Aye, which is why I wish he just offed himself and spared innocent lives.
They could focus on both, I wouldn't see a problem with that personally.
All in all this guy sounds like a violent unstable and easily mislead individual. I just don't understand why people decide to "go out in style"...
It appears to be legitimate:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nice-terror-attack-killer-mohamed-lahouaiej-bouhlel-sent-84000-to-family-in-tunisia-days-before-a7141221.html...
Though what would happen if your health was jeopardised by disease (for example); isn't that a case of God sabotaging one's attempt to preserve their own life?
I'm just guessing based off historical differences over time. If you go back long enough "teenagers" weren't considered a stage in one's development: you just had "children" and "adults". Hell go back even further and the concept of "childhood" wasn't even a thing, though sadly in poorer...
I hope they both crash and die. Hopefully only killing themselves and no-one else in the process.
Though your post was funny. ;)
I feel the same way.
Also I get the impression some posters are really misinterpreting the intentions of OP and making this thread out to be something worse than it...
That is true.
Sometimes I just don't understand humanity: what would drive someone to run over people in a lorry? The killer sounded like a very troubled individual: guy should've just offed himself rather than wanting to take innocents with him.
No idea if I'm honest, must be more liberal cultural attitudes to sex in general. Granted, sex is more of a tricky one, but I reckon in future developed nations people will become legal 'Adults' at age 25: to match with neuroscientific research regard brain maturity etc.
It's always been a moving target: as technology and quality of life increases it honestly wouldn't surprise me if the age of consent (drugs/military/sex etc) was to reach as high as 25 in the developed future world.
Previously you wrote:
That to me highlights my aforementioned concerns.
Though you are absolutely right in not arguing with her. Forgive me: I wasn't implying that it is you but rather those who propagate such beliefs and the authors of the scriptures who bear responsibility for polluting...
I guess we aren't too different then: even though I mostly view Extremism as something separate from Fundamentalism/Orthodoxy.
I view Extremism as the radicalisation of an ideology in an attempt to "justify" violence, oppression or terrorism; whilst viewing Fundamentalism/Orthodoxy as an attempt...
Though is there a potential miscommunication regarding our interpretations (and differentiation) of the terms "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic fundamentalism/orthodoxy"?
Did he say Shahada?
Though it does bring a surprising amount of comfort to know that all of the struggles and pain people feel will also one day turn in to dust: it isn't just the pleasant things which end.
Not necessarily: "native" people can and have committed acts of terrorism against the host country. Foes are those who hold views - and carry out acts - similar to ISIS and other extremist organisations who're hell-bent on destruction.
It's about an ideology's battle with radicalisation.