I can make little sense of your rejection of the idea that the bombers are likely to be Islamic clerical fascists.
It seems that you are arguing that a person, group, or movement cannot be fascist unless they are a state? Or that fascist movements can't cross national boundaries?
Where is this coming from?
The Aryan Nations version of Christian Identity is a US clerical fascist movement based on a theology, and some of its adherents have committed acts of terrorism. McVeigh was a fan of a US neonazi philosophy (National Alliance) and his act of terrorism was well-reported. All of these acts of terrorism are criminal acts.
British fascists have ties to US fascists. Same with Germany and other countries.
I don't agree with Hitchen's solutions, but can't we divide this from his description?
Explanations please?
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; <lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 2:32 AM Subject: Sociology and Explanations (Re: Hitchens responds to critics)
<<SNIP>>
> I reject the 'fascism with an Islamic face' thesis, because (1) these were
> criminal acts taking place in the US and (2) even if it goes back to an
> international terrorist network, it is a network that exists across states
> and in statelessness (which is one reason why US anti-terrorist efforts are
> so ineffective, since they are still too busy rehearsing cold war scenarios
> against N. Korea, etc.).
<<SNIP>>