Principle? Analogy? Goofy comparative sociology? Based on the above, the Taliban are not only similar to early 20th century North American urban-ethnic-entrepreneurial gangsters eager to profit from sex, booze, floral arrangements, and the cement biz, but also to that erstwhile fearless leader Lenin (Al-L), any number of Maoist groups (Al Mao), John Brown (Al B) just before Harpers Ferry, and if you accept a computer operating system as symptomatic of things post-modern, post-industrial, post-empire, post-national, post-ontology, then maybe Windows.(Al W (r)). I don't see the utility in terms like gangster or thug, beyond the emotional satisfaction of labeling.
I think Dennis Perrin errs in overstating the power, solidity, and significance of Al Q - the Taliban and Al Q may well be a kind of last gasp of attempts to create a pan Islamic front as the groups and followers become or became more militant, repressive, and divisive. And Hitchens suffers from the same disability - letting his zeal for loathing religion overwhelm his otherwise good works. But in this regard, Hitchens is also consistent. But so is Chomsky. In what I've read of Chomsky, his usual stance as a critic remains true to form but so to has his position on what "ought" to be done. Never one to vouch for military intervention, especially from someone like the US, Chomsky argued that the events of Sept. 11 ought to be treated as a crime, with an appropriate international police response, especially since the alleged offender wasn't a state. Is this position wrong? Or is it unsatisfying.
Dennis Breslin