> you are absolutely not describing a political movement. You are describing a militia through and through. The point I'm making is that all political movement

> you are absolutely not describing a political movement. You are describing a militia through and through. The point I'm making is that all political movements want to control people, which entails the direct or indirect use of force. Pro/anti choice activists in the US may not use suicide bombers, but they want to get a law passed that will jail people who do the thing they don't like (perform abortions vs have abortions). This is indirect use of lethal force, because it has been effectively institutionalized in the US. It's idealistic or naive to believe that political movements do not exist for the purpose of exerting direct or indirect lethal force on others. This is a cynical view but it is true (though there are other motives for movements/organizations to exist, those exist alongside obtaining power/influence). Drone pilots do not have to be zealots in order to fly a drone into a village and unleash a payload on a bungalow full of people, they must simply go through military training. Propaganda indoctrination is part of the US military's training approach, because studies have found that humans really don't like killing other humans if they think of them as human. The propaganda makes it psychologically easier for soldiers to follow orders and do their job. Surely a so-called zealot who is doing a suicide bombing believes some similar sort of propaganda. Many American soldiers have bravely charged into combat zones with full knowledge there was a good chance they would perish. Why imagine a suicide bomber as fundamentally different when he is fundamentally similar? Yes, ISIS does some really nasty things and appears to have no redeeming characteristics whatsoever. It's fine to disapprove of those things, but I think it's unfair to focus on the inevitable moral differences in an asymmetric conflict... they always exist. The British were outraged that the revolutionary soldiers would take cover behind a tree to take aim. The moral tolerance that each side has for outrageous acts is context dependent. There is not any cultural/institutional superiority or inferiority involved. Our own military leaders know this and are ready to do whatever is necessary to get results (see Rumsfeld's strong defense of torture techniques). So moral outrage about ISIS is part of the propaganda message to encourage Americans to support the war. Many people have died in the war so far, and it is not Americans that are dying, it's the brown skinned people we wantonly slaughter. This is abetted by the perception that the groups are illegitimate and morally bankrupt. It is we who are imposing our will on people thousands of miles away so that we can take natural resources from their land.