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.
As is often the case, you don't recall correctly. I asked for more examples of leaders who (and here I quote your #124), "despite their differences in sect and period and origin, are alike in their respective espousals of Koranic literalism and the establishment of the aforementioned Islamic domain."
You've named names, but you have yet to show me how Nasrallah and bin Ladin are alike, especially since bin Ladin seeks the restoration of a Caliphate that was shunned by the Following of `Ali in the 7th century.
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.
The question here is were the CoD's acts constitutional. A caveat seems to lie in the fact that a "request" for military intervention is very different than a constitutional mandate. If indeed that is the case.
No. Ghazali is considered a medieval "moderate" by modern "moderates," who also parrot him in modern times.
You have yet to produce these "moderates" who parrot Ghazali. Where are Wafa Sultan's approving citations? Where is Saliou Mbacké's glowing tribute? Where is Zuhdi Jasser's unquestioning submission?