turning to or (as you note) sympathetic to a twisted, violent, brutal, oppressive, 9th Century fundamentalist version of a religion. I think the "why" question is what is most important, and not sure I have an answer (but think we need to figure it out). In the president's defense, I think he and his advisors have thought much about it and that is why they use some of the tactics that are regularly mocked by warmongering conservatives as weak-kneed apologism.

In my armchair opinion (really would never claim to know more than the basics on foreign policy) there are problems with the Muslim world in general but I always ask ... aren't much of them more geopolitical and sectarian than purely religious? We have Kurds vs. Turks vs. ISIS; Syrians fighting Syrians who have joined ISIS; Libyans fighting Libyans who have joined ISIS; Sunnis fighting Shi'ia; Iran funding this group, Saudis funding that one; etc. Seems a helluva lot more complicated than we make it out to be.

I've always seen the religion part as a vehicle that people use to control others and that is used, in this instance, as an excuse for people who are angry and lost to latch onto a "cause" that they can fight for. Reminds me of the old saying "if you can't find something to live for, find something to die for."

I have always viewed ISIS, AQ, etc. more as death cults than anything spiritual and I do think they attract the worst people in some of the world's worst and most violent areas and it feeds itself. What is really scary to us is the way they use the internet to broaden their appeal globally.