Can we trust Democrats not to be dangerously naive about radical Islam?

Per this Salon article Bernard-Henri Lévy asserts that the the left (worldwide) is in danger of being overly tolerant of, and naive about, radical Islamist movements. I think he has an excellent point and if the Democrats assume power, being unclear about where our realpolitik interests lie is a luxury we cannot afford.

Are Democrats up to the task of being vigilant, and not encouraging radical Islamists to think they will have an easier time playing the Democrats if they make the right placating noises?

What Democrats support the caste system and clitoral removal? Doesn’t the whole argument collapse under its own weight at that point?

What Frank said. If Levy wants to discuss actual policies of actual democrats we can do that. But all he does is pull up ludicrous strawmen right from Free Republic.

Hopefully Democrats work to remove the extremism in all religions…

…or at least pay no lip service to those vocal minorities.

I think we can trust all Democrats to resist efforts to institute Sharia law.

I also think we can trust a lot of Republicans to try to incite a blind terror about Islam. They’ve done it prety consistently for the last seven years.

but. but… what if the democrats sell atomic secrets to North Korea? I mean, it’s well known that democrats are not real Americans, and are traitors.

Yeah, like that FDR and Truman. They only led us through the Depression, WWII and the beginning of the Cold War to lull us into a false sense of security so they could sell us out to the Islamofascists.

ARe you losing sleep about this at night? I mean, where exactly do YOUR realpolitik interests lie?

I think you can expect Democrats to pursue a more nuanced and informed foreign policy, which to the ill-informed is often interpreted as naive. For example: clitoral removal is not a muslim practice, but a traditional practice in some parts of Africa (and clitoral removal is also practiced in parts of Africa by non-muslims).

You see, by actually taking the time to understand complex issues, Democrats will hopefully avoid issues like invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 as a response to 9-11. Also, I think a Democrat foreign policy will understand that there is not a finite number of radical muslims and once we kill the last one we will be done, rather a Democratic foreign policy will endeavor to reduce the conditions where radicalism can flourish (such as in occupied Iraq).

The Democratic approach requires more effort and doesn’t fit unto a bumper sticker, but I think you’ll be pleased with the results as compared to the last 8 years.

Thank goodness George Bush wasn’t in the pocket of the Saudis, or hell bent on ignoring islamic terrorism while plowing billions into a missile defence shield, or rooting out Arabic translators in the armed forces for catching teh gay. Otherwise, there might have been some kind of masive terrorist attack under his watch or something.

Oh those naive Democrats.

Actually I have the opposite worry about Obama: That he’ll be tempted into some ill-concieved bombing operation just to prove his “I’m a real American against radical Islam” bonafides.

Democrats were whining about those pesky Taliban back in the 90s. Democrats were whining about the Wahibists in Saudi Arabia back in the 90s. Hell, Democrats in the transition in late 2000, early 2001 tried to warn the incoming Bushistas that one Osama bin Ladin was the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Democrats like Max Cleland and John Kerry and Bob Kerrey did not sit out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard, unlike a certain craven coward deserter Republican. Democrats were not the Bin Ladin family business partners, Republicans by the name of Bush were. Democrats did not finance Hitler’s Germany, Republicans by the name of Bush did. Democrats did not call for a Pearl Harbor type attack on America in the late 1990s, but Republicans Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did see page 51 of the document, page 63 in the pdf

Edited to fix quote

What I like about the OP is that it states a position in the form of a question?

Doing it this way means there is no need to back up the position, because it was a question not a statement?

I got here to late and every one of my points was made better than I would have by the jerks above me in the thread. So instead I’m whipping out pom-poms.


There was a similar discussion on the Pit that showed that it is really the Republicans the ones that do not bother much with human rights in radical Islamic states until it is convenient to do so when they need to justify wars.

Some links from that thread:

Human rights and other leftist organizations do record and protest against human rights abuses in Islamic nations, there is a problem when an administration is close to some of the Islamic nations that are the worst abusers and ignores that using the military to solve problems turns the life of dissenters in countries like Iran into a nightmare.

Shirin Ebadi, Nobel price winner because of her activism in Iran had this to say:

Shirin Ebadi.(The Progressive Interview)(Interview)
From: The Progressive | Date: September 1, 2004

Wasn’t it Bush that held hands with the Saudi Prince even after 17 Saudi citizens conspired to kill thousands of Americans? That was in public, he probably didn’t even get a reach-around in private.

Crown Prince then, King now.

I think that our realpolitik interests lie in abandoning the foolish shortsightedness of realpolitik. Hasn’t anyone else noticed that an alarming number of our enemies got where they are through American support, because they were “our dictator”? Yeah, upholding freedom and democracy like we always talk about might be a little painful in the short run, but it’d avoid a lot of problems in the long run.

The exact opposite; the radicals fear the Democrats and love the Republicans. They’ve had eight years to watch the Republicans grind America down, crippling us politically, morally, economically, militarily. The Republicans flail about creating enemies where there were none before, while failing to strike the target. Clinton catches the terrorists who attacked the WTC on HIS watch; Bush on the other hand fails to catch Osama Bin Laden, destroys Iraqi secularism, kills Saddam Hussein ( a major enemy of Bin laden ), smears America’s reputation with mud, and in general acts like he might as well be an employee of Bin Laden sent to screw America over and recruit people to radical Islam. Not that I think Bush is, but if he was he’d act pretty much like he has.

The Republicans are, among their other flaws, incompetent fools. Any sensible enemy of America will wish for a McCain victory, and another four years minimum of America sabotaging itself.

Well I’m only a foreigner but I think that you Democrats should be ashamed of yourselves for pointing the finger of derision at those on the Right who are obviously very concerned about a womans basic Human right not to be forced to wear a veil.

But of course ALL abortions should be banned even if going through with the birth will kill the mother…
But at least she wont have to wear a veil while she dying…