The reason you can think that is that you are in a society where the threat of right-wing radicalization is real, but not Islamic radicalization. If you lived in a Muslim-majority country, you would see that Islamic radicalization is far more dangerous.

Don't forget that even as WWII garnered many atrocities, one of the goals is in reviving the caliphate, a religio-political entity that has had a very real presence as a political institution in the past, that had been able to unite squabbling desert tribes into a powerful entity that had been able to defeat two ancient and prestigious empires—both the Persian Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.

>The threat that ISIS represents is not existential.

Tell that to the Yazidis in Syria.

Sure it is, ISIS wants to kill all infidels. How can that not be considered an existential threat?

because wanting to do something and having the capacity to do something are different.

Last time I checked, ISIS has killed a lot of people. You do those slain a disservice by not even acknowledging this.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isi...

What the hell? I haven't acknowledged the number of people that ISIS has killed because it doesn't matter. If the measure of the threat that ISIS poses is measured in deaths per year, then ISIS does a little less damage per year than commercial airplane crashes. Airplane crashes are not existential threat, so clearly, if ISIS is an existential threat, it is not because they are currently on track to kill everyone.

It was an existential threat to them... wasn't it? Your post came off as as long as the deaths didn't happen here, or wherever it is that you live, they don't matter. If not, explain how ISIS isn't an existential threat, and yet the Daily Stormer is? Because the latter's ideology is associated with that special buzzword, "fascism", is it?