In reply to TobyA:
Thanks.
Picked through the tweets.
The Washington Post article was a short piece saying what was wrong with Wood's article or saying what really needs looking at. It seems like a pastiche of rather disconnected comments.
This is typical "Wood does not convincingly dismiss the contention that the jihadists, for all their medievalist fervor, are still creatures of our modern moment."
Why does he have to?
I note it does finish with "We can get caught up in the "Islamic" part of the Islamic State. But matters of "state" will be what ultimately unravels it." Which is in effect what Wood wrote.
Am reading through the last load of links.
Thanks again.