> Still can't get my head around it as to why or what they get with this.
ISIS and other violent Islamist groups don't hide their motives for deliberately massacring innocent people. Here[1] is a statement by ISIS after the November 2015 Paris attacks. It's about what you'd expect. They are certain that our culture corrupts the pious and leads people to Hell. From their point of view, there's no action worse than this. It's far worse than killing, as that just sends the pious to heaven.
There's also the "wedge" factor: These attacks sew mistrust between all Muslims and the rest of the society, hopefully (from ISIS's perspective) alienating many nonviolent Muslims and driving them to become more radical. But this is just a side benefit to these attacks. ISIS would be committing these atrocities even if they didn't contribute to anti-Muslim sentiment.
Note that both of these reasons are completely unrelated to avenging the west's actions in the middle east. ISIS would be doing this (and in fact is doing this) to civilians from countries which have never been involved in past oppression.
The key point you have to understand is that Jihadists really take their religion seriously. They're like the Branch Davidians or the Peoples Temple... if those cults had grown to millions of adherents.
They're trying to build a radical Muslim state, so they need radical Muslims to support them. Exploding bombs is the best way to get the non-Muslims to turn against all Muslims, who become more likely to radicalize as a result. Moderate people are useless to ISIS and their kind.
At least, that's how I understand ISIS explains it themselves in their promotional material, haven't actually read those myself.
And it seems to work. I'm from Belgium and I can even see a moderate average guy like myself turning against Islam. Frightening really, how easy it is to manipulate people into in-group out-group thinking. All we need now is a charismatic leader for history to repeat itself.
The more people hate muslims, the more they feel like outcast.
The more muslims feel like outcasts, the easier it is to make them extremists and recruit them for their army.
You've not given a single reason why Trump would be the "greatest ISIS recruitment tool there could ever be." You just stated it as an infallible statement of truth. What exactly is there to debate? I summarily reject your assertion. Debate over.
I've mostly just refrained from discussing politics since I was involved with it more as a youth, as I've just come to realize the pointlessness of it. Either you are both sane parties and conclude that you land slightly differently on values which lead you to different opinions/candidates, or one party is just too ignorant to provide for a reasonable discussion to begin with. This is what Trump and his followers are. I can't fathom why this is even remotely necessary to debate. It's not even hyperbole. Sure he exploits the misguided frustration of a certain size of populace, but that he's ACTUALLY the frontrunner for a basically two-party country of 300M people honestly disgusts me.
If you want to discuss Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz or any other politician I simply disagree with I guess I'd be up for that, but Trump has no policies or ideas or plans. He just says random shit that idiots want to hear, and when he goes too far he backs on it and says "he's researched the subject and changed his mind", and some poor monkey wrangler has to carefully word his positions on the latest crazy he's withdrawn from.
I know there is nothing tangible here, but that's because you can't argue with crazy. He has no positions.
Donald Trump has expressed considerable anti-Muslim sentiment, to the extent that he has expressed a desire to exclude all Muslims from the USA. Coupled with the point made by the post I replied to, I think there is terrifying potential for an extension in related terrorism.
Banning Muslims from entering the US is probably better from the alienation perspective than letting large numbers of them in, and then having to police them heavily to prevent attacks like the above
I disagree; discrimination doesn't lead to greater mutual respect. And since the percentage of respective offenders between Muslims versus non-muslim is a rounding error, singling them out as a group is also highly inefficient, to say the least.
ISIS and other violent Islamist groups don't hide their motives for deliberately massacring innocent people. Here[1] is a statement by ISIS after the November 2015 Paris attacks. It's about what you'd expect. They are certain that our culture corrupts the pious and leads people to Hell. From their point of view, there's no action worse than this. It's far worse than killing, as that just sends the pious to heaven.
There's also the "wedge" factor: These attacks sew mistrust between all Muslims and the rest of the society, hopefully (from ISIS's perspective) alienating many nonviolent Muslims and driving them to become more radical. But this is just a side benefit to these attacks. ISIS would be committing these atrocities even if they didn't contribute to anti-Muslim sentiment.
Note that both of these reasons are completely unrelated to avenging the west's actions in the middle east. ISIS would be doing this (and in fact is doing this) to civilians from countries which have never been involved in past oppression.
The key point you have to understand is that Jihadists really take their religion seriously. They're like the Branch Davidians or the Peoples Temple... if those cults had grown to millions of adherents.
1. https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Statements/is-claims-paris-at...