View Answers

Duress
88 (35.9%)

Deathmark
156 (63.7%)

Some other card from M10, which I will note in the comments (provide an image for those who do not follow Magic!)
1 (0.4%)

Not really being leftist this answer may be invalid, but my guess is that the likely answer would be as follows. My presumption here is of a sane, highly idealistic person who believes several things I consider incorrect, but who does not have to be presumed to be either stupid or brainwashed to do so.

This hypothetical sane and honest Leftist might simply claim that the problem is just not as acute as the more fearful might want to paint it, bringing up a couple of points that seem not unreasonable:

- Due to basic human apathy the jihadists will never be more than a minority within Islam; more importantly, it seems very unlikely they will ever be a *unified* force. Jihadist organizations have a demonstrable inability to keep from turning on each other or on their own host populations and governments (Islam's fundamental disunity as a religion being a significant factor here). There is no Saladin in today's Muslim world, nor any new prospective Caliph on the horizon, and the likelihood of either arising soon seems remote.

- Moreover, it seems unlikely that Islam will be immune to the near-universal downward demographic trend of wealthy societies; as Muslim societies grow wealthier their birth rates will fall just as Western society's has fallen, and the expected demographic "swamping" is not likely to occur. Historically, religious fanaticism has seldom coexisted with significant wealth and luxury, and Wahhabi jihadism (a movement only decades old, after all, and born out of a post-Ottoman collapse from the reactionary ravings of an anti-American cleric) is likely to lose its appeal as social stability and security expands. Fanatical movements within religions are nothing new; yes, some have turned the world upside down, but the catastrophes are outnumbered by the historical ashheaps.

The leftist, in essence, I think is not so much likely to propose a solution to the threat as simply to argue that the threat is nowhere near as dangerous as believed, and therefore safely ignoreable. While there may be truth to this idea of overstatement, I think it betrays the leftist tendency to aggregate, dehumanized thinking: any damage less than nuclear war is "safely" ignoreable... especially if the people harmed all work in a high-finance tower in New York.