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.
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.
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.