If they're firm enough in their beliefs, they aren't trying to prove anything to themselves or their peers, they're doing the right thing. They follow Koran and Allah. You're trying to apply a model of human behaviour which these people are deliberately and explicitly rejecting.
I don't think that follows. I say that they're rejecting Western liberalism not simply because they say they're rejecting it, but because their behaviour is incompatible with and incomprehensible to the logic of Western liberalism. Their behaviour is absurd from the standpoint of Western liberalism individualism, therefore, they cannot be acting from a standpoint of Western liberal individualism. However, the only evidence we have that they're acting out of sheer religious zeal is their own declarations; their behaviour does not fully support this explanation, nor fully preclude mine.
(Besides, I'm not sure that they actually
would attribute it to sheer religious zeal: I've seen interviews with young Britons who went to fight as jihadists in Syria, and while they certainly emphasised their religious zeal, they also emphasised their self-identified status as freedom fighters, describing their struggle as humanitarian as well as religious.)
Islam sucks. The world would be a better place without it. I hope these religious scum die trying to achieve their Islamic theocracy. The national security intelligence service over here says that dozens (atleast 40 people) have left for Syria and some of them have returned. Why do we let them back? If they so want their Islamic theocracy sod off and move to Syria. If any of these fundies are funding Islamic scum then deport them imho and ban them from entering the country. It's clear where their loyalties lie.
We've been over this: most jurisdictions forbid the stripping of citizenship if it would leave an individual stateless, and as citizenship comes with right-to-abode in all but a very small, peculiar number of cases, it wouldn't be possible to prevent their re-entry into the country. If it was established that they were or had been a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation, they could be imprisoned, but as Kramerfan has pointed out, that is in itself very difficult, and you can't simply throw your citizens in prison because they
might be a terrorist.
Both of these restrictions, that you cannot render individuals stateless and that you cannot imprison them without evidence, are generally regarded as Good Things, because they protect individual citizens against the machinations of under-accounted bureaucrats and politicians. These are some of the very liberal democratic freedoms which you are so concerned to defend. And you propose that we conduct this defensive by abolishing them?
^Dumb (towards absurd) argument, followed by your dead-beat 'zing in his own mind'
Are you responding to my post, or reviewing it?
).
) to see that the only value you give to actions someone do is basically its "dollar" value. Money, health benefit and fancy cars are not the alpha and omega in one's life.
