So ISIS didn’t personally perform the two-way communication with him, so what? They talked to him, just like they talked to all their listeners. They explicitly called their same-faith listeners to do the acts on their own, as you can read in the link I’ve already posted. Their listeners learn that being killed while waging the war for Allah absolves you of all the sins you’ve made in this life and gets you to Heaven. In this life, you make the “sin of Lot” if you’re gay, and are supposed to be punished by stoning or some other variant and burn in hell forever anyway, but if you get to heaven, the “boys like pearls” and “72 virgins” await you and your sex strength never wanes. The listeners get the references to check in their religious books, and there are really these verses and lines, their validity confirmed by the same scholars who confirm what makes Sharia. And all that material exists independently of ISIS, used before by al-Quaeda, used now by many Islamic organizations, and ready to be used in the future even more. Because it’s some 1300 years old and still to be “taken literally.” Why? Because the Book says so. And the Book are the “literal words of God.” How do we know? “It’s written in the Book.” Literally.
Note, it’s not that every Muslim believes that he should immediately act like Islamic militant fundamentalists expect him to act. It’s that there’s still this huge body of material that they can refer to. That’s just why it’s so easy to get the “new recruits,” even over the Internet.
So this “within” motive was simply: “How can I get to heaven and save me from everlasting hell fire? Well this guy who claims he’s the Caliph called, so if he is the Caliph and if I do what he says, I get to heaven. I’ve checked, it’s really all in the Book, he didn’t invent anything.” We should recognize that and not claim “we will never know.” We are able to know, if we’re ready to accept the inconvenient truth. Which is not how we would like the world to be, but it is how the world is. Not all religions have “love thy neighbor.” One religion has “kill the unbelievers” and “fire to unbelievers” repeated on almost every page. “Never be friends with them, even if you must be nice to them now.” That’s the real 1300-year old, dressed as religion, pure intolerance.
And does that “lack of two way communication” between the ISIS and the shooter mean that we should ignore all the homosexuals which are legally murdered in 10 states that practice Sharia, the Islamic law? Does it mean that we should ignore the fact that every 3 of every 4 Muslims all across the world support Sharia? It’s natural that they do, because it’s the law of their religion. So we shouldn’t close the eyes but demand that law to be changed, even if “it’s in the Book.” And even if it’s written there that 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Now you know why a few dare to question it.)
Shouldn’t we worry about the freedoms of all the homosexuals in all the countries which can be affected by Sharia? All the women? And I admit I worry about my basic freedom of being non-religious: I am also to be legally murdered by Sharia, the Islamic law, just if I dare to say that God doesn’t exist in front of somebody who wants to follow that law.
Just like this Muslim woman was killed by the “normal citizens” on the street for a sin of “burning the Quran”:
Note that we don’t need to live in the Muslim-majority country to be the targets of even a small and extremely violent minority. There are enough attacks to prove that too.
I know you most possibly don’t believe me, so I really encourage you to really spend the energy to check the sources. Not what is said to the West, but what is actually used by the believers. What’s actually in their books. What is actually in the Law. I know I couldn’t have imagined too. Deep down we all want all religions to be about love. Do spend the energy to read at least a part of the Book. Don’t trust the single quotes, if anybody gives you a peaceful quote, read at least the chapter where it occurs then answer yourself if the chapter is peaceful and how the quote looks in the context. I’m sure our conversation would be very different: I wouldn’t have to even try to prove you anything. We would start to talk only about what can we do. And you’d know that keeping the eyes closed won’t help.