[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Making the claim that the Napoleonic Empire is an extension of the French Revolution is reaching. Especially when you consider that the Napoleonic Empire was the counter revolution. The Napoleonic Empire only appropriated the "aesthetic" of the French Revolution.

Depends on how you look at it.
But generally, they were all part of the same era and without the Napoleonic reign, modern France wouldn't exist since Napoleon established the common law in France.

You can only go surface level if you really wanted to especially in a conversation as basic as "do material or ideological conditions create terrorism?".

Sure, but such discussions don't really go anywhere since both of these are highly complex topics.

We're going back to the same exact argument we had in the beginning! We're going in a circle!

Naah, just the thesis statement of the thread. LoL

People adhere to ideologies either by birth (in which case it becomes a part of the culture) or because it correlates with their life experiences and thoughts. Basic principles are never taken literally because humans are fundamentally symbolic creatures.

Sure, but if they just happened to be born into it, then they usually don't often end up following it, atleast not to the fullest extent.
Basic principles are adhered to by an ideology's true followers, and those usually the ones who end up taking control since they're the ones with enough zeal to go the extra mile.
That is why in a discussion about Islamic terrorism, you can't take theology out of it; The ones who drive it are taking power because they're the ones willing to go the extra mile and enforce the basic principles to the letter.

This is perhaps the key point that it seems not fully communicated in this discussion; The regular man's experience is generally irrelevant since he\she is not in power, nor will they be as they don't have the sufficient ideological drive to do what it takes.

It's exhausting on my end because I have to explain my point of view and write essays on a mobile phone. My thumbs are going to break. اتركني وحبي حبيبي !

OLX.
You can get a basic laptop for 40-50$ (Used though).
It'll serve you better.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
Depends on how you look at it.
But generally, they were all part of the same era and without the Napoleonic reign, modern France wouldn't exist since Napoleon established the common law in France.

We're talking about the idea of the nation state which was established after the dissolution of the Napoleonic Empire.

Sure, but such discussions don't really go anywhere since both of these are highly complex topics.

They do if you focus upon them broadly. If you get too distracted by the specifics of course it won't get anywhere.

Naah, just the thesis statement of the thread. LoL

Which thread?

Sure, but if they just happened to be born into it, then they usually don't often end up following it, atleast not to the fullest extent.

Because it becomes a cultural thing, a way of life. And it's usually those kinds of people who end up as terrorists. Since it's a part of the culture, it's better not to see it as a seperate religious statement but rather a rebellion against their material conditions in the only way they know how, Islamism.

And charismatic Imams take advantage of that to make them commit great acts of violence. These imams may be zealots or not, we don't really know how much say Osama bin Laden believed in what he said.

Basic principles are adhered to by an ideology's true followers, and those usually the ones who end up taking control since they're the ones with enough zeal to go the extra mile.

There's a gap here. How is it that they take control specifically because they're zealous? How does this make sense?

That is why in a discussion about Islamic terrorism, you can't take theology out of it; The ones who drive it are taking power because they're the ones willing to go the extra mile and enforce the basic principles to the letter.

Who are these "ones"?

And you can take it out of theology because the position of the leaders of terrorists don't rely on theology to maintain power. They rely on a sense of community, "honor", and romanticism that anyone can exploit.

Islamist militias are more akin to knights in a sense. And when I mean knights I mean the realistic depiction of knights.

This is perhaps the key point that it seems not fully communicated in this discussion; The regular man's experience is generally irrelevant since he\she is not in power, nor will they be as they don't have the sufficient ideological drive to do what it takes.

The regular man's ideas are exactly what defines a religion. My goal is to get rid of state sponsored imams and clerics and put religion back to where it was before, in the hands of the common man.

And anarchism will do just that.

OLX.
You can get a basic laptop for 40-50$ (Used though).
It'll serve you better.

With what money?

[Rich]

The standard of living of classical civilization beat iron age civilization, so they dropped paganism for Roman polytheism/pantheism, and then on to Christianity.

A superb post, so I'm just highlighting the small part that I differ with. Roman society had much higher levels of inequality. The mass of the people were not better off. It was only high year on year productivity, gains combined with plummeting birth rates in the nineteenth century, that allowed Europe to escape the Malthusian poverty trap.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

We're talking about the idea of the nation state which was established after the dissolution of the Napoleonic Empire.

Except it wasn't, the idea that sovereignty lies within the nation, not the Monarch, i.e the foundation of the nation-state was established in the early stages of the revolution. Napoleon just played a role in spreading it to the rest of Europe by building an empire.

Which thread?

This one.

Because it becomes a cultural thing, a way of life. And it's usually those kinds of people who end up as terrorists.

Disagree. The ones who become terrorists are the ones who dig deep into it and start pursuing its causes.

The people who don't care about it aren't willing to die for it. They might be willing to die for something else that just happened that a certain zealot group is also fighting for so it becomes a confusing image for an outsider.
Like how Hezbollah had everything from people who joined simply to defend Lebanon to ideologues to thugs to fanatics all just happened to share the same interest for a specific period of time; Now that period is over and they no longer share interests, the party is falling apart losing nearly 2 thirds of it's members in the last 3 years alone, with its army dropping significantly as well, reaching up to 20 thousand during and after the 2006 war and reaching up to 60 thousand soldiers with potential to double with reserves by 2011, and now dropping to around 5 thousand, primarily just gangs and thugs in the southern suburb of Beirut as everyone left.
The reason for that is that although people joined up at first and fought, they weren't joining for the ideology, they were joining for a specific cause that just happened to be shared, and now everyone is leaving.

The same can be applied to most militias in the world today.

Since it's a part of the culture, it's better not to see it as a seperate religious statement but rather a rebellion against their material conditions in the only way they know how, Islamism.

I still don't buy that argument, since Islamism is still spreading among middle and upper classes as well.
The cause is hardly material, rather ideological for the most part, with the ones joining for material benefits probably just leaving once they get a better choice.

Islamism, and the level of Zeal shown within it, just like any other ideology similar to it, only manage to get such steam to it because a notable portion of its members and followers are there because they believe in the ideology, not because of material needs as those are filtered out often quickly.

And charismatic Imams take advantage of that to make them commit great acts of violence. These imams may be zealots or not, we don't really know how much say Osama bin Laden believed in what he said.

You can only make assumptions based on actions as they speak the loudest.

There's a gap here. How is it that they take control specifically because they're zealous? How does this make sense?

There isn't a gap. The radicals and zealots always end up in control because they're willing to sacrifice, give, and do everything it takes to uphold their beliefs and achieve their goals, the non-radicals are not therefor are disadvantaged.

In the Sunni world, the extremists, be they fascists or hardline Islamists are running the day because they're willing to cheat, not play fair, kill, destroy, do everything it takes to uphold their beliefs and their ideology.

Who are these "ones"?

Generally speaking, the radicals and by default its leaders who are radicals.

And you can take it out of theology because the position of the leaders of terrorists don't rely on theology to maintain power. They rely on a sense of community, "honor", and romanticism that anyone can exploit.

This is not always the case and even when it is the case, they'll still serve the goals of the ideology as the minute they stop, someone more radical and more fanatic will overthrow them and take over to serve the ideology.
If they rose on the ladder of ideology, they become trapped by that ideology even if they stopped believing in it as they are surrounded by ideologues.

If you remember this phrase:" try to act on the thrown, the thrown acts on you."

Islamist militias are more akin to knights in a sense. And when I mean knights I mean the realistic depiction of knights.

True, and in the same way knights often killed and butchered each other wherein one generation of zealots killed off the former generation and took their position of power, the same applies to radicals of all sorts including Islamists.
The minute you stop being the most zealous.

With what money?

It's just 50$ man, ask your parents or something if you can't get it.

[SSDR]

An Islamic Empire is the most oppressive form of existence.

[Rich]

Mohammed was a murdering, thieving, genocidal, terrorist paedophile rapist. just the sort of person that today would be elected to the UN human Rights Council.

Jesus was basically an asexual hippy who went about giving out free food, giving out free wine, healing the sick and raising people from the dead. Just the sort of person that today would spend large amounts of time in prison for practising without a medical licence, contravening food and medical regulations and breaking laws on alcohol distribution.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

Except it wasn't, the idea that sovereignty lies within the nation, not the Monarch, i.e the foundation of the nation-state was established in the early stages of the revolution. Napoleon just played a role in spreading it to the rest of Europe by building an empire.

It did. I've posted links before that prove this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

This one.

I don't see a thesis statement similar to the one you made.

Disagree. The ones who become terrorists are the ones who dig deep into it and start pursuing its causes.

Why do you think dig deep into it in the first place?

Hint: it's the same reason that causes @SSDR and @Rich to get so obsessed over conspiracy theories and ideas. It's what drives most of the PoFo conservative users here deeper and deeper into radicalism. It's what causes school schooters to post manifestos and get into reactionary thought.

Material conditions.

I still don't buy that argument, since Islamism is still spreading among middle and upper classes as well.

It's spreading in different ways. The Islamism of the upper class is different from that of the lower classes. Organizations like Hezbollah are multi-class; they have people from several classes. Often it is the upper classes which is the leadership while the lower classes who are the actual militants.

You can only make assumptions based on actions as they speak the loudest.

And what of his actions because they seem very contradictory at times.

There isn't a gap. The radicals and zealots always end up in control because they're willing to sacrifice, give, and do everything it takes to uphold their beliefs and achieve their goals, the non-radicals are not therefor are disadvantaged.

Non-radicals are willing sacrifice everything for their families, communities, and themselves and they do so zealously. The advantage radicals have are free arms.

Generally speaking, the radicals and by default its leaders who are radicals.

However you just said terrorists are all radicals and many of these terrorist organizations have other positions outside of leadership so clearly they can't all be radicals.

Your description doesn't seem to fit next to other hierarchial zealous organizations such as vanguard parties.

This is not always the case

It is for the popular ones and that's there appeal. Terrorist groups are escapism for these young, depressed, unemployed men. It's a chance to roleplay for a bit and ditch common moral sensibilities while having said amorality be justified by a religious authority.

Look at ISIS recuritment videos, they promise that joining them would be like Call of Duty and they talk about "glory" and "honor" frequently.

True, and in the same way knights often killed and butchered each other wherein one generation of zealots killed off the former generation and took their position of power, the same applies to radicals of all sorts including Islamists.
The minute you stop being the most zealous.

I meant in the sense knights were just warlords who didn't have a sense honor or code when it came down to it, it was just for show; a way to justify themselves.

It's just 50$ man, ask your parents or something if you can't get it.

We can't afford it.

Is this 50$ in Syrian money btw?

[Palmyrene]

An Islamic Empire is the most oppressive form of existence.

But colonial empire isn't oppressive at all

[Palmyrene]

A superb post, so I'm just highlighting the small part that I differ with. Roman society had much higher levels of inequality. The mass of the people were not better off. It was only high year on year productivity, gains combined with plummeting birth rates in the nineteenth century, that allowed Europe to escape the Malthusian poverty trap.

You do know that blackjack's post has no historical basis right?

It's a narrative to make insecure Westerners like you feel good about themselves.

[Palmyrene]

Mohammed was a murdering, thieving, genocidal, terrorist paedophile rapist. just the sort of person that today would be elected to the UN human Rights Council.

?
Is this supposed to be a joke because I honestly just started laughing.

Jesus was basically an asexual hippy who went about giving out free food, giving out free wine, healing the sick and raising people from the dead. Just the sort of person that today would spend large amounts of time in prison for practising without a medical licence, contravening food and medical regulations and breaking laws on alcohol distribution.

Jesus also commanded the overthrow of the Roman Empire and was interested in starting his own empire.

For what it's worth Mohammed was more a reformist than anything. People just don't tend to realize this since Mohammed started an empire.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Stop pretending to be poor Syrian there is no way you post all of this from a Phone
also your time of posting still dint add up you seem to post around 8AM which is 1AM on the East coast of US

[Palmyrene]

Stop pretending to be poor Syrian there is no way you post all of this from a Phone

I've seen girls post far more than me and in far less time. Although, to be far, most of it wasn't in complete sentences.

also your time of posting still dint add up you seem to post around 8AM which is 1AM on the East coast of US

Oh? Do I post way past your bedtime ZN?

Maybe I'm actually a bot. Have you considered that possibility?

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

It did. I've posted links before that prove this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

Dude, read your own source.
It's not about nation-states.
The nation-state, in its modern form, began with the French revolution.

This is what the basis of the nation state:

and the new National Assembly in Paris agreed. Up until that point, much of what lawyers understood to be ‘international law’ had been the treaties that states (and, most often, the states’ dynastic rulers) negotiated between themselves. Now, however, the French were asserting that the choice of a people could trump these sorts of covenants. As one French official asserted: The law of nations is not founded on the treaties of princes.

If French revolutionaries questioned the sovereign authority of their king within their borders, they also implicitly undermined the claim of any monarch to the territory within theirs. No longer should a country be passed down as property, within a family, much less won or lost in war. Just as the people were becoming the final arbiter of political decisions within France, so too, this new logic implied, the people ought to determine the title and status of the territory where they lived. Moreover, revolutionaries postulated that only dynastic rulers ever aspired to offensive war or territorial aggrandizement, and that free peoples were naturally pacific. In May 1790, the French therefore issued a declaration of peace to the world and a renunciation of aggressive warfare and conquests. Premodern claims to territory were thus repudiated.If French revolutionaries questioned the sovereign authority of their king within their borders, they also implicitly undermined the claim of any monarch to the territory within theirs. No longer should a country be passed down as property, within a family, much less won or lost in war. Just as the people were becoming the final arbiter of political decisions within France, so too, this new logic implied, the people ought to determine the title and status of the territory where they lived. Moreover, revolutionaries postulated that only dynastic rulers ever aspired to offensive war or territorial aggrandizement, and that free peoples were naturally pacific. In May 1790, the French therefore issued a declaration of peace to the world and a renunciation of aggressive warfare and conquests. Premodern claims to territory were thus repudiated.

They argued that the French people, not the king, ought to be the source of political authority. This position is encapsulated in Article 3 of the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen’, the French Revolution’s foundational document. In it, the French people asserted that, henceforth,‘all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation’. The previous bearer of this authority, Louis XVI, would soon go on to lose his head as well.

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-provocation-o ... ermination


From the Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the citizen:

Article III – The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarati ... he_Citizen

This is the origin of the nation-state.

From your own source;

Westphalian sovereignty, or state sovereignty, is the principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory.

This is not about nation-states.
You didn't post a proof of anything, you posted an entirely irrelevant source.

Why do you think dig deep into it in the first place?

Reasons vary. Though I assume sudden awakening of guilt would play a great role.

Hint: it's the same reason that causes @SSDR and @Rich to get so obsessed over conspiracy theories and ideas. It's what drives most of the PoFo conservative users here deeper and deeper into radicalism. It's what causes school schooters to post manifestos and get into reactionary thought.

Material conditions.

It isn't.

It's spreading in different ways. The Islamism of the upper class is different from that of the lower classes. Organizations like Hezbollah are multi-class; they have people from several classes. Often it is the upper classes which is the leadership while the lower classes who are the actual militants.

The leadership started as militants.
And no, it's not. Islamism is abiding by the same principles on all classes.
As ironic as this may sound, Islam is pretty close to what communism aspires to, a society with no classes based on material wealth or value.
That's why we see Al-Baghdadi or Bin Laden or any other Islamist leader eat and drink and set and mix with their followers regularly.

And what of his actions because they seem very contradictory at times.

Not if you looked at the Quran and the Sunnah, they're pretty consistent with their principles.
Simply the Quran and the Sunnah are internally contradictory so you see internal contradictions with any application of them.

Non-radicals are willing sacrifice everything for their families, communities, and themselves and they do so zealously. The advantage radicals have are free arms.

They don't.
People who lose their families or see their families in great risk are radicalized by these experiences, however, they're not by default radical.

However you just said terrorists are all radicals and many of these terrorist organizations have other positions outside of leadership so clearly they can't all be radicals.

The part you quoted was in answer to the question of who drives these movements.
The answer is the radicals within them.

Your description doesn't seem to fit next to other hierarchial zealous organizations such as vanguard parties.

It fits all of them.

It is for the popular ones and that's there appeal. Terrorist groups are escapism for these young, depressed, unemployed men. It's a chance to roleplay for a bit and ditch common moral sensibilities while having said amorality be justified by a religious authority.

1- Don't cherry-pick.
2- As said, sometimes regular non-radicals join up for a brief period if they shared a cause or interest, but those never drive the movement or direct it, nor do they remain for long within them as they either leave or are purged out.

Look at ISIS recuritment videos, they promise that joining them would be like Call of Duty and they talk about "glory" and "honor" frequently.

And looking at ISIS, we can see those non-radicals being either purged out or running away shortly after joining.
Useful idiots don't hold influence in ideological movements.

[Zionist Nationalist]

I've seen girls post far more than me and in far less time. Although, to be far, most of it wasn't in complete sentences.

You didnt seen any girls posting on pofo.
its frustrating posting so many posts with quotes with a phone.

Oh? Do I post way past your bedtime ZN?

Maybe I'm actually a bot. Have you considered that possibility?

its a bit weird that a 15 years old Syrian waking up so early morning to post on pofo just saying.

[anasawad]

NY.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
Dude, read your own source.
It's not about nation-states.
The nation-state, in its modern form, began with the French revolution.

This is what the basis of the nation state:




https://aeon.co/ideas/the-provocation-o ... ermination


From the Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the citizen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarati ... he_Citizen

This is the origin of the nation-state.

Oh then you're right.

From your own source;

This is not about nation-states.
You didn't post a proof of anything, you posted an entirely irrelevant source.

It is relevant specifically because nation states are about sovereignity and sovereignity must be recognized by others.

Reasons vary. Though I assume sudden awakening of guilt would play a great role.

Humans are very egotistic. No one feels guilty unless someone makes them feel guilty. Cult leaders are characterized by never feeling guilt and having a very acute sense of social awareness. This means that the leaders of terrorist groups aren't zealots at least in the sense you're describing them to be.

It isn't.

It is. You think shooters are that much different from terrorist groups? The only difference is that they aren't organized and even that's changing.

The leadership started as militants.

I have severe doubts about that. Osama bin Laden most certainly didn't.

And no, it's not. Islamism is abiding by the same principles on all classes.

No, as in, the ideology means something different to different classes.

As ironic as this may sound, Islam is pretty close to what communism aspires to, a society with no classes based on material wealth or value.
That's why we see Al-Baghdadi or Bin Laden or any other Islamist leader eat and drink and set and mix with their followers regularly.

That's definitely not Islam. Mohammed was a merchant for fucks sake. There is hierarchy in Islam, there is currency (the first form of capitalism was created in the Caliphate), etc.

They don't.
People who lose their families or see their families in great risk are radicalized by these experiences, however, they're not by default radical.

1. There is no one who is radical by default.

2. By "radical" I mean very focused on defending what they have.

People are still protesting against Islamism in Idlib after all this time.

The part you quoted was in answer to the question of who drives these movements.
The answer is the radicals within them.

Well yeah but the leaders certainly aren't radical or at the very least they're hypocritical.

When you're in a leadership position and you can see the big picture all ideology is thrown out the window especially if you're at the top of a hierarchy.

It fits all of them.

It doesn't explain Stalin or Mao or Lenin or Che Guava or literally any vanguard party in existence.

1- Don't cherry-pick.

I didn't even intend to.

2- As said, sometimes regular non-radicals join up for a brief period if they shared a cause or interest, but those never drive the movement or direct it, nor do they remain for long within them as they either leave or are purged out.

Yeah no. The people who come for escapism are the ones who stay because they're there for the lifestyle not the ideology. If they were there for the ideology the organization would fall apart immediately.

And looking at ISIS, we can see those non-radicals being either purged out or running away shortly after joining.
Useful idiots don't hold influence in ideological movements.

You're referring to the foreign fighters right? All those people who were kicked out were foreign.

Leaders aren't radical either. Generally they eithet belong to an existing powerful tribe or are rich themselves and seek to expand their influence in the face of power instability.

Sure, Osama may have been an outliner in that he was also concerned about ideology in some limited fashion but I'm in doubt that other militant groups have the same mentality.

There comes a part in all hierarchial organization where the ideology just disappears. The Republicans no longer have the values they proclaim, the Democrats too. Rojava is no longer a communalist ideal but just a regular federal democracy reliant on the US. The Syrian Ba'athist party lost it's ideological diversity after the military coup.

The same goes for terrorist groups.

[Palmyrene]

You didnt seen any girls posting on pofo.

Not quite what I meant big guy. I'm not talking about teenage girls. It was joke.

its frustrating posting so many posts with quotes with a phone.

It is but it's what I have.

its a bit weird that a 15 years old Syrian waking up so early morning to post on pofo just saying.

Which would be earlier, 1 AM or 8 AM?

[Palmyrene]

NY.

Is that where you think I live?

I actually live in Antarctica for your information.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

It is relevant specifically because nation states are about sovereignity and sovereignity must be recognized by others.

The idea is where does this sovereignty come from, not whether it exists or not.
In the old days, empires had sovereignty, but the sovereign was the royal dynasty, not the nation.

Humans are very egotistic. No one feels guilty unless someone makes them feel guilty. Cult leaders are characterized by never feeling guilt and having a very acute sense of social awareness. This means that the leaders of terrorist groups aren't zealots at least in the sense you're describing them to be.

I've been a Muslim for many years, and was raised to be a devout Muslim, when I hear the stories about those ISIS fighters who suddenly felt guilt about their sins and decided to repent and essentially began their radicalization there, I know exactly how severe the guilt we were made to feel even internally and I know it can lead people to that path.
So, no. I'm not buying your argument because not only I know that this guilt and fear mechanism exists as an outsider, I've felt it myself from the inside.

It is. You think shooters are that much different from terrorist groups? The only difference is that they aren't organized and even that's changing.

Not much.
Some shooters are terrorists, some are not. It depends on the case.

I have severe doubts about that. Osama bin Laden most certainly didn't.

Osama bin Laden fought with his men on the field against the Soviets and even when he wasn't fighting, he was leading from the front.

No, as in, the ideology means something different to different classes.

It doesn't.
Islam's power structure is based on "piety", which essentially means zeal in this context.

That's definitely not Islam. Mohammed was a merchant for fucks sake. There is hierarchy in Islam, there is currency (the first form of capitalism was created in the Caliphate), etc.

And Mohammed fought in battles with his men and even nearly died in one. Just like every major name in of the Sahaba, including the rich ones like Osman bin Affan who was one of the wealthiest.

Islam's hierarchy is based on piety, and considering the piety means being the most devout and religious along with the fact that there is external Jihad, then piety is pretty much the same as zeal in the context of Islam.
So a hierarchy of the ideologues, with the hardliners on top.
Unsurprisingly like I said, and like we keep seeing all over the place every time.

2. By "radical" I mean very focused on defending what they have.

That's not what radical means.

Well yeah but the leaders certainly aren't radical or at the very least they're hypocritical.

Even if they stopped being radical, they still have to pretend to be and act in accordance.
Otherwise they'll be overthrown by someone who is an actual radical or more radical than they are.

When you're in a leadership position and you can see the big picture all ideology is thrown out the window especially if you're at the top of a hierarchy.

Refer to the above and the previous couple of posts.

It doesn't explain Stalin or Mao or Lenin or Che Guava or literally any vanguard party in existence.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara were all part of the revolutions, on the ground, working and fighting.
And they were all radicals who were willing to do whatever it takes to reach power, and more to achieve their ideological goals even on the expense of 10s of millions of deaths.

Heck, Stalin is probably the best example for a radical doing whatever it takes and going the extra miles for his conviction.

Yeah no. The people who come for escapism are the ones who stay because they're there for the lifestyle not the ideology.

You do realize that one of the key debates now and problems is that those ISIS fighters are returning home.
And the fighters who went to fight in Libya, started returning home.
And many people who fought in Afghanistan, returned home.

Those who do not hold the ideology can not survive in an ideological movement especially if military one. They end up either dead or escaping.
This is a known fact that we literally keep observing in every news cycle about a new militia or group coming up regardless of background or ideology.

If they were there for the ideology the organization would fall apart immediately.

No it wont, it'll get stronger because it'll have more radicals and thus more zealots to fight for it.

By what line of reasoning do you come up with the result that an Ideological movement gaining followers for its ideology collapses due to it?

Leaders aren't radical either.

As stated before, and now again; Either radical or forced to pretend to be not to get killed off and replaced.

Generally they eithet belong to an existing powerful tribe or are rich themselves and seek to expand their influence in the face of power instability.

With minor exceptions, most of the people who led massive and effective ideological movements were weak, powerless people who rose to power through radical action and revolution.

Sure, Osama may have been an outliner in that he was also concerned about ideology in some limited fashion but I'm in doubt that other militant groups have the same mentality.

Osama bin Laden was an outlier in that he was royalty.

There comes a part in all hierarchial organization where the ideology just disappears. The Republicans no longer have the values they proclaim, the Democrats too. Rojava is no longer a communalist ideal but just a regular federal democracy reliant on the US. The Syrian Ba'athist party lost it's ideological diversity after the military coup.

Hardly, it just evolve or adapts; radicalism never goes away in times of conflict, dispute, or war, and it simply changes form and adapts in times of peace.

All the parties you mentioned either weren't radicals to begin with, or were and still radicals just with the ideological goals changing.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
The idea is where does this sovereignty come from, not whether it exists or not.
In the old days, empires had sovereignty, but the sovereign was the royal dynasty, not the nation.

Well the wikipedia article says Westphalian sovereignty is about respecting a state's control over it's territory which is whatever territory that said is formally recognized to have.

I've been a Muslim for many years, and was raised to be a devout Muslim, when I hear the stories about those ISIS fighters who suddenly felt guilt about their sins and decided to repent and essentially began their radicalization there, I know exactly how severe the guilt we were made to feel even internally and I know it can lead people to that path.
So, no. I'm not buying your argument because not only I know that this guilt and fear mechanism exists as an outsider, I've felt it myself from the inside.

What stories exactly? Because most of the interviews with former ISIS fighters have been completely different.

Not much.
Some shooters are terrorists, some are not. It depends on the case.

The most contemporary ones are terrorists. They're shooters with a political motive.

Honestly the apologia for Western shooters is kind of hypocritical.

Osama bin Laden fought with his men on the field against the Soviets and even when he wasn't fighting, he was leading from the front.

That was before Al-Qaeda unless you mistaken Russians for Soviets.

And Mohammed fought in battles with his men and even nearly died in one. Just like every major name in of the Sahaba, including the rich ones like Osman bin Affan who was one of the wealthiest.

That isn't communist though.

It doesn't.
Islam's power structure is based on "piety", which essentially means zeal in this context.

We're talking about terrorist power structures not something as ambiguous as the term "Islam". In modern terrorist power structures, it's more based on nepotism rather than piety.

That's not what radical means.

It is.

Even if they stopped being radical, they still have to pretend to be and act in accordance.
Otherwise they'll be overthrown by someone who is an actual radical or more radical than they are.

That's not the reason they pretend to be radical. The reason they pretend to be radical is because it gives them full control over people, they don't need to justify their actions.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara were all part of the revolutions, on the ground, working and fighting.

Stalin? Lenin? Mao?

Che Guevara sure but that doesn't explain those three.

And they were all radicals who were willing to do whatever it takes to reach power, and more to achieve their ideological goals even on the expense of 10s of millions of deaths.

Stalin and Mao didn't really care much about ideology. Lenin originally did but eventually skewed his own ideology.

You do realize that one of the key debates now and problems is that those ISIS fighters are returning home.
And the fighters who went to fight in Libya, started returning home.
And many people who fought in Afghanistan, returned home.

So?

Those who do not hold the ideology can not survive in an ideological movement

Thankfully terrorist groups only have Islamic window dressing, they don't have a coherent ideology. Many of the "shiekhs" who run terrorist groups have no formal scholarly training and often come from criminal backgrounds.

No it wont, it'll get stronger because it'll have more radicals and thus more zealots to fight for it.

By what line of reasoning do you come up with the result that an Ideological movement gaining followers for its ideology collapses due to it?

Because then people start accusing each other of revisionism and not properly following the ideology.

This is why the most successful ideological terrorist organizations are those whose leaders claim to be the Mahdi or have some other similar fail safe. That way no one can oppose them.

As stated before, and now again; Either radical or forced to pretend to be not to get killed off and replaced.

That's not how power struggles work.

With minor exceptions, most of the people who led massive and effective ideological movements were weak, powerless people who rose to power through radical action and revolution.

Terrorist groups aren't ideological movements then. Osama belong to a family of multi-millionaires.

Also I feel like this statement was somewhat directed at me.

Osama bin Laden was an outlier in that he was royalty.

Ok? He can be an outlier in more ways than one.

Hardly, it just evolve or adapts; radicalism never goes away in times of conflict, dispute, or war, and it simply changes form and adapts in times of peace.

All the parties you mentioned either weren't radicals to begin with, or were and still radicals just with the ideological goals changing.

Um, no. Radicalism going away is a huge issue with current governments. It's a very big issue and one anarchist societies have to deal with (what if people stop caring about anarchism?). Furthermore, Rojava was radical and became domesticated (wanting a bourgeoise democracy isn't radical) and so was the Syrian Ba'athist Party which was at first about helping people and then turned into whatever filthy creature Assad is.

You're ideas don't correlate that well with sociology.