If you read their speeches and not have any context on what they are talking about then you might be inclined to support them. If you read closely you will see that each speech has its own flaw in making the their argument fallacious. They both used the form of stacking the deck. Wallace uses it by talking about all the damage that was done to the south during the Civil War. He victimizes the South even though the real purpose of the war was to free the African-Americans from slavery. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi also stacks the deck for his cause by using victimization to show how much damage has been done to the Muslims. But these attacks brought to the Muslims are ones that Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has provoked through his hunger for power.
I feel that both of these speeches had to use demagoguery to connect with their audience. Without it there would be no way to bring out emotions for people to believe into their argument. They were both smart to use religion in there speech because it was something they knew there audience held high above all. I also believe that these speeches do a good job on challenging the true motives of the out-group. They bring up valid claims that should show how evil the opposition can