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.
Very simple. What do you think the purpose of the magic mahdi is in the eyes of most jihadi millenialists? Here's a hint - they don't think he'll make the world come to a sudden end. Rather they expect him to establish a global Islamic domain, presumably in the SHi'a model. Bin Laden also wants a global Islamic domain as well and thinks the caliphate is the way to go (although there is also some evidence that he might believe a restored caliphate is a means of bringing about the sunni mahdi figure as well). In short the means are different, but the ends - worldwide islamotopia, be it sunni or shia - are quite similar.
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.
It's funny you mention that since the Chilean Supreme Court made several rulings in 1973 pertaining to the Allende-induced constitutional crisis after he started seizing land and ignoring the legislature.
They were all against Allende, and he ignored their verdicts.
His refusal to obey the Chilean Supreme Court was one of the offenses against the constitution outlined by the Chamber of Deputies. Given that evidence, it's pretty safe to say that the Chilean judicial system was not on Allende's side.
I'm here.
Pretty interesting discussion.
If the unsuspecting observer is an idiot and doesn't know a single thing about the Reconquista, thus rendering him susceptible to the misreading you ascribe to him, then I would say he has either lost interest in this debate or has no business following it.
I guess I'm an idiot then. And still I'm interested. Go figure.