Much to the contrary. You're simply being dishonest in your presentation of events, as well as your characterizations of my words. Some would call it intentional obfuscation. The sad part is you seem to think that you're being clever, as if nobody's taken notice.
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."
Yes. Now pay close attention to the phrase "differences in sect and period and origin." We'll return to them momentarily.
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.
Remember that phrase, "differences in sect and period and origin"? Well guess what. It applies to Bin Laden and Nasrallah, who come from different radical sects. And as I indicated previously, they are similar in their desire to establish an Islamic domain, or Dar al-Islam, even if a different sect (their own) is running it. Of course you knew that already, but decided to be intentionally obtuse about it to cover up for your deficiencies in formulating an intelligent argument to back up your own position.
The question here is were the CoD's acts constitutional.
Given what remained of the Chilean Constitution at the time and the harm being done to it by Allende, I'm inclined to say that they were.
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.
This request would seem to fall under that category of actions encompassed by the Chilean equivalent of an oath to sustain and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. IOW, it was an act of self preservation by the CoD, which was under direct unconstitutional assault by Allende. Since the CoD was a constitutional body by definition, acts of self preservation against a hostile party behaving in direct violation of the constitution (Allende) are necessarily constitutional, as the alternative is to permit the complete dissolution of the constitution.
Rather, it's you who is being dishonest. But it's 6:15 AM. I'm sure nobody has noticed you, except for me.
Remember that phrase, "differences in sect and period and origin"? Well guess what. It applies to Bin Laden and Nasrallah, who come from different radical sects. And as I indicated previously, they are similar in their desire to establish an Islamic domain, or Dar al-Islam, even if a different sect (their own) is running it.
How then are these two fools "alike in their respective espousals of [...] the establishment of the aforementioned Islamic domain." When one wants to revive an institution that lost all real power a millennium ago and the other awaits the Messianic return on the 12th Imam and Christ to pave the way for the Mahdi and the Last Judgement?
Given what remained of the Chilean Constitution at the time and the harm being done to it by Allende, I'm inclined to say that they were.
Given that such an argument holds water like a fork under judicial scrutiny, I'd counsel you to wait for the Chilean constitutional scholars to wake up.