Jim writes: > >Just because GWB -- and his ilk -- almost always misuses words doesn't mean >that I should avoid using words.
no but you shouldn't misuse them or use opprobrious language selectively. > >I think that people should (1) face Christopher Hitchens' point that ObL is >a horrible authoritarian -- call it fascist or call it anything you want -- >and ah so it comes back to hitchens who asserts falsely that osama bin laden would bring even harsher theocratic rule to Sa'udi Arabia. That's my point: if you want in this context to call osama a clerical fascist--which is fine by me --you should call the House of Sa'ud the same. this is not fight about soft vs. hard "clerical fascism" within Sa'udi Arabia, ok? Hitchens is simply a liar. Sad to see that you don't understand that. >(2) argue against it based on other facts, logic, etc. Simply quibbling >over words doesn't help and in fact smacks of apologing for ObL. i'm not arguing about words; i am arguing about the consistent usage of words. You are inconsistent. > > >Instead, we should be arguing that using strategic bombing (etc.) to kill >off the Taliban is wrong -- even though they are "fascists" (or whatever). No we should argue that killing "fascists" to shore up the rule of "fascists" in Saudi Arabia is wrong. King Fahd and the Crown prince Abdullah are just "our fascists". Am I really being that unclear? Rakesh
