1 Look, there is no alliance between the left and islamofascism, and this chart no more proves it than similar charts did by the Birchers connecting the NAACP with Stalin. don't confuse your domestic opponents with our foreign enemies. The left may be wrong in its responses to the war on terror, but their errors are not motivated by a desire to see victory by the islamofascists. To use some pseudo-intellectual link between postmodernism and islamofascism to make yourself feel morally superior to those you disagree with is an intellectual crutch you shouldn't need.

2 jd, It's not a formal alliance, and perhaps not even a conscious one. But Lib/muslim mutual hatred of whitey (conservatives) and the Man (Republicans) results in behavior that might as well be an alliance. It shows up in how Libs won't question islam, and try to destroy anybody who does. Worse, they defend it, even when objectively speaking it represents everything they should hate. Not a coincidink. It isn't out of "respect" for religion either, as is evident by the way they attack christianity 24/7 which they despise. No such defense for christianity! That's because they feel islam is being afflicted by the same evil force that afflicts them (whitey). Out of that sense of mutual affliction grows a feeling of kinship and an informal alliance of sorts between the two begins to take shape organically. Of course, most of the Lib foot soldiers aren't consciously aware this alliance, they just read the memo and spout the talking points. But the results, whether they are aware of it or not, are real. The intellectual vanguard of the Left are probably aware of it though. And they intend to ride the dragon that is islam for as long as they can to suit their purposes. And when they done with whitey and the Man, only then wil they turn their humanistic guns on islam. But Liberalism isn't equipped to defeat the dragon once whitey is gone. It's a suicidal strategy.

3 OK, for the record, liberals don't despise Christianity, as I've already demonstrated on another post. Most liberals are Christians. Many who are not Christians are strongly religious. Atheists and Agnostics don't make up enough of America to compose all the liberals, particularly when you consider that many conservatives are atheists and agnostics (many of my libertarian and objectivist friends are, as well). Please stop saying things that are manifestly, obviously untrue. It could be claimed, without obvious error, that many liberals despise fundamentalist christianity. Or, that many liberals believe in a strong separation of Church and state, stronger than you believe necessary or good. But to claim that "liberals despise Christianity" isn't true, and makes you look dumb. But now to the alliance.

4 If there is some kind of conscious or unconscious alliance between liberals and islamofascists, why is it that: liberals in congress voted to support the war in Afghanistan, against islamofascism? Liberals in the country supported that war as well. Liberals were among the only people to protest the treatment of women under the Taliban before 9-11. Some liberals have been protesting the treatment of women in Saudia Arabia for a long time. I could go on, but here's the crux of the argument: liberals may be perceived as being pro-Muslim for two reasons: first, they don't believe that Islam is incompatible, in the end, with democracy, if it can be reformed. Many people on this list disagree with the president, and believe that Islam is evil, and remains inevitably so, because it was founded by a warmongering pedophile. While I've come to understand that there is something different about a religion founded by a man holding a sword, I don't think that this means that Islam is inevitably evil. More prone to a certain exclusionary faith? Sure. But liberals tend to see hope for Islam. Second, liberals tend to want more inclusion domestically for religious minorities of all kinds, including Muslims. That doesn't mean they are allied with islamofascism. in fact, one could argue that inclusion of muslims in the lives of America is one reason we haven't had the paris riots here, or the number of islamofascists cells that they have had there.

5 Carlos "the libs, the left, these seem to be perjoratives that incompass tens of millions of people here in the USA. Yes there are extreme views held by those both on the left and the right but you know Carlos that is just one of those things about living here in these United States Quite frankly I worry more about right wing American loonies than those on the left.

6 I suppose this could have also been entitled "The strange alliance of rightists with Islamist radicals". Certainly many would agree that much of what is wrong with Islam today comes from the wahabi sect/cult of Islam. This sect has achieved its importance because of the massive funding it has received and is continuing to receive from the Saudis. I think it would be difficult to describe them as socialists or liberals.

7 Questioning the patriotism of the left is like questioning the right on whether this war was begun only for war and profits. Both arguments are devise and help only the people we are fighting.

8 jd, john, most Libs are just regular working slobs trying to get through this thing we call life just like everybody else. They consider themselves "Liberal" because they believe in all the nice slogans and platitudes. Fine. I'm not talking about them. Their only sin is being dupes. I'm talking about the leadership who drives the movement and leads those poor slobs by the nosering.

9 jd, I regret inserting Lib hatred for christianity into the mix because I consider that a distraction from the more relevant point I was making about the Lib/muslim alliance and Lib apologetics for what really should be their mortal enemy-- islam. When people like john ryan blame christianity for flesh eating Spanish dogs, or when Libs blame christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust, and make up easily debunkable lies about Pope Pius, etc., or obsess about the "Crusades" which happenned almost 1,000 years ago, I know I'm not talking to people who love chritianity. They hate it. And they are ALWAYS Lefties. Thus, not all Libs hate christianity, but just about everybody who hates christianity is a Lib. Capish? It's kinda like not all muslims are terrorists, but just about all terrorists are muslims. Same thing. Liberals used to speak out for women's rights under the Taliban because the Taliban were so extreme they were a safe target. Or they'd make issue about genital mutilation because it is also so extreme making it another quite safe target. But the status of women in general under islam has never been an issue for Lefties. That might offend the "diversity is strength" wing of the Lefty party. And that shyness has become even more pronounced because any wiff of support for women's rights under islam might play to Bush's benefit. So now we have complete silence about islam from the Left. And worse, Lefties like john ryan who should hate islam far worse than they hate christianity actively defend islam and apologize for it. So you see, your mutual enemy-- whitey-- has created strange bedfellows indeed. An alliance of convenience.

10 Not to mention all the talking points on Osama tapes sound exactly like Michael Moore's talking points. After all, they are battling a common enemy, so an informal alliance makes perfect sense.

11 Ok, I appreciate the clarification on your target. It is not manifestly wrong to say that a small group in the leadership of the left despises Christianity. I don't agree at all, but at least it is not gobsmackingly stupid. I'm one of those people who bring up the crusades and inquisition and the conquistadors. I don't do it because I despise Christianity. Some people do, I grant you. I've known atheists who act like the Inquisition was yesterday. I've had secular jews blame the Catholic Church for Hitler, or whatever (Pious did many wrong things, but the link between his acts and Hitler in a simplistic fashion is afactual and often accompanies hatred of Catholics or Christians in general). But I think the reason why many liberals bring up these historical facts is simply that many Americans do not realize how ugly Christianity's history is, and thus when they look at Islam's present AND past, they mislead themselves into thinking that Christianity is morally superior BECAUSE of its past. That's simply not true. If it is morally superior, it is because of the truth of its revelation. You cannot blame Christ for Christians who go bad. You therefore do not need to ignore or whitewash the history of Christians who have done wrong in the name of Christ. It does not take away from the beauty and power of the resurrection if you have faith in it. The bible itself tells us that many will come in the name of God and mislead. That's how I see those who executed non-believers in the name of Christ.

12 jd, christianity's past is not ignored nor whitewashed, it's just not an issue, that's all. The war on terror is NOW, radical islam is NOW, and changing the subject to what happenned 1,000 years ago during the "Crusades" is as silly as it is enfuriating. It's also very revealing of the aforementioned Left/islamic alliance. Islam's past IS relevant because it has a bearing on NOW. The same cannot be said of christianity's past. Thus there is no reason to come here to an anti-terror blog and keep harping about the "Crusades" and flesh-eating christian dogs but for that Left/islamic alliance. That alliance REQUIRES you to defend islam (past and present) and to divert attention towards irrelevant topics like flesh-eating christian dogs.

13 I think part of this is that Americans underestimate how alive history is in other parts of the world. I remember in 2000 I was in Moldova, and a legislative aide handed me his commemorative nato keychain, still in fury over our bombing of Serbs, saying he never wanted to have anything that said NATO in his pocket. Orthodox Christians are linked by a thousand years of fighting against Muslims. Serbs are attached to Kosovo by events that happened in 1300s. And Arabs rally around the Crusades because it was one of the most recent victories for their civilization. So they bring up the Crusades a lot (which was why Bush immediately retracted when he called our war a "crusade" in 2001.) If someone brings up Islam's past, I'm going to bring up Christianitys. If someone brings up Islam's present, I've sometimes brought up christianity's past similar conduct, because it brings out the hope that if we got better, they can to. It is NOT an attack on christianity, nor is it part of an "alliance" with islamofascists. It's just a way to answer logically. Comparing the histories of religions, to see which was the MOST brutal, is rather silly. Rusty hasn't backed up his afactual assertion that Islam has killed more people than anything except communism, and I for one am not even slightly surprised. But let's suppose he could--he posts some research from someone who says: communism killed 140 million, islam killed 130 million, fascism 90 million, and, wait for it, Christianity ONLY killed 85 million!!! Yay! But wait--should we all convert to Buddhism? Since they haven't killed nearly as many (I have no idea, say 3 million). Bahais probably haven't killed anyone, since it's against their religion AND they've never had state power or terrorism. That must be the best religion. As I said before, Christianity stands or falls on whether you believe in the resurrection and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter if Torquemada killed 50,000 Jews in Spain hundreds of years ago in Jesus' name. If there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, then what some caliph did in 1134 doesn't change that truth. And it doesn't matter how old Aisha was when Mohammed married her, either (does it matter that Jesus emerged in a polygamous culture? That David and Solomon WERE polygamous? David Koresh's theology wasn't entirely ahistorical...)

14 I forgot to note how true one of John Ryan's comments was--there IS more of an alliance between Islamo-radicalism and the far right in this country than there is between the left and Islamo-radicalism. Both the far right kooks and the salafis hate Jews and israel. Both have vast conspiracy theories about it. Their websites often link to each other. David Duke is a huge advocate of splitting our foreign policy from Israel's. If Rusty is really looking to make a nice chart, there are actual real connections there, not the fantasies and illusionary extrapolations from this website. That does NOT mean that the rightwingers in general are in bed with Islamofascists, any more than the bizarre anti-Bush conspiracies on the left that dovetail with some salafi crap mean that Howard Dean et al are part of an unconscious alliance. We are all in this together against the salafis. Stop dividing us.

15 >>>I think part of this is that Americans underestimate how alive history is in other parts of the world. Yes, well I'm not talking about other parts of the world, I'm talking about home grown Lefties, not Kosovars and muslims holding 1000-year old grudges and still living in the 12 century. I'm talking about home grown Lefties whose only real knowledge of history is the Leftwing talking points about evil christians and the "Crusades", etc., but a wilfull ignorance about everything else, especially the far more relevant history of islam. It is a politically motivated wilfull ignorance, and it reveals their loyalties. If David Duke is a rightwing nutjob with sympathies for radical islam (because of their mutual hatred of jews), you won't see conservatives defending him and apologizing for him the way the Left apologizes for its nutjobs. Your nutjobs are mainstream, ours aren't. That's why Duke is so fringe as to be irrelevant and not a force to be reckoned with. He's just another red herring, just like the "Crusades."

16 "Dictatorships in the Middle East and radical imams have adopted the jargon of the European left, calling the cartoons racist and Islamophobic. When Westerners criticize their lack of civil liberties and the oppression of women, they say we behave like imperialists. They have adopted the rhetoric and turned it against us." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/europes_politics_of_victimolog.html

17 Carlos--just because they have cleverly adopted the rhetoric of the left doesn't mean there's an alliance, consciously or unconsciously, any more than Hamas adopting the rhetoric of Bush and democracy indicates an alliance there. And please, be certain that I DID say that the existence of an alliance between the right's fringe (like Duke) and Islamofascists does not indicate anything about the rightwingers generally. I said that. I meant it. If there are some kooky leftists who have allied (formally or informally, consciously or unconsciously) with islamofascists, please name them. I don't see it. I've seen the meme that somehow the Iranian president's letter was "democratic talking points." But even if this were true, it does not indicate an alliance. A degree of cleverness, and some coincidence. But to say that the left is allied with our enemies is dangerous, divisive, and erroneous rhetoric, which only helps our enemies by destroying the unity we need for victory. I believe, fervently, that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terror. I believe it has armed our enemies and devastated our own strength. But I would never say that this makes Bush an ally of Al Qaeda (even though Al Qaeda uncorked non-alcoholic champagne when we invaded--it was their firmest desire). Calling Bush an ally of Al Qaeda is as wrong as saying the left is an ally of islamofascists. Neat chart--just dead wrong.

18 Carlos: Very well said. Common sense. A wonderful thing. JD: If you have time check back in the archives and you will see the glee the left on this blog has posted whenever something bad has happened to our troops overseas. We have even had some say that 9/11 was a good thing. Not is bed with the Islamofacists? Maybe to you. But I'm convinced some are. An example that I know is true. One of their hero's Jane Fonda. The liberal Jane Fonda (AKA Hanoi Jane) goes to Viet Nam to show the the North Vietnamese that many Americans (the left) are in agreement with them. Her Agdenda. Bring the troops home. Sound familiar? See meets on camera with some (resently cleaned up) POWs. She asks them aren't they happy over the wonderful care they have given. They believe she is saying this because the Vietnamese are watching and filming. Several of them slip her folded up notes while shaking her hand. When finished this liberal who calls herself a caring American hands the notes to the Vietnamese Officer in charge. Before she leaves the room the beatings commence. Three of the seven Pows die from the beatings. She doesn't complain or even mention this incident. Was she in bed with the enemy? I say yes. Was Kerry? I say yes but the liberals, and blacks were 100% behind him.

19 I don't defend the conduct of Jane Fonda. I do find it very illustrative of the poverty of your arguments relating to Iraq that asked to show any evidence, a single example, a moiety of proof, that there exists an alliance between islamofascists and the left, that you retreat to Jane Fonda and North Vietnam. Shoot, I could do better than that--why not drag out Michael Moore's "moral equivalent of the minutemen" in regard to Iraqi "insurgents"? (I could shoot that down, but at least it's an example that is about Iraq and not ancient history). Face it--there is no alliance between the left and islamo-fascists except in the feverish imaginations of many on the right. Just as there is no true alliance between Bush and the house of saud except in Michael Moore's mind and some on the left. We are all in this together. We differ on tactics, we differ on targets, but no major American political figure of the left or right is allied, consciously or unconsciously, formally or informally, with islamofascism.

20 jd, if we're "all in this together", then why the dearth of posts on Liberal blogs about the Toronto raids? Liberal blogs consistently ignore and downplay this kind of news item. Gee, I wonder why. "The profoundly unserious, serial tantrum-throwing angry left blogosphere has almost totally ignored the anti-terror raids in Canada; Ace of Spades and Seixon both tried to find some concern among the fools and hate-spewers, and came up empty. Probably too busy watching Truthout for news of Karl Rove being frogmarched to prison." http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20919_Angry_Left_Not_Angry_About_Islamic_Terrorism#comments When the Left starts showing a real concern about terrorism, then I'll believe "we're all in it together" pie in the sky platitudes.

21 Well, I was able to find leftwing blogs talking about it in about 22 seconds. Checked out Crooked Timber's post by belle waring, critiquing the NYT's coverage, and agreeing with instapundit. Also--I wonder why no one on this blog is mentioning that these people are, of course, innocent until proven guilty. that seemed to be a HUGE deal for folks here when we were talking about Haditha. I think the principle applies in both cases, but I'm just old fashioned (and PLEASE don't pounce in and say it is only a principle here. Innocent until proven G is part of the anglo-American legal tradition, of which Canada partakes).

22 Oh, and I think both the left and the right blogospheres have their blind spots, don't you? When good economic news is announced, rightwing sites make HUGE headlines of it. Leftwing sites tend to shut up or discredit or point out other economic indicators not doing so well. When crappy news like the recent decline in the stock market happens, left wing sites report it, and the right is silent. It's just like members of Congress in the 90s. When the economy was going well, Dems crowed, and Republicans ignored or were negative (or said it was due to their policies, not Clintons). Good blogs report both sides.

23 And when exactly is the rightwing blogosphere going to report the truth about what is happening in Iraq? **** In Baghdad, leaving home to work, shop or visit family has become an increasingly dangerous proposition. Violence rears up without warning; residents navigate a citywide obstacle course of roadside bombs, shootouts and security checkpoints. The city just had its deadliest month since U.S.-led forces invaded the country in 2003, new Iraqi government documents indicate. More people were shot, stabbed or otherwise violently killed in May than in any other month since the invasion, according to Health Ministry statistics. The figure does not include slain soldiers or civilians killed in bombings, on whom autopsies are not usually performed. Last month alone, 1,398 bodies were brought to Baghdad's central morgue, the ministry said. All over the city and out into the provinces, corpses surface on a daily basis in garbage dumps, in abandoned cars or along roadsides. They often bear marks of bondage and torture

24 jd, can you give me 3 links to liberal anti-terror blogs so I can see for myself? In response to your question about innocent before proven guilty, we accord that privilege to our GIs, not to terrorists and pedophiles.

25 Actually, in Anglo-American tradition, it applies to everyone, it is a universal right. As I pointed out in the haditha post, it doesn't bind anyone but the court, but it seems silly to apply it with religious fervor in one case, but not in the other. I'd submit that investigative authorities would be far more likely to erroneously exonerate an American GI and to erroneously convict an accused terrorist or pedophile, than either reverse situation. That being the case, one should probably act with greater restraint in those cases. But whatever. Three anti-terror liberal blogs? They are ALL anti-terror, the ones I've seen. They may not take the tactic that you want them to take, it may be one that you disagree with, but that does NOT make them pro-terror. It's a tactical, not a strategic difference.

26 Walkman Video Converter