty much any other prominent Democrat as a socialist or even worse, when the term “Obamunism” comes up. I only wish! The farthest reaches of the elected left in this country still stand far to the right of even a moderate social democracy like Denmark, and from Denmark to the dictatorship of the proletariat is a long journey indeed. But, speaking of Denmark, these are the same kind of people who, in a recent exhibit of hate mail over at dKos, referred to the “rampant socialism” of Denmark, a country with a thriving free market economy and a per capita GDP that is 15-20% higher than the US.
As my mother used to say, you cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Religious fundamentalist hold the same values, no matter what which of the big three it is. Oppress women, deny freedom of speech, and instill fear. Those are not liberal values.
I would say they aren’t human values either. Certainly they aren’t humane.
.
From blog Stop The Liberals Now –
“The fact that, in Janet Napolitano’s (JaNo) words, we had a home grown man-made disaster, of all places, in the south, that should raise some major alarms and Americans should be made aware of it. We hadn’t been attacked for 7.5 years and within the past couple weeks we had a terrorist plot intercepted in NYC and a failed interception of this young man who murdered a U.S. soldier and injured another. I hope the military personnel takes note of how much Obama really cares about them!
The liberally biased media should be ashamed of itself for covering this story up from the public!”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Fascism is a multi-layered sales deal. On the top the people who run it make lots of money and accrue their power. Those below they are sold hate and fear as a means of motivating them to do their superiors’ bidding.
A big segment of fascism is the targeting of “the other.” “Others” are the subject of fear and hate. But because fascism is organized along the lines of the state it is not uncommon for fascists in one country to use fascists in another country as scapegoats, or to imagine a link between enemies within a state and enemies outside the state. And so the fascist elements of Islam who are targeted as enemies of the United States are “linked” to “liberals” within the United States. Thus, a man who adopts radical Muslim beliefs and attacks a recruiting station and kills a soldier is linked to liberals. If you ask the suspect what his personal beliefs are and you can get past the name of his god, his religious practices and the target of his anger and hate, you’ve got a fascist.
Very well expressed, Steven, and you have made a strong case for the proposition that liberals are the good guys and that republicans are the hypocritical, insensitive, fascist bastards that our nation has to get beyond if we are to leave anything of value to the next generation. In short, the republicans have become toxic to the well being of the USA. As more voters become aware of this fact, they will con sign the GOP to the dustbin of political oblivion. I say good riddance!
Hmmm…more Obama silence.
Well, of course Obama gave another of his mushy “moderate centrist” statements that tries to “keep the conversation open” and to not offend these lunatics. Obama doesn’t want to be associated with the “pro-abortion” movement but would rather keep them molified so as to not take a stand on anything that can be associated with “the left.” He’s keeping his Saintly robes clean and the adornments unmolested. Wonderful for the middle.
Let’s say some crazy from “the left” were to commit some type of unapologetic violence against some military facility or some other place near and dear to the right. Do you believe for one minute that Obama would not take that “opportunity” to bash the left as a whole in a far more forceful letter of condemnation so as to appease these types of people? If you do, then you’re a fool. Obama wouldn’t miss a beat there. But with this, Obama provides another of his phony proclamations of disappointment.
What does this Brown Jesus guy stand for…other than politics and himself? He certainly stood for some things during the campaign, but now….not so much.
Is Obama one of these “pro-life” people? Certainly seems that he sympathizes with these terrorists in many respects, which is diametrically opposed to his flowery and sometimes strong campaign speeches.
Is Obama one of those “anti-gay” bigots? Certainly seems that he sympathizes with some of their rhetoric because he refuses to condemn them in the same way that he would condemn someone like me.
His silence and buck passing on these issues should ring to the high heavens. But because he is a “moderate centrist” and supposedly from “the left,” he is being politically protected by like-minded folks in the “moderate centrist” sector from left and right.
If it sounds as if I am more than disappointed in Brown Jesus, it’s because I AM!
I rather doubt Obama is anti-choice, but I am increasingly convinced that he does conceal some sincere anti-gay bigotry.
You rather doubt that he is anti-choice? That’s nice. But why don’t you know that for certain? Why don’t we know anything about this politician for a certainty? We know absolutely nothing about Obama other than what the propaganda he strategically placed out there for public consumption. But I’ve been learning for the past year and I am not impressed. He has been a million nothings. He can change and has changed and shifted his rhetoric for any situation. He won the election by being the most milquetoast and–dare I say–dishonest as possible. (John McCain was disreputable but he was far more honest in his approach than Obama, and that reflects far worse on Obama than McCain.) But because of a few buzzwords (“hope” and “change”) this country’s electorate gravitated to him out of fear of the status quo. He hasn’t stood for anything other than “more war” since he got into office. Everything else he has done stood more on ceremony than anything concrete. All I see him doing is shuffling along in this Uncle Tom manner while not insulting his corporate paymasters.
What are his positions about anything other than more war? I’d really like to know.
That may be so; it’s a bit early to say for sure.
Consider this, however, as a matter of pure pragmatism. If we had not demanded the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany and subjected the Germans to a prolonged occupation while we systematically de-nazified the country, what kind of politicians would they have elected after the war?
America under Bush was a fascist police state, waging wars of aggression, operating concentration camps abroad, and subverting democracy at home. Unlike the Germans, we did not have the benefit of being occupied by a more civilized power. There has been no concerted effort to purge government and society of neocons, and certainly no Nuremburg Trials. Republicans are still allowed to hold office and still hold a fair number of them.
That the new president is neither a megalomaniacal dictator nor a homicidal maniac may be the best we can expect right now.
That the new president is neither a megalomaniacal dictator nor a homicidal maniac may be the best we can expect right now.
How do you know he isn’t a megalomaniacal dictator? His sudden embrace of Bush’s state secrets policies are giving me pause. He’s even going further than Bush in many respects with regard to his “anti-terror” policies. If Bush had even dared to institute “preventive detention,” the public would have hit the streets with burning effigies and the like but Obama’s brown face, soft speech and gleaming smile have anesthetized so many to what’s staring them in the face. His public goodwill is giving him the cover to push the boundaries of public decency further than Bush’s wet dreams. Obama’s jovial demeanor is scaring me because it seems to mask someone whom we don’t know at all. He never seems to answer questions. His NBC tour that’s been hyped has turned out to be nothing more than more press manipulation. I am not getting anything honest from him.
And isn’t he a homicidal maniac? He’s been drone bombing Afghanistan for months. Who do you think are dying in those bombing raids? And if you say “terrorists,” then you haven’t been watching. He’s nothing more than an empty suit. Stop, Look, Listen!
Haven’t we had enough of our share of charismatic and ultimately self-aggrandizing and evil politicians in our history? Obama is not the best that we could do. I don’t buy that for one minute.
Okay, that’s enough; you’ve exceeded any reasonable benefit of the doubt. Let’s recount:
That’s four references to Obama’s race — six if you count the oblique references to his articulateness and his shiny white teeth — in three posts, plus a reference to Southern-style mob violence and a quick nod to John McCain.
Checking your brief posting history — this is the second time you’ve posted here, and the previous occasion was a similar rant — and this rant on another blog (to say nothing of high weirdness like this and this), it’s hard to say if you’re just a random crank with incoherent conspiracy theories, or a troll with an actual mission. I’d guess Constitution Party or maybe Ron Paul, but I confess that you’ve got me stumped. So what exactly is your major malfunction?
I think the neo-cons and Islamists are two sides of the same coin. The Power of Nightmares says as much and it makes sense to me given their behavior.
And who is the party that courts and favors Islamic fundamentalists who advocate violence? Uh, there isn’t one.
Wind the clock back two decades and let’s look at what the Reagan Administration and Dana Rohrbacher (R-Nutbag) did for the Mujahedin/Taliban. They were all too happy to shower them with money and weapons when they were fighting the Russians. Like reckless children they didn’t give a second thought as to the consequences and refuse to take any responsibility today, it was all SugarMommyCandyKillCommiesKillCommiesNowNowNow.
The mental distance from Islamic fundamentalists to Xtian fundamentalists is not that great.
Nor the moral distance, if any.