As the Chipster says, one can recognize this without forgetting about hegemonism and the 57 varieties of depredations from the U.S. One could even suspect that U.S. actions were knowingly geared to provoke *some kind of response* from OBL/Taliban. that of course does not justify any such actions nor indict any of the victims. (see what stupid things we feel compelled to say by way of qualification?)
Altho I am soft on bombing OBL et al. I would be cautious about throwing around the term fascism, not because I disagree with how anybody in particular is applying it or not applying it, but because in a rhetorical/political sense it gives away too much to U.S. hegemonism. I think this is more the issue being argued, rather than some academic definition of fascism. It functions as a security blanket for gratuitous, unprincipled attacks on the left by Hitch & others. The implication is that anybody 'fighting fascism' could not themselves be fascist or otherwise have irredeeming features.
mbs 'the vile one'
> > Can't you see the humor of Hitchens speaking about "Taliban
> >expansionism" and proving it with nonsense about the Taliban trying
> >to infiltrate and take over Pakistan, when the United States is
> >spreading over the globe, has itself penetrated Pakistan and
> >entered into closer alliances with other regional goons of
> >convenience, and has always felt it to be its right to infiltrate
> >and subvert on a global basis?
Islamic supermacists are, in fact, trying to take over Pakistan, just as they have tried to take over Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They did take over Iran for a long time. This is not to defend any of those regimes, but to argue that to just flick off the reality of Islamic supermacist exapnsionism is absurd. That is the only humor I can find in this paragraph.
> >
> > The idea that the Taliban is a fascist and expansionist threat,
> >and that Islamic fundamentalism more broadly speaking is the same,
> >doesn't hold water (Louis Proyect's note to you deals with this
> >quite well). Hitchens has come to use "fascist" as an epithet to
> >apply to any enemy of the moment.
Actually, while there is disagreement, there are decent arguments to be made that these folks are clerical fascists, although you are not going to get them from Hitchens. I agtree with Herman that Hitchens is using the term in an opportunistic and problematic way.