>From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>CC: <hermane at wharton.upenn.edu>, <lnp3 at panix.com>
>Subject: RE: Herman responds
>Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:11:14 -0500
>
>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.
By Islamic supremacists, do you mean those who believe in the institution of religious law? Would you say Islamic supremacism is always expansionist? By expansionism, do you mean that these movements don't concede the legitimacy of nation-states?
<snip>
>Saudi Arabia is an example of a repressive and reactionary
>orthodox Islamic theocracy, but it is not technically fascist. The point is
>not to be an apologist for the Saudi regime, but to suggest that theocratic
>Islamic fundamentalist totalitarianism would be worse than the already
>repressive Saudi oligarchy.
Above you give Iran under Khomeini as an example of a state run by Islamic supremacists. What are the distinguishing features between it and the SA regime? Is it the structure of gov't institutions?
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp