CHIP wrote in part:
>>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?<<
Because I identify fascism with nationalist statism. If you wanted to make an argument that Syria and Iraq--Baathist states--have elements of fascism, I'd agree.
OBL is not in charge of any state, and the Taliban barely are. I'm not sure OBL wants to be in charge of any state. His groups seem to thrive on the margins of modern Arab states and he has refuge in a geographical entity with an inarguably failed state.
I prefer to keep fascism in my lexicon of useful political terminology than as a catch-all word for anyone who uses force to achieve political ends.
Yours, Charles Jannuzi Fukui, Japan