a kinder, gentler Islamic State

It's a bit thin by argument, but an article suggesting that Islamic State's acts of charity could prove decisive in its war with the western infidels is interesting. Who, after enough bombing and hunger and death, wouldn't settle for a little charity?

Although Islamic State rejects democracy, if it continues to rally public support through works of charity and governance, it could become entrenched in society and be that much harder to defeat. Even the group’s draconian treatment of women may not be enough to stymie public support.

Is such decency nothing more than a political ploy? Perhaps so, but put yourself in the place of the recipient: If someone promised you a better life after dropping salvo after salvo on your neighborhood (and seldom if ever actually delivered) and someone else suggested they would limit liberties but wouldn't kill you in the meantime ... which would you choose?