"There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!"
Which is precisely the point of difference with Iran, which doesn't. The biggest difference in our types of governments, of course, is theirs is Islamic.
Or ours is secular. Take your pick.
Happily. There's the Hamas regime in Palestine, which shares a sunni variation of the caliphate dream. There's the Nasrallah thugs in the lawless regions of Lebanon, which adheres to a Shi'a version. Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Militia is running around in Iraq right now. Then there are dozens of nominally "secular" muslim dictators who fund jihadi groups dedicated to various versions of a Caliphate, the Mahdi Mailbox, and other various islamist causes - Assad in Syria, most of the Saud princes. And of course virtually every single islamic country on the planet has at least one political party that espouses jihadi goals.
And, ignoring some important omissions and mischaracterizations for the moment, what's your point with all this?
The preferred 18th and 19th century counterpart to the Judeo was "Hebraic".
Maybe 18th century. Not 19th.
Incorrect. Two weeks before the coup the Chilean Chamber of Deputies adopted an ultimatum to Allende demanding he cease and desist his land seizures, and if he did not, directing the military to remove him by force. Allende ignored the ultimatum. So Pinochet took him out. The legitimacy of Pinochet's regime was promptly endorsed by the conservative party, by two former Presidents of Chile, and by the center-left majority in the Chilean Congress, the CDP. The CDP+conservatives made up a majority of the congress BTW. By the time the dust settled Pinochet had the support of virtually everybody in the Chilean government except for the Communists, who had only won 36% of the vote in the election that produced Allende.
The question is not one of support, it is one of legitimacy. The entire situation sounds very extraconstitutional.
But that's the point. The extremists don't need to quote Taymiyya. They only need to hand out copies of his entire books, which are equally extreme as anything Qutb or Mawduddi or bin Laden put out.
Once more, Qutb preferred Taymiyya. Ghazali is considered too "moderate" for him. But what you keep missing/intentionally ignoring is that Said Qutb did not need to select or excerpt or interpret or spin Taymiyya to produce something radical. It was already there IN TAYMIYYA'S WORK when read in full and in its own original context. Qutb is basically Taymiyya repeated.
So your point is that modern radical fundamentalists essentially parrot medieval bigots, who you understand to be medival "moderates" because they are parroted by modern radical fundamentalists who claim to speak for "true Islam". Do I have that right?
And yet still no evidence that he ever actually carried it out, as happens in Islamic countries on a daily basis.
And, ignoring some important omissions and mischaracterizations for the moment, what's your point with all this?
If I recall correctly you complained previously that Bin Laden and Ahmadenijad were not enough and asked specifically for more names and examples of various jihadis. The fact that you now seek to obscure that request by questioning why I responded to it is a testament to the dishonesty entailed in your participation here.
The question is not one of support, it is one of legitimacy. The entire situation sounds very extraconstitutional.
Actually the constitutional crisis of Chile in 1973 began long before Pinochet did anything. Allende had already violated or suspended sections of the existing constitution as early as a year before the coup, placing Chile in an extraconstitutional situation by August 1973. Seeking to resolve it, the Chamber of Deputies met then and sent Allende the ultimatum detailing all of the provisions he was obliged to restore. The same ultimatum contained the request for military intervention if Allende refused. That came in the coup 2 weeks later.
By the time Pinochet acted Chile's previous constitution was already destroyed at Allende's hand. He acted with the strongest sanction possible from the functioning remnants of the constitutional government under the circumstances that existed. He also went to work immediately after the coup to establish a constitutional convention that would restore what Allende had destroyed.
So your point is that modern radical fundamentalists essentially parrot medieval bigots, who you understand to be medival "moderates" because they are parroted by modern radical fundamentalists who claim to speak for "true Islam". Do I have that right?
No. Ghazali is considered a medieval "moderate" by modern "moderates," who also parrot him in modern times. Taymiyya is considered a medieval radical by modern moderates, and somebody to parrot by modern radicals. If you read Ghazali though you will find out quickly that his "moderate" vision is actually quite extreme, as is those of the modern "moderates" who parrot him today.