Liberals, NDP, Terrorism & All That

[August1991]

Many, many people have an opinion about the events of the past few days but it seems to me that the Liberals and NDP have largely been silent. Despite having an ongoing leadership campaign, I don't know what Bob Rae or Stephane Dion think about these arrests. On the CBC, I heard Michael Ignatieff say that Parliament was the heart of Canadian democracy and must be protected.

On rabble.ca and enmasse.ca, it seemed at first that posters believed that the RCMP, under the direction of the White House, planned and executed this entire charade. Later, I saw arguments that these were Columbine kids manipulated by authorities. (The intention was to terrify the population and justify the introduction of draconian martial "patriotic" laws.)

Later still, I have seen arguments that these 17 kids were totally frustrated Westerners reacting, you know, to the oppressed plight of Palestinians and Afghanis suffering like under the jackboot of US militarism. Whatever.

More generally, CUPE recently (talk about bad timing) went to the trouble of taking a controversial position in favour of Palestinians that had nothing to do with union business.

I have posted in other threads blatantly homophobic, misogynist comments made by people associated with the 17 accused. Why would the Progressive Left come to the defense of these people when the Progressive Left usually refers to such people with the harshest terms?

It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology. It has lead the Left to defend gay rights while also leading to the defence of homophobic Islamists. As Karl Marx famously said, there's an "internal contradiction".

Ideology aside, is the Left simply in the position of 1930s Chamberlain Conservatives and Socialist French after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland? Awestruck bewilderment? The events of the past few days remind me of the Danish cartoons. Then too, the Left seemed to face a dilemma. For the NDP and the Bob Rae Liberals, this is no small matter. John Kerry lost the last election in part because he had no credible plan to deal with Iraq.

So, I start this thread with a query. Whither the Left with this issue? What will the NDP do? How will the CBC/Toronto Liberal Anglo-MSM respond? (The Toronto Star, to its credit, or perhaps the credit of Michelle Shephard, has been in the forefront of this story.)

Will the Liberal Party of Canada pull a John Kerry and fudge the issue?

[Riverwind]

It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology.

August, I think you hit the nail on the head. A large segment of left sees a world filled with either victims or oppressors. If you are a 'victim' you can do no wrong. If you are an 'oppressor' then you can do no right.

To be fair: when the news first came out with rumours of an RCMP sting operation it was possible to believe these guys were unfairly targetted. However, the fact available now make it clear that these guys were up to something.

[killjoy]

QUOTE(August1991 @ Jun 7 2006, 08:40 PM) *

It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology.

August, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Me2.

The idea of the underdog or the weaker or losing party lends the illusion of automatic righteousness. The two are not indicative of each other. Just because you have been hit, just because you are losing a struggle, that does not mean you don't deserve to. Just because you are playing David to someone else's Goliath does not make you more deserving.

Like this girlfriend I had for about 2 weeks who would cry on cue when she wanted an easy way out of an argument.

The allure of the 'guerrilla freedom fighter' has become a cultural icon, literally and nothing more. People base their whole poly-sci 'intellect' on cool t-shirts.

.

[Johnny Utah]

The Liberals and NDP still can't seem to grasp the real danger of what could have happen. Never in Canada they say, well it can happen in Canada and it almost did. Perhaps the reason the Liberals and NDP have nothing to say is because a percentage of their base will not accept the truth Canada is not safe from Terrorism..

[gc1765]

It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology. It has lead the Left to defend gay rights while also leading to the defence of homophobic Islamists. As Karl Marx famously said, there's an "internal contradiction".

Well I suppose I'm on the left of many issues, and yes I do believe in rights for all people, including gays and muslims. However, I have no sympathy for someone who would kill innocent people. Afterall I do believe in the right to live. So I don't see the "contradiction" that you are referring to.

[I miss Reagan]

Interesting the differences between the way liberals think and conservatives think. Bob Rae's answer to the terrorism issue is to run away. They still actually believe that if the terrorists think we're nice they won't hurt us. Excellent article in the L.A. Times today:

Canada is arguably the most deluded industrialized nation in the world. Because elite Canadians think the U.S. is the font of the world's problems, they think being different than the U.S. and sucking up to the United Nations will buy them grace on the cheap. They claim to be "a nation of peacekeepers," but they rank 50th among U.N. peacekeeper nations in the number of troops sent.

Canada Nice

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology. It has lead the Left to defend gay rights while also leading to the defence of homophobic Islamists.

Not quite so cut and dried, August. I would agree that the 'left' is guilty of prefering to 'fingerpoint', but it looks like you think that the 'right' can do no wrong, and all of it's actions are misread.

I see the 'false dichotomy' argument over and over again when it comes to criticism of 'the left'. "Well, if you opposed the US's actions of empolying/aiding dictators such as Manuel Noriega, Charles Taylor, 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, etc, for their own ends, then you must be an apoligist for, and support Islamic Terrorists".

[Kiraly]

They (Canada) claim to be "a nation of peacekeepers," but they rank 50th among U.N. peacekeeper nations in the number of troops sent

I read something similar to this last year. I was quite surprised at the ranking. It is also quite surprising how this myth (Canada being a nation of peacekeepers) is ingrained in the average Canadian. Visiting my parents in Europe last year, they were entertaining guests and the discussion evolved into international politics. The subject specifically turned to peackkeeping and my old man claimed that Canada ranked no less than the top three in peace keeping nations. He could not accept my assertion that Canada is nowhere near the top three. This would simply go against everything he has been led to believe.

[Black Dog]

Where would you guys be without the strawman left?

Who is the "Left" August is talking about? A small number of anonymous posters on internet forums, plus the NDP plus the "Rae Liberals"(?) plus Michael Ignatieff. How these various disparate elements fit together into the monolithic entity August assails is unclear. Perhaps the Left is kinda like Voltron. I dunno.

In any case, what we're seeing is any speculation on the circumstances of the operation leading to the T.O. arrests being dismissed, wild conspiracy claims being lumped in with calls for due process and a general misunderstanding about the nature of the Left itself. The Canadian left in particular reminds me of the old joke: "Q": What do you get when you put two anarchists in a room together? A: three splinter groups."

The Left isn't a monolith. Any definition that lumps liberal hawks like Ignatieff with anonymous online shit disturbers is too broad to be of any use.

[killjoy]

Where would you guys be without the strawman left?

Where would the Left be without all the 'Little Eichmann's? Where would they be without the 'neocon's and all the ridiculious conspiricies? I'm sorry you feel picked on but it's an ebb and flow mentality. When people feel society is insecure or in danger,they go Right. When things are good and it's time to burn your money, people go Left.

.

[Black Dog]

Where would the Left be without all the 'Little Eichmann's? Where would they be without the 'neocon's and all the ridiculious conspiricies? I'm sorry you feel picked on but it's an ebb and flow mentality. When people feel society is insecure or in danger,they go Right. When things are good and it's time to burn your money, people go Left.

Your quote proves my point. How can one make any judgements upon the "Left" when you cast your net so wide? IOW your definition of the Left is meaningless.

[I miss Reagan]

They (Canada) claim to be "a nation of peacekeepers," but they rank 50th among U.N. peacekeeper nations in the number of troops sent

I read something similar to this last year. I was quite surprised at the ranking. It is also quite surprising how this myth (Canada being a nation of peacekeepers) is ingrained in the average Canadian. Visiting my parents in Europe last year, they were entertaining guests and the discussion evolved into international politics. The subject specifically turned to peackkeeping and my old man claimed that Canada ranked no less than the top three in peace keeping nations. He could not accept my assertion that Canada is nowhere near the top three. This would simply go against everything he has been led to believe.

It's really too bad. We could do so much more. We don't have to go to places like Iraq but it seems we'll never learn from situations like Rwanda. If we made a serious commitment to Darfur one soldier would die and Rosmary Thompson and her liberal buddies in Parliament would be leading the cause to run away.

[kimmy]

Certainly "the left" is not a monolith. Certainly there are some cooler heads and broader thinkers who could be counted among "the left". Certainly painting "the left" with a broad brush based on the ramblings at certain message boards is as unfair as characterizing "the right" based on ranting at freedomininon or similar.

That said, I have been viewing Babble and similar quite regularly the past few days to get a handle on some of the opposing arguments, and there are a number of themes that seem to pop up quite regularly. They might not be universal to the left, but I've seen these views expressed often enough to think that they're somewhat representative. I will try to enumerate some of these views as fairly as I can...

* it's obviously just bravado from some young men talking smack on the internet. The RCMP and CSIS are overreacting.

* a "sting operation" is practically the same thing as entrapment. If the RCMP hadn't made it possible for these kids to buy fertilizer, none of this would have ever happened. Who even knows if they would have tried to buy fertilizer if the RCMP hadn't facilitated it.

* these guys are obviously incompetent and didn't pose a real threat. The government is just trying to scare people to boost support for their right-wing security agenda.

* the RCMP and CSIS spied on these Canadian citizens. They used wiretaps. This is a gross violation of civil liberties.

* the RCMP said they have foiled other terror operations recently just by telling the suspects they were being monitored. Why didn't they do that this time? Why did they let the plot get to this point before they stepped in?

I hope I've presented these fairly as opposed to making them look like straw-men. Is that a fair representation of some of the common themes being presented by people on "the left" in this saga? And have I missed any that should be mentioned?

-kimmy

[killjoy]

Your quote proves my point. How can one make any judgements upon the "Left" when you cast your net so wide? IOW your definition of the Left is meaningless.

No you actually miss the point, if you don't mind me saying. You feel frustrated because all on the Left have been reduced to a meaningless definition. My point is why do you think this is only going one way? The Left love to do it too.

I find it ironic actually that you feel this is a phenomenon only perpetrated by the Right. The Left LOVE to do this.

IOW you can you sit there with a straight face and ask, “Where would the Right be without the straw man Left”? when it’s blatantly obvious that the question should be reversed. You think people enjoy being likened to Hitler every time they have a viable immigration concern?

Most of the "Left's" net is also cast so wide as to mean, eventually, that someone is 'Right' if they don't see things like the idividual in question does. Seems to me you believe the Right is more guilty of this and it's just not true. So really the statement is a little pointless.

.

[Black Dog]

No you actually miss the point, if you don't mind me saying. You feel frustrated because all on the Left have been reduced to a meaningless definition. My point is why do you think this is only going one way? The Left love to do it too.

I find it ironic actually that you feel this is a phenomenon only perpetrated by the Right. The Left LOVE to do this.

On the balance, I'd say there's a lot more unity on the right side of the spectrum. And, come to think of it, those of the left tend to be pretty nuanced when talking about the right: hence "neocon"," religious right" and other qualifiers.

IOW you can you sit there with a straight face and ask, “Where would the Right be without the straw man Left”? when it’s blatantly obvious that the question should be reversed. You think people enjoy being likened to Hitler every time they have a viable immigration concern?

Most of the "Left's" net is also cast so wide as to mean, eventually, that someone is 'Right' if they don't see things like the idividual in question does. Seems to me you believe the Right is more guilty of this and it's just not true. So really the statement is a little pointless.

I see a shitload of threads on this board like August's o.p. that try to ascribe a unifomr set of beliefs or traits to the left. I see very little of the reverse.

[killjoy]

On the balance, I'd say there's a lot more unity on the right side of the spectrum. And, come to think of it, those of the left tend to be pretty nuanced when talking about the right: hence "neocon"," religious right" and other qualifiers.

If you say so. I’m not going to defend either side. If it's your perception that the left are a "little more nuanced" than the Right, well so says you. Again this all comes down to point of view.

I see a shitload of threads on this board like August's o.p. that try to ascribe a unifomr set of beliefs or traits to the left. I see very little of the reverse.

This puny, tiny insignificant forum is the know-all end-all barometer of what you're talking about? If so than forget that I ever replied.

All in all I'd have to say it comes down to both perspective and attitude. If you're on the Left/Right and you never (rarely) use derogatory hyperbole to describe the other side then I can image it would get very annoying. If it all comes down to August, well then you should've said "Where would August be if it weren't for the Lefty straw man?". I feel certain I wouldn't have replied or even raised an eyebrow on that one.

Overall I think we only see what ‘the other side’ does. Luckily, speaking of political alignment, I remain on the fence where the grass is always green.

PS: I've been a member on a few forums. I hope this isn't too discouraging but I'd have to say that this one ranks at least an 8 out of 10 in terms of maturity. (at least)

.

[scribblet]

First of all I agree that MLW is one of the better forums around for maturity and more reasonable opinions.

I too have been reading some other websites, and find that one of the worst (worse than rabble) for conspiracy theories is canadawebpages.com where the underlying theme is:

+ scapegoating Muslims

+ a big plot by the gov't to scare people etc., (an explanation of how Harper could actually manipulate that many agencies, the media and that hundreds of people into doing this, is not provided. )

+ these are simply innocent farmers

+ TV news and lies

+ and this one "I think the US goverment staged Roswell so that they could discredit all of the "conspiracy theorists" so that when they assasinate Kennedy, Martin Luther King, stage terrorist attacks & go to war with all kinds of small countries that anyone who says "wait a minute" is instantly discredited as a conspiracy theorist."

IMHO, part of it is the left's hatred of Bush and the U.S. which transcends all reasonable thought process. They equate Harper with Bush and are willing to believe or promote anything which could discredit either of them.

I'm not sure that a successful terrorist attempt with many people being killed would clue them in, as the same people believe 9/11 (and Oklahama T. McVeigh) were inside jobs. The only other explanation is delusional paranoia...

[scribblet]

name='I miss Reagan' date='Jun 8 2006, 07:28 AM' post='116688']

I They claim to be "a nation of peacekeepers," but they rank 50th among U.N. peacekeeper nations in the number of troops sent.

Canada Nice

The stance that Canada's role is that of traditional peacekeeping, is a nice little piece of revisionism largely created by the Liberals and the NDP.

To me traditional means something that has been the way for a long, long time. My knowledge of Canadian history tells me that Canada was fighting with real guns and stuff in what was then the Great War and later on World War II. What do these guys think that Rememberance Day is all about?

The traditional role of Canada is to defend the people of Canada and others in the world from those aggressors who wage war on freedom and democracy.

A very interesting piece here:

Self-Loathing and the Denial of Terrorism

BY JAMES LILEKS

You're an enlightened world citizen. Your T-shirt says "9/11 was an inside job." You're pretty sure we're living in a fascist state, that President Bush taps the Dixie Chicks' phones, Christian abortion clinic bombers outnumber jihadis, and the war on "terror" is a distraction from the real threats: carbon emissions and Pat Robertson. Then you learn that 17 people were arrested in a terrorist bomb plot. How do you process the information? Let's take it step by step.

-snip

Wait a minute: The "terrorists" were Canadian? You can understand someone blowing up trains in Spain and London. They sent troops to an illegal war cooked up by neocons who want to kill brown people for Exxon and Jesus, or something. You can understand, reluctantly, blowing up teens in an Israeli pizza parlor, because the Jews took the West Bank from the sovereign, ancient nation of Palestine. (How can a liberal socialist country behave so poorly? The world is full of mysteries.) But Canada? Isn't Michael Moore from Canada? You can get medical marijuana from married gay doctors in Canada, and no one has guns. You console yourself: Maybe they were really planning to attack the U.S.

You realize the suspects were all Muslim, and you dread the inevitable pogroms. Haven't been any yet, but any day now. You read that a mosque was vandalized in Toronto after the arrest, and you feel a certain grim relief. Finally, racism! Banners. If you're going to have a march, you'll need banners.

-snip-

Maybe you could convince them to hold off while you fix Amerikkka. At least you can get it down to one k. Maybe if the Democrats take the House back. A 10-seat swing won't make the imams cool down, but 20 seats, in red states? Would that be a good-faith effort?

You worry this will push Haditha off the front page. It's very important that everyone concentrate on the atrocities committed by U.S. troops every day. (It's such a relief not to have to pretend to support the troops anymore.) Anyway, nothing happened. Nothing blew up. If the suspects were planning something, they didn't do it, and this proves we can handle this as a law enforcement matter. Even though the police are racists.

-snip-

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks060706.html

[killjoy]

Thanks a lot Scriblett.

Now that you've posted that I don't have anything else to contribute to this forum. That pretty much sums it all up.

(sigh)

see ya.

.

[Black Dog]

IMHO, part of it is the left's hatred of Bush and the U.S. which transcends all reasonable thought process. They equate Harper with Bush and are willing to believe or promote anything which could discredit either of them.

I see the meme aout the "irrational hatred" the left has for Bush continues to grow. It's cute, a neat little rhetorical trick that dismiises any criticism and marginalizes critics. No need to consider the substance of the criticism: it's just B.D.S.! I've spouted off about this crap before: short version is there is a profopund difference between irrational hatred and rational rage. Given the number and prominence of rage-a-holics on the right (especially in the U.S. where the core of the social conservative movement is founded upon anger), it would be funny if it weren't so damaging.

As for the article above: someone got paid to write that garbage?

[AndrewL]

Many, many people have an opinion about the events of the past few days but it seems to me that the Liberals and NDP have largely been silent. Despite having an ongoing leadership campaign, I don't know what Bob Rae or Stephane Dion think about these arrests. On the CBC, I heard Michael Ignatieff say that Parliament was the heart of Canadian democracy and must be protected.

On rabble.ca and enmasse.ca, it seemed at first that posters believed that the RCMP, under the direction of the White House, planned and executed this entire charade. Later, I saw arguments that these were Columbine kids manipulated by authorities. (The intention was to terrify the population and justify the introduction of draconian martial "patriotic" laws.)

Later still, I have seen arguments that these 17 kids were totally frustrated Westerners reacting, you know, to the oppressed plight of Palestinians and Afghanis suffering like under the jackboot of US militarism. Whatever.

More generally, CUPE recently (talk about bad timing) went to the trouble of taking a controversial position in favour of Palestinians that had nothing to do with union business.

I have posted in other threads blatantly homophobic, misogynist comments made by people associated with the 17 accused. Why would the Progressive Left come to the defense of these people when the Progressive Left usually refers to such people with the harshest terms?

It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology. It has lead the Left to defend gay rights while also leading to the defence of homophobic Islamists. As Karl Marx famously said, there's an "internal contradiction".

Ideology aside, is the Left simply in the position of 1930s Chamberlain Conservatives and Socialist French after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland? Awestruck bewilderment? The events of the past few days remind me of the Danish cartoons. Then too, the Left seemed to face a dilemma. For the NDP and the Bob Rae Liberals, this is no small matter. John Kerry lost the last election in part because he had no credible plan to deal with Iraq.

So, I start this thread with a query. Whither the Left with this issue? What will the NDP do? How will the CBC/Toronto Liberal Anglo-MSM respond? (The Toronto Star, to its credit, or perhaps the credit of Michelle Shephard, has been in the forefront of this story.)

Will the Liberal Party of Canada pull a John Kerry and fudge the issue?

Well I think reasonable people from both sides of spectrum will want to discuss honestly all aspects of what could possibly cause this to happen. Why now and not 10 years ago. Why the new phenomenon of homegrown terrorism, how did that come to be? How is this different than the terror wrought by FLQ? How does this terror differ from state terror?

Or are we to go the american route and just say that they hate us for our values. That is convenient if you need an excuse to kill them in large numbers in far off nations, or if you desire to expand state interference and authority at home. But i suspect that debate won't be had in public, it will be relegated poli-sci circles. People like the simple explanations, so it does not interfere with their TV time and such...

One thing for sure it will be a long and arduous trial that will bore the bejeebers out of most people, and it will result in maybe one or two serious convictions, while the younger kids will get a chance at rehab.

Andrew

[kimmy]

On the balance, I'd say there's a lot more unity on the right side of the spectrum. And, come to think of it, those of the left tend to be pretty nuanced when talking about the right: hence "neocon"," religious right" and other qualifiers.

Out of curiousity, what other qualifiers? Based on reading "lefty" message boards, I've gathered that there are only 3 kinds of people who support Canada's Conservatives: the "neocons," the "religious right," and the "religious right neocons."

It's the same sort of nuance found among right-wingers who differentiate between "pinko commies," "tree-huggers," "pinko-commie tree-huggers," and "bleeding hearts."

I see a shitload of threads on this board like August's o.p. that try to ascribe a unifomr set of beliefs or traits to the left. I see very little of the reverse.

On this board, perhaps. There aren't any prominent "lefties" who still post here, however, aside from yourself, and you really ARE a nuanced writer.

-k

[August1991]

Where would you guys be without the strawman left?

Who is the "Left" August is talking about? A small number of anonymous posters on internet forums, plus the NDP plus the "Rae Liberals"(?) plus Michael Ignatieff. How these various disparate elements fit together into the monolithic entity August assails is unclear. Perhaps the Left is kinda like Voltron. I dunno.

...

The Left isn't a monolith. Any definition that lumps liberal hawks like Ignatieff with anonymous online shit disturbers is too broad to be of any use.

I have to agree. "Left" and "Right" are broad general terms. But nevertheless, it seems to me that alot of issues (and this one in particular) seem to filter people into two groups.

In any case, my post finished by asking a question about how the Liberal Party would deal with this. I'll admit the question was partly rhetorical but I'm also curious. Out of curiousity, I googled rae and I got this:

The arrests of 17 men for an alleged terrorist plot shows that Canadian law enforcers are working together better now than in 1985, when a plane en route to India from Vancouver was blown from the sky, Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae said Tuesday.

The former Ontario premier drew the comparison between the arrests of the men on terrorism charges and the Air India bombing during a speech where he unveiled new details of his leadership platform.

"One of the things that we need to reflect on is that the relationships between the RCMP, CSIS and local police forces seems to be working pretty well," Rae said. "That's reassuring."

Link

Fair enough (although I wonder whether my first comment about these arrests would be about bureaucratic cooperation). But then I also got this:

The battle lines between Liberal leadership candidates became more defined yesterday after a spokesman for Bob Rae said the former Ontario premier believes Canadian combat troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan next year -- in stark contrast to one of his main competitors, Michael Ignatieff, who last month voted with the Tory government to extend the mission two more years.

National Post

If I had to pick a strawman to represent Canada's moderate Left, Bob Rae seems a reasonable choice.

On the balance, I'd say there's a lot more unity on the right side of the spectrum. And, come to think of it, those of the left tend to be pretty nuanced when talking about the right: hence "neocon"," religious right" and other qualifiers.

I don't really want to turn this thread into a general discussion of the Left and Right but I agree with you BD. The recent Rabble split would not be likely at Free Dominion.

I see a shitload of threads on this board like August's o.p. that try to ascribe a unifomr set of beliefs or traits to the left. I see very little of the reverse.

True, the Left seems all over the map on this issue but I have yet to see anyone on the Left admit that confronting directly and forcefully these Muslim terrorists is the right thing to do.

First of all I agree that MLW is one of the better forums around for maturity and more reasonable opinions.

I would like to think that's true. I fear however that a left-winger requires thick skin to stay here. That's unfortunate.

IMHO, part of it is the left's hatred of Bush and the U.S. which transcends all reasonable thought process. They equate Harper with Bush and are willing to believe or promote anything which could discredit either of them.

That's a good point I think. In Canada, there's an anti-American tinge to the Left and in the US, it's anti-Bush.

Whatever Bush does, it must be bad.

I see the meme aout the "irrational hatred" the left has for Bush continues to grow. It's cute, a neat little rhetorical trick that dismiises any criticism and marginalizes critics. No need to consider the substance of the criticism: it's just B.D.S.! I've spouted off about this crap before: short version is there is a profopund difference between irrational hatred and rational rage.

The thing is, BD, I have never, ever seen any positive comment written about Bush Jnr on, say, rabble.ca.

Is Bush Jnr the Devil incarnate? When people have slogans such as Bush = Hitler, it's not hard to imagine that their whole ideology is based on irrational hatred. Even I have found positive things to say about Paul Martin or Jean Chretien.

[Black Dog]

The thing is, BD, I have never, ever seen any positive comment written about Bush Jnr on, say, rabble.ca.

So? If one disagree with every one of the man's policies, one is probably not going to go out of one's way to find nice things to say about him.

Is Bush Jnr the Devil incarnate? When people have slogans such as Bush = Hitler, it's not hard to imagine that there whole ideology is based on irrational hatred. Even I have found positive things to say about Paul Martin or Jean Chretien.

Oh sure, there's an element of irrational hatred, don't get me wrong. But what I'm, saying is that they are a minority element is used as a cudgel for bashing the majority and ignoring legitimate criticism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

True, the Left seems all over the map on this issue but I have yet to see anyone on the Left admit that confronting directly and forcefully these Muslim terrorists is the right thing to do.

I would say that the 'left' is critical of both sides, as they are generally critical of any kind of religious fundamentalism. That includes radical Muslims, Zionists, and kimmy's

"religious right," and the "religious right neocons."

It seems, though, the 'right' can never be critical of their own actions, and assume that any opposition can only come from either jealousy or hatred. The 'left' is often critical of our (and the US') actions and 'hegemonic' foreign policy, but this is often twisted into catch phrases such as 'the left's self-loathing' and other such rubbish.