So, apart from the obvious aims of creating fear, what are the aims of ISIS for the globe?
You're assuming that they have global aims and that fear is an aim in itself. I'd suggest not. Maybe their religious views are that they have to remove all infidels, but I doubt it very much. I'd say the goals of Baghdadi are to create himself a caliphate and to be it's leader. They'd like to spread the borders of that caliphate as far as possible but I'd say that they are not delusional enough to think that's achievable.
Fear is a means, not an end. AQ looked to attack the far enemy - The West who support apostate rulers in the Mid East such as the King of Jordan, Mubarak, the Saudis, etc. etc. - and once everyone saw that the West was vulnerable and that the people in the West were terrified and forced their govts to abandon the Mid East, the Arabs and others would have no fear in attacking the near enemy, which again, were the non-Islamic leaders and then AQ could come in and take territory by replacing the democratic govts and royal families with an Islamic state.
ISIS was seen to have a different strategy, one of ignoring the far enemy and attacking the near enemy to take territory by force rather than creating a uprising to overthrow the state for them. That's basically what they had achieved in Syria and Iraq. However, then attacks started occurring in the West and Dabiq, etc, called for attacks. So, to say "we" know what their strategy is and by implication, what their desired ends are, would carry too much credibility. As it assumes "they" know and that there even is a "they" outside of a few secretive leaders.
Would they consider Donald Trumps rant and Sonia's to be a victory? Would they even find it more of a victory for that to be representative of the Anglo proportion of those 2 countries to have a general mistrust/dislike of Muslems?
If yes, then it begs the question as to whether they see the soft pluralist approach as a weakness of the west, enabling them?
Actually, it doesn't beg the question as there is no logical fallacy or
petito principii present. but grammar wanks aside, no, I think the way you've posed it is arse about.
Most people who work to combat Islamic extremism seem to expect that the Sonia Krugars, Trumps and Hansons are a tactical victory for their cause, but we really don't know. The reason why we think it is a victory is that marginalising Islamic communities is more likely to antagonise them and make ISIS propaganda more seductive and "buyable". If Muslims in Australia, US, etc. are comfortable, happy and safe they have little reason to buy into extremism if they are not already pre-disposed to that mindset. However, if they are vilified for nothing other than being Muslim they will be unsafe and look for some kind of collective where they can belong and which will defend them. The precedent for this is the Sunni-Shiite divide in IRaq. Maliki was victimising the Sunnis who had originally pushed AQI, the precursor to ISIS out of Iraq. When given the choice of severe marginalisation and Shiite death squads or Sunni extremism the choice was easy and ISIS was able to come storming back into Iraq. That's why victimising the Muslims as a whole here will only screw ourselves over and reduce security.
They may see the pluralist - or what I think you mean, multicultural society - here a vulnerability. But that would be wrong, it's just a potential opportunity. Our vulnerability is populism, political opportunists and shallow minded folk with little real knowledge of matters such as Pauline Hanson and Sonia Krugar. As I mentioned, one of the problems with democracy is some people have influence far greater than what their intellect should afford them and terrorism provokes a response from those people by magnifying the propaganda of the act. Modern media in general sells with fear and sensation, which is exactly what bombing buses and executing people does.
If their supposed agenda is the west out of the Middle East, it seems escalating outside of the Middle East is more likely to cause the opposite?
maybe it's just a need for general anarchy - no clear established goals, just a general level of lunacy
No, lunacy does not win large tracts of land and run govts, which is exactly what ISIS has achieved. Don't underestimate your opponent. They have shown a great deal of intelligence in optimising a mix of guerilla tactics, conventional warfare, networked warfare, propaganda, civil administration, international relations, etc. etc. Lunatics cannot achieve such things.
You suggest their agenda is something akin to a freedom fighter in that they want the West out of the Mid East (not suggesting you're applying any positive value judgement or anything). I'd suggest that's a wrong way to view it. I think it's your stock standard battle for power. I lean towards al Baghdadi and his main crew are acting the same as any guerrilla force. They have a vision of how they want life to be in their region and they are fighting for it. Their enemy is not the West, it's the govts in the Mid East and anyone who supports them. I suspect that if the West said "Hey, this is and internal issue for the Mid East, we are not going to interfere unless you mess with our interests", ISIS would take their place where they could take it and open up relations with the West. I think they likely have their ideologies, and like most, would allow transgression when it suited their interests, but are leveraging that ideology to support their capability to take power. Same as democratic parties do in the West, they have their ideologies but we all know they'll make deals and do what they have to when it comes election time. Ideology is a basis of belief but also a tool of power.
