It’s Official: Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West

[bhk]

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4752

August 22nd, 2005


So the hard left and the Islamists have established a coordinating committee, according to Douglas Davis of the London Spectator. In Britain
the steering committee of the Marxist–Islamist alliance consists of 33 members — 18 from myriad hard-Left groups, three from the radical wing of the Labour party, eight from the ranks of the radical Islamists and four leftist ecologists (also known as ‘Watermelons’ —green outside, red inside). The chairman is Andrew Murray, a leading light in the British Communist party; co-chair is Muhammad Aslam Ijaz, of the London Council of Mosques.

In other words, the war on terror is to be a continuation of the old war, the war between capitalism and its various discontents that was waged throughout most of the twentieth century. Norman Podhoretz is right. This is World War IV.

But few people want to admit it. Ever since the Enlightenment people have believed that war would soon become the aberration and peaceful cooperation the norm. Even though the Enlightenment culminated in the warlike and unpeaceful French Revolution, this idea seems to be dying a very slow death. And it is not just utopian socialists that believe in it. Conservatives, ancient and modern, believe in the power of the rule of law and right reason to corral the Bull of Heaven, and the left still believes in the revolution that will end all oppression and usher in an age of peace and justice. Surely, war is going out and peace is coming in.

That was what people thought at the turn of the twentieth century in the run-up to World War I, and again in the 1930s during the appeasement of Hitler’s Germany. They believed it even as the titanic struggle between capitalism and communism that we call the Cold War raged around them. And they believed it during the Islamist raids of the 1990s: the first World Trade Center bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the East African embassy bombings, and, for the conspiracy-minded, the Oklahoma City bombing and Flight 800. The “why do they hate us” crowd are still at it. We all need to believe in a rosy future purged of struggle and strife.

When Lee Harris interpreted the war against terror as a moment in the confict between the western “team” and the “eternal gang of ruthless men” in Civilization and its Enemies his argument seemed overdrawn, for it scorned the idea of perpetual peace and interpreted the human condition as an eternal conflict. But events support his analysis. The punctuations of the terrorists in exhibitionist bombings, the bombastic declarations of the Daily Kos that “we will be ruthless” against George W. Bush, the now formalized coalition between the hard left and the Islamicist raiders are sending us a message. The war against the western team continues.

The team concept goes all the way back to the Greek farmers, the hoplites who first fought as disciplined heavy infantry in shock battle. When combined with Alexander’s Companion heavy cavalry the team army routed the Persian Empire, and it has been just about unbeatable ever since. From time to time the eternal gang of ruthless men has succeeded in harnessing the western team to assist their ganglike predations, most notably when the Nazis used the German army, the team built up by Scharnhorst, Moltke, and Seekt, to lay waste to Europe. Fortunately the ruthless men fail to understand that the team army is but a part of the integrated western team concept. It is the relentless power of citified western teams measured against tribal gangs—in economic, political, religious, and cultural affairs—that provides the motive power for the world-beating western team army.

Our western media do not understand the importance of the team concept either. They have been raised to a faith in creativity and a belief in the transforming power of the creative artist to break the constricting bonds of narrow middle-class conformity. They love the rebellious outrages of the terrorist gangs because they are directed against the same object as their own rage, the western middle-class team.

Still, the formal coalition between the hard left and the Islamists is a shock. It is difficult to believe that the secular left could really find common cause with religious fundamentalists of any stripe. But we should remember our history. In World War I, progressive souls sympathized with the German effort to humble the capitalist nation of shopkeepers. In World War II, progressives were indifferent to the fate of the European democracies until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In World War III they actively cheered for the Soviets although they denied the right of anyone to complain about it.

It makes complete sense that the left’s first act in the twenty-first century should be to form a coalition with a new anti-western force. The war against democratic capitalism continues.

Christopher Chantrill (mailto:chrischantrill@msn.com) blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com. Read about his forthcoming Road to the Middle Class here.

It has been done here as well, just not officially like above.

[Groucho]

As a leftist myself, I've sat in on a few of these meetings. Lousy donuts. I hope they pick a better hotel next time.

[Ben86]

Look mom! A right wing Micheal Moore of the internet.

[sfsdfd]

<img src="http://tn2.deviantart.com/300W/fs5.deviantart.com/i/2005/001/c/a/You_Make_Kitty_Scared_by_OB1LUVER1350.jpg">

- David Stein

[Thor Simpson]

"So..."

[hahn]

Dammit, I've been exposed. You got me. That's my agenda as a leftist. To join up with the Islamic forces to declare war on democratic capitalism. (Why do so many idiots always think democracy = capitalism = freedom?).

I suggest that after the War on Terror, we declare the War on Stupidity. Sure, it might take longer, but it might actually contribute to the progress of the humanity.

[natevines]

(Why do so many idiots always think democracy = capitalism = freedom?).



Probably because of the manifold, economically successful democratic, free, capitalist societies (esp. this one)?
I kind of agree with this guy's thesis. I don't think that liberals intend to destroy western civilization, but their open border policies seem to be intented to do just that. Liberals (and mainstream conservatives) are also sadly unable to acknowledge that anti-western terrorists have roots in Islam (Koran 005.051: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people, 002.193: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, 010.004: but those who reject Him (Allah) will have draughts of boiling fluids, and a penalty grievous, because they did reject Him.)

[DVD Polizei]

Last time I checked, Bush has an open-door policy on illegals too. Shouldn't it wake some of you up that party affiliations are not applicable anymore?

It has to do with wealth, and who controls it. It's never been more obvious than the last 10 years. These are the people making it unsafe for the rest of us. It's easy to make "open-door" policies such as NAFTA and CAFTA, because the results never even touch you, as a protect government official who makes a nice chunk of money.

Some of you who cling to your particular party better arise from your sleep. The politics of party affiliations are for show and media entertainment to give you and the rest of the US population something to argue about (FOX and CNN--can it be this easy?). Arguing party politics is the best distraction yet. The real workings go on behind closed doors, with both major parties making deals which have to do with wealth and how they can still control it, while keeping it from 99% of Americans.

As far as your leaders are concerned, the entire US could be a total garbage dump, housing all the illegal immigrants from dozens of countries, wrought with terrorism and decay. All they want to make sure, is that they have a tax base coming in, paying their high salaries and subsidizing their travel across the world.

The law of probability says there should be a few politicians and leaders who do not think this way.

Just thought I would mention this before we go back to accusing each other's party of being this or that....

[VinVega]

Enemies, enemies....EVERYWHERE! Unite! (and do it the way I want to do it)

I guess both the right and the left have their share of tin foil hat conspiracies.

[Tracer Bullet]

Probably because of the manifold, economically successful democratic, free, capitalist societies (esp. this one)?

Democracy and capitalism may go together like peanut butter and jelly, but they're not the same thing.

[bhk]

Look mom! A right wing Micheal Moore of the internet.

I'd call Groucho and David Stein many things but not right wing Michael Moores of the internet.

[kvrdave]

Look mom! A right wing Micheal Moore of the internet.

It is refreshing to see people accurately place Michael Moore on the spectrum.


Besides, we all know that liberals hate America, we just aren't allowed to say it or they throw a hissy fit. :p

[wendersfan]

Besides, we all know that liberals hate America, we just aren't allowed to say it or they throw a hissy fit. :pFrom my observations, liberals and conservatives each have very distinct views of what "America" is, and they hate anything that gets in the way of that idealized view of "America". My observations have led me to the view that America is really a combination of the liberal and conservative visions. Of course, one guy's America is another guy's "America", so YMMV.

[natevines]

Last time I checked, Bush has an open-door policy on illegals too. Shouldn't it wake some of you up that party affiliations are not applicable anymore?


Absolutely. Democrats and republicans (who are NEO-CONS, not too different from liberals) are almost identical in ideology. I'd call myself a conservative, but certainly not a republican.

[Myster X]

Damn it! This ruins my day. Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West should be a surprise. :grunt:

[Vandelay_Inds]

read Chomsky and Bin Laden's views side by side... you'll be surprised by how much they agree on. I've been meaning to write a sociological analysis linking contemporary Islam and the Left as representing two different cultures' same rejection of modern liberal, open, capitalistic, and secular society. Both of them demand a society built on vague and capricious notions of "justice", and thus reject a capitalism that replaces their moral authority with the free will of individuals.

[sfsdfd]

I've been meaning to write a sociological analysis linking contemporary Islam and the Left as representing two different cultures' same rejection of modern liberal, open, capitalistic, and secular society. Both of them demand a society built on vague and capricious notions of "justice", and thus reject a capitalism that replaces their moral authority with the free will of individuals.
I think you're mixing up your stereotypes. Liberals aren't often criticized for trying to impose a "moral authority," but rather for having a moral vacuum and hesitating to judge anyone objectively.

I'm also confused as to your characterization of the "Left" as opposing a "secular" society. We're usually accused of wanting to eliminate every vestige of religion from the public sector.

- David Stein

[Jason]

As a leftist myself, I've sat in on a few of these meetings. Lousy donuts. I hope they pick a better hotel next time.


I asked for bagels, but they didn't seem too keen on the idea...

[Vandelay_Inds]

I think you're mixing up your stereotypes. Liberals aren't often criticized for trying to impose a "moral authority," but rather for having a moral vacuum and hesitating to judge anyone objectively.

But that is a moral position in itself. "Don't go hard after child rapists (or any criminals) because they are probably the result of abuse and other disadvantages themselves" is an objective judgement. Or, "protect teachers unions from competition or from being accountable for their performance in any way".

I'm also confused as to your characterization of the "Left" as opposing a "secular" society. We're usually accused of wanting to eliminate every vestige of religion from the public sector.

Leftists just want to replace conventional Christianity with their own brand of ideology/religion, including elements just as irrational, and much more damaging to an advanced industrial/technological society. Take economics for example. No matter how big a consensus might exist among scientists regarding the benefits of free trade, Leftists continue to fanatically oppose globalization, despite colossal costs to everyone around the earth.

In fact, if you think about it, conservatives advocate not organized religion, but individual morality, whereas Leftists want the state to impose their subjective values on everyone, such as with restricting economic freedom, preventing law enforcement from protecting citizens from violence, and prohibiting children in schools from experiencing culture even remotely linked with Christianity. Bush will advocate the teaching of intelligent design, whereas a Leftist will make a law forbidding you from firing an employee you no longer want/need (or forcing you to hire one based on the Leftist current whim).

[DVD Polizei]

Vandelay_Inds,

The Republicans want to subject their population to mind control just as much as the other party--and probably more, given we have some recent examples of Republicans pushing their morality on others.

Abortion. Euthanasia. Those are two issues right there where Republicans want to control who makes those decisions, not the individual.

I don't think you understand the current Republican Party and its goals.

[Vandelay_Inds]

Abortion.

That involves a third party. You can't be free to murder someone for being an inconvenience to you.

Euthanasia.

you're right on that one

...where Republicans want to control who makes those decisions, not the individual.

there are cases, but for the most part, Republicans will impinge on your personal sphere in an insignificant degree compared with the Left, which will take away two of the most substantial accomplishments of the modern world: (relative) freedom from random violence, and the ability to engage in voluntary economic exchange.

[DVD Polizei]

So, you're justifying murder in Iraq via Bush's war on terror, because it makes Americans at home, more safe. Well, we don't call it murder, we call it killing the evil enemy.

Funny thing is, so do the terrorists. And we both have our Gods we pray to. And we both have our Holy Books. We both have our Holy Messages. And we both send mixed messages to our followers.

Makes you wonder, don't it.

And then we have Pat Robertson and his little indirect Fatwa. Oh but wait, he doesn't represent the Republican Party, so let's move on...ahem...

Before I get to the next subject, do you really think the Republican party is crystal-clear and free of killing people because they are an inconvenience?

I fail to see how the Left will make Americans less safe. Will they close the borders that are currently wide open? Will they recall troops from Iraq and have them instead, guarding our borders?

I also fail to see how the Left will make Americans less safe, when the Bush Administration has clearly stirred up a hornets nest worldwide, being the catalyst for an even greater war in the future. I'm not sure how the Left could do any more damage than that. Well, maybe make another Michael Moore video, and I'll give you that one.

I'm also confused on voluntary economic exchange. How would the Left infringe on this behavior. And just who is involved in this voluntary economic exchange. If I want to do business with another country and sell them goods, I can. I could before the Bush Administration--remember Clinton?--and I will be able to so after the Bush Administration. So just how is the Left going to impede this behavior.

[GreenMonkey]

Bwahahaha

Yeah maybe these kind of Leftists are teaming up with Islamics.

The conservatives in this country have done a good job of labeling "liberal" with connotations of the true "Leftists".

Leftists - as in, the radical liberals that believe in the violent overthrow of the capitalistic oppressors? You're most likely talking proponents of radical violent version of Marxist socialism here, not their more moderate liberal kin.

To translate to the conservative folks who think these people = liberal = love violent Islamists = hate America.

Leftists's concepts of violent overthrow to achieve social justice are about as close to the normal liberal left as George W.'s level of authoritarian militarism is to Stalin or Hitler.

That difference of degree makes for a widely different philosophy. There's a BIG difference between a liberal and a leftist. A Liberal may perhaps think perhaps universal healthcare is a good idea. But that thinks we shouldn't invade countries like Iraq that are no threat because we don't like the idea of innocent Iraqi civilians dying. Big difference between that and with people that think that social justice will be achieved only through the violent rebellion against capitalistic governments and elimination of private property.


That's what happens when you label everyone Right or Left. I always liked the 4-dimensional political compass myself...
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.php

[General Zod]

So, you're justifying murder in Iraq via Bush's war on terror, because it makes Americans at home, more safe. Well, we don't call it murder, we call it killing the evil enemy.
If the insurgents had never attacked us, we never would have killed anyone. If Saddam had surrendered, nobody would have been killed at all. However, Saddam chose not to surrender and insurgents decided to shoot at us. So what we are doing is defending ourselves. There was a peaceful solution to this but insurgents didn't want to go that route and neither did Saddam. So people are dying and will continue to die - that is their choice. I know you badly want to blame that all on George Bush, and that's your choice, but it's not reality. If you don't like the situation blame the democrats that also voted for the use of force, and now you have to blame everyone. Sorry, but that's how it really happened. You'll need to come terms with that sooner or later and stop attempting to point the blame at one person - because you're not fooling anyone except yourself.

[GreenMonkey]

If the insurgents had never attacked us, we never would have killed anyone. If Saddam had surrendered, nobody would have been killed at all. However, Saddam chose not to surrender and insurgents decided to shoot at us. So what we are doing is defending ourselves. There was a peaceful solution to this but insurgents didn't want to go that route and neither did Saddam.


HAHAHAHAHA

:rotfl:

Yeah, we're defending ourselves. The bombs we dropped first and the soldiers we invaded the country with, we're defending ourselves when the Iraqi soldiers and rebels decide to shoot at them.

:rotfl:

That's the funniest statement I've seen on here in a while.

I'd suggest going back to the the moral superiority of "bringing the Iraqis freedom" argument for invading, that at least has some sort of logic to it.

[DVD Polizei]

If the insurgents had never attacked us, we never would have killed anyone. If Saddam had surrendered, nobody would have been killed at all. However, Saddam chose not to surrender and insurgents decided to shoot at us. So what we are doing is defending ourselves. There was a peaceful solution to this but insurgents didn't want to go that route and neither did Saddam. So people are dying and will continue to die - that is their choice. I know you badly want to blame that all on George Bush, and that's your choice, but it's not reality. If you don't like the situation blame the democrats that also voted for the use of force, and now you have to blame everyone. Sorry, but that's how it really happened. You'll need to come terms with that sooner or later and stop attempting to point the blame at one person - because you're not fooling anyone except yourself.

Strangely, I'm not blaming Bush. But think about how many "innocent lives" are being killed in Iraq, who have nothing to do with the insurgents coming into their town or even their homes, and using the area as a blockade against US troops.

All I'm saying is for those anti-abortion Republicans, think a little. You're justifying one type of killing, but not the other because it's politically correct to kill innocent people during an anti-terrorist campaign.

[General Zod]

But think about how many "innocent lives" are being killed in Iraq, who have nothing to do with the insurgents coming into their town or even their homes, and using the area as a blockade against US troops.
Agreed. This is an unfortunate side effect to war. We are trying to restore the peace there. These insurgents aren't going to just suddenly go back and meld into society if we turn tail and run. These are people that for the most part, are from across the border. They feel there is a potential to grab power. They don't care about the people - but that's hardly our fault. These people were killing each other long before we had anything to do with them.

All I'm saying is for those anti-abortion Republicans, think a little. You're justifying one type of killing, but not the other because it's politically correct to kill innocent people during an anti-terrorist campaign.
Well i'm pro-abortion so I can't really answer for this. But I think you could replace "anti-terrorist campaign" with "death penalty" and have the same argument.

[DVD Polizei]

Agreed. This is an unfortunate side effect to war. We are trying to restore the peace there. These insurgents aren't going to just suddenly go back and meld into society if we turn tail and run.

Well, here's the problem. Is the US creating more terrorists as they try to hunt down more terrorists? This is the cycle I'm talking about. We kill a few insurgents who are on the list, but in the process, we just destroyed a few homes, and killed a few bystanders who unfortunately were in the area. Those innocent people who got killed, have families, children, spouses, who will probably not have the greatest opinion of the US. In fact, they may even begin to shelter and be a weapons location point for future terrorist acts.

[Vandelay_Inds]

So, you're justifying murder in Iraq via Bush's war on terror, because it makes Americans at home, more safe. Well, we don't call it murder, we call it killing the evil enemy.

Different rules apply in foreign affairs. Otherwise, you couldn't justify a war ever, under any circumstances, because inevitably innocent people are going to be hurt.

Funny thing is, so do the terrorists. And we both have our Gods we pray to. And we both have our Holy Books. We both have our Holy Messages. And we both send mixed messages to our followers.

But that relativism leaves you where to stand on? If you have a conflict, each party will try to conscript truth and justice. The fact that your enemy does so as well doesn't mean that both sides are equivalent. Or do you ever see anyone go to war to advance "evil, oppression and injustice"?

And then we have Pat Robertson and his little indirect Fatwa. Oh but wait, he doesn't represent the Republican Party, so let's move on...ahem...

He doesn't. But still, as a policy matter, rubbing out that piece of shit Chavez wouldn't be a bad proposition...-ptth- Just kidding, the man was democratically elected by a large majority, and is extremely popular throughout South America, so killing the pig would turn him into a martyr.

Before I get to the next subject, do you really think the Republican party is crystal-clear and free of killing people because they are an inconvenience?

no

I fail to see how the Left will make Americans less safe. Will they close the borders that are currently wide open? Will they recall troops from Iraq and have them instead, guarding our borders?

I'm not talking about foreign policy. Just take a look at New York. Why did an overwhelmingly Democratic city elect Republican majors three times in a row? Because it took a Rep to clean up that revolting sink of violence and anarchy. It is the Dems who at every instance oppose vigorously fighting crime, and give criminals the widest margins of maneuver.

I also fail to see how the Left will make Americans less safe, when the Bush Administration has clearly stirred up a hornets nest worldwide

But to support that thesis you'd have to argue that the Iraq war provoked 9/11. I'd like to see you try.

I'm not sure how the Left could do any more damage than that. Well, maybe make another Michael Moore video, and I'll give you that one.

but he's so funny :( Don't forget it was the Leftists who (in their ideological disgust of law enforcement) prevented the various intelligence agencies to share vital info that if acted upon would have prevented 9/11

I'm also confused on voluntary economic exchange. How would the Left infringe on this behavior. And just who is involved in this voluntary economic exchange.

Take a look at this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0156334607/dvdtalk/dvdtalk/dvdtalk/qid=1125088517/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3855280-4949464?v=glance&s=books) and this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226320847/ref=pd_sim_b_6/103-3855280-4949464?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) If it were up to the Left, you wouldn't have a right ship those DVDs you buy online by private carriers.

[DVD Polizei]

Abolishing mandatory schooling and public schools. Ehhhhh, I dunno about that one.