What stories exactly? Because most of the interviews with former ISIS fighters have been completely different.
No they weren't. I saw a good number of them and almost all talk about the same sudden awakening and push to dig deeper in one way or another.
The most contemporary ones are terrorists. They're shooters with a political motive.
Honestly the apologia for Western shooters is kind of hypocritical.
Someone shooting to retaliate from the girls in his schools is not the same as someone shooting for political purposes.
It's a case by case determination.
That was before Al-Qaeda unless you mistaken Russians for Soviets.
Al-Qaeda is simply the latter name for the Mujahedeen. They became either Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, depending on which leader each group followed.
That isn't communist though.
I didn't say it is, I said it's similar to what communists want in regard to a society without economic classes.
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.
Those groups are Islamic fundamentalists applying the religion to the letter. Ofcourse we're talking about Islam when we talk about them.
And in an armed lawless militia in a war zone, Nepotism gets you killed.
In more everyday language, a radical is someone who has very extreme views, so you could say that their views are different from the root up.
Do we really need to keep using dictionaries here?
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.
That is exactly why those who lost their conviction while on top pretend to be radicals.
If they stopped pretending, they lose the support of the rest of the radicals in the movement, who have guns BTW, and it opens the way for more radical and fanatic members to take over.
Stalin? Lenin? Mao?
Che Guevara sure but that doesn't explain those three.
I really am too tired to go through and explain the history of these guys.
Just read up on the Chinese Civil war, how Stalin started and got into power, and how Lenin started and came into power. You'll see why you're wrong in the process.
Stalin and Mao didn't really care much about ideology. Lenin originally did but eventually skewed his own ideology.
So? You serious?
Those are the ones you're talking about how they'd always just stay there to the end.
They don't, they run away or get killed off sooner than latter, as I said.
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.
You serious bro? Are you reading what you write?
Majority of the terrorist leaders are Islamic scholars with some even having PhDs in Islamic sciences and Fiqh.
That's why they managed to gather followings in the first place.
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.
Revisionism is called out even happens in non-radical circles. In radical ones it's punished.
Revisionists in a radical militarized movement usually get the bullet.
That's not how power struggles work.
That's exactly how it works in radical militias.
It's violence mixed with ideological purity. Always was and always will be because that's what makes it a radical militia in the first place.
Terrorist groups aren't ideological movements then. Osama belong to a family of multi-millionaires.
If they weren't ideological, then they wouldn't be considered terrorists since that's what terrorist means.
Osama bin laden is one of the exceptions as I continued to state.
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.
How is governments having problems with less radicalism? Seriously, explain to me how?
Do you know anything about the current state of Kurdish controlled territories?
And Baathists are still radicals, their radicalism simply switched to a hail the leader one.
You're ideas don't correlate that well with sociology.
They do with both sociology and reality.
You just don't understand sociology, nor follow up much with the news or history.