Why Do Leftists Like Islamic Terrorists So Much?

[jordan179]

(this started as a reply to banner's posted question of the same name)

Introduction

Why do leftists (socialists/communists) like islamic terrorists so much?

Comments

[drewkitty]

When you talk of the American Left, would you please do me a favor and name the groups and perhaps politically prominent individuals you are talking about? Do any of them have any influence or political pull? Presumably if they could win the 2004 election, that would be a lot of power

[jordan179]

When you talk of the American Left, would you please do me a favor and name the groups and perhaps politically prominent individuals you are talking about?

Given that my post covered over 100 years of history, you are asking me to research and write a book, or at least a major essay.

Do any of them have any influence or political pull?

Some do, most don't. Fortunately, in America, most Communists and Socialists have been thoroughly marginalized -- everywhere save on campus.

Historically, what has tended to happen far more often is that the moderate Left (which is not what I'm talking about here) has sympathized with the radical Leftist individuals. Most of the Hiss sympathizers, for instance, were not Communists; in fact most of them believed Hiss wasn't a Communist.

To take the modern world, Noam Chomsky is a Terrorist sympathizer. Chomsky has some influence, but no real power. However, many people sympathize with Chomsky (often because they misunderstand him) who do have both influence and political power.

Presumably if

[finnkveldulfr]

Jordan179's statement:
"Given that my post covered over 100 years of history, you are asking me to research and write a book, or at least a major essay."

Hmm... In short, your entire post is a "straw man" attack-- one long string of propaganda masquerading as a summation of over 100 years of history. Nothing but lies and bulls*** and over-the-top generalizations on targets in the U.S. that only existed perhaps on the fringes and in the deluded imaginations of a few very very very far right-wingers.

If you haven't done enough research to name your targets, to be able to note specific groups and people AND explain what their views are (accurately) and explain why you think their particular views fit the generalities you're attacking-- you haven't done enough research to back up the words you've written here in this post of yours. You're just parroting the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who is equally irresponsible in his lack of research and forethought.

[jordan179]

Given that my post covered over 100 years of history, you are asking me to research and write a book, or at least a major essay.

Hmm... In short, your entire post is a "straw man" attack-- one long string of propaganda masquerading as a summation of over 100 years of history.

Nope.

In short, my post is a short essay rather than a book. Can't you read for content?

Nothing but lies and bulls*** and over-the-top generalizations on targets in the U.S. that only existed perhaps on the fringes and in the deluded imaginations of a few very very very far right-wingers.

Yet, oddly, your reply also names no names and gives no specific reasons. Wait, I'm not being fair, let's repost a little more of your post ...

If you haven't done enough research to name your targets, to be able to note specific groups and people AND explain what their views are (accurately) and explain why you think their particular views fit the generalities you're attacking-- you haven't done enough research to back up the words you've written here in this post of

[finnkveldulfr]

What I was saying is that your whole post is fantasy with a few bits derived from reality. It's kind of hard to tell a man who's tilting at windmills and is yet so convinced that what he sees is reality that he's lashing out at thin air and inanimate objects

[jordan179]

What I was saying is that your whole post is fantasy with a few bits derived from reality. It's kind of hard to tell a man who's tilting at windmills and is yet so convinced that what he sees is reality that he's lashing out at thin air and inanimate objects.

Well then, since you are much better connected to reality than I am (by your own assertion above), surely you can utterly demolish my original post by pointing out where it makes false statements, or incorrect analyses, offering instead your own far more acccurate and insightful statements and analyses?

And Rush Limbaugh? An ascribed idiot with a serious disconnect from reality problem. A believable source and authority whose word can be respected? No.

... and utterly irrelevant to my post, even if everything you said about him was completely true. I said nothing about Rush Limbaugh in my original post, and I still haven't said anything about him on this thread, save to note that one of the other posters mentioned him.

But, if you believe the gospel according to Rush, there

[jordan179]

On the other hand, you're correct in observing that I didn't do much in making points or noting who/what I was talking about. It is difficult to write a post with substance and logical counter-argument when replying to a post that was wholly irrational to being with.

Really? I was able to reply quite well to your wholly irrational post -- you should be able to do the same to mine.

Still, I've made a better attempt.

By saying that my essay "does NOT appear to have any content or research to back it up?"

Um, ok, I say that your post "does NOT appear to have any content or research to back it up."

Your turn in Contradiction class.

Or are you referring to your rant about Rush Limbaugh, someone who had little or nothing to do with my essay?

Um, ok, "Rosie O'Donnell is an ascribed idiot with a serious disconnect from reality problem."

Etc.

Since the reply function will not let me post the whole long dissection I made of your short essay, you're welcome to view and reply on my page, where I have posted the whole damn thing.What you

[drewkitty]

Given that you poorly and vaguely summarized over 100 years of history without actually defining any of the many groups you were conflating with each other, could you please define the modern, 2007, groups that you choose to call the American Left

[brianblackberry]

could you please define the modern, 2007, groups that you choose to call the American Left.

I cannot answer for him, but I definitely see your point, definitions are important. What would accurately define what is the modern American left cannot be absolutely precisely, but I would see it in the following:

In general "left" in modern politics is an umbrella term to describe forms of socialism, social democracy, or, in the sense in which the term is understood in the United States, liberalism. For liberalism perhaps Arthur Schlesinger Jr's description works: "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security." however this was aimed more at the view of the earlier 20th century as he stated this in 1962