Nope
I view that article as kind of an expert report. Such reports often reveal weaknesses on their face. In this link, the weakness is easily found with this:
"Many Muslims living in the West have expressed their exasperation with the constant pressure to describe themselves as “moderates.” This view is frequently echoed during my travels in the Middle East and South Asia. As one Syrian activist said to me: “Why do you insist on us saying that we are ‘moderates?’ I am a Muslim, this is Islam. That’s it. Or do you want us to lose credibility in our audience’s eyes? When you insist I say ‘moderate,’ that’s for you. To my audience, that means ‘not Islam.’ ” Using “moderate” Muslims as the champions of government schemes or demanding that Muslims identify themselves as “moderates” risks inadvertently delegitimizing those voices in their communities, especially among those most vulnerable to propaganda’s siren call."
First of all, as you know, use of the word "many" means exactly zilch in terms of determining numbers or quantities. Second, he admits to singling out an "activist" as quoting for his empirical data. That shows a point of view that is inconsistent with a random sample, even for empirical data. Third, imputing any reasonableness to the ISIS propaganda effort is nuts, in my view. Propaganda by its nature is not to be considered a reasonable approximation of anything. So, yeah, my questions center around these points. And, as I mentioned several times, the author is spot on with his in-group and out-group analysis. I think he intends present one view of how ISIS exploits the difference. You are taking that to the level of excluding all other views, which is consistent with your preconceptions.
On the other hand, if you don't know how to read and approach an expert report you have no clue of what I am talking about and you can only yammer about blinkered idiots and Dunning-Kruger.
