3 Schoolgirls who have gone to Syria

Most of these religious "warriors" I would class as an extreme act of rebellion ( mostly directed against the "evil society" that these extremist groomers teach them about).
However, as I see it once they cross the line and take a life it gets far harder to differentiate. Some are doing it because they believe (don't ask me why as I don't get any religion) that it is the right thing to do. But then there are those such as Jihadi John who get off on the act of slaughter (and merely using religion to justify it) and that is downright evil. I believe that for these types of people the actual act of murder is more important than the purported cause whose name it is done in.
It's a fine line I know and both must be punished if we get the opportunity.

 

I'll settle for this, perfect, just tell me he is gone and that's good enough for me.!!

 

Not even that Val. His death should be given the status of "of no importance whatsoever". Any report of it would be a small validation of his existence in a way.
The families of his victims would have a right to know though.

 

Re: Jihadi John, I wonder how his parents/siblings feel now that he has been named, if they are ordinary decent people it must be terrible for them.

 

As it must surely be for any parent/sibling/friend/acquaintance/colleague/neighbour of *any* one who now has to witness a side of someone they may have cared about/had respect for and found them wanting.
Although, to be really fair, in this day and age, just what measure does "ordinary", "decent" come under? I'm not being flippant here. Those things are a matter of perception. To me? I am ordinary! I am a white, English born, person. I cannot alter that: that is what I am. But, that would not make me "ordinary" in another space. Nor is that the same as who I choose to be (e.g. I could be a rebel against the perceived "ordinary" of the societal standards I grew up in).
But, does that actually even make me "ordinary" in today's society?
Will it make me "ordinary" in 20 years time? Fifty?
I believe I am a "decent" person - as things stand at this present moment in time and within the standards of the culture I live in: but that "decent" (to me) may mean something quite different to someone of a different persuasion or even, as society evolves.

I do not believe there is an "ordinary" person. Nor, even, a "decent" person. Because both would be determined by a multitude of factors and neither are wholly definitive. Such is the richness of diversity.

I think this is where sweeping statements made to present an argument become flawed and needs to be examined a little bit beyond the (assumed) "obvious".

 

I think you maybe delving a bit too deep @"M", but I think decency, is pretty well understood.

As to ordinary, I'm not sure White, English born etc. will be considered "ordinary" in the future.

Ordinary is similar to "average", nobody fits it.
Now "boring", I can fit into very well.

 

Me too - no drink and drugs any more, I buy pictures for the walls and cleaning products for the house. In short I am everything that I despised when I was the same age as those girls. Jeez, I even observe the speed limits now.

 

Speed limits?
Oh come on, there are some things that you just cant abide by.

 

Isn't that the whole point of debate? to delve that little bit ... deeper?
Now the *real* question becomes ... too deep ... for whom?

 

Yep, I'm boring too

 

Told you I was boring!

 

``

Well yes but I think the GC resident psychiatrist is not around at the moment.

Would you mind if Ziggy was to step in?

 

Boring works for me