mentally ill man stabs people shouting allahu akbar

learn_more wrote:

So we're dealing with a fully functioning schizophrenic terrorist. Sounds unusual but I'm not disputing that assessment.

Smondie wrote:

By coincidence, wasn't his last victim jewish too.

Why would he be fully functioning? Why would he not now the difference between Jews and non jews We know he has a history of mental illness though we don't have the details.

Do you know much about mental health? There's no reason why he couldn't be both a mental health patient and be aware of who he was attacking.

Which bit is causing most confusion?

Smondie wrote: »

By coincidence, wasn't his last victim jewish too.

Eh, I don't think a severe mental illness and hatred, sectarianism, racism etc. are exclusive. Where do people get these odd notions?

learn_more wrote:

Okay. I just jumped into this thread without reading it all. I though that there was a dispute as to whether the event was a terrorist attack OR a non-terrorist attack in the form of a guy who lost the plot because voices in his head told him to stab the devil out of some man who was possessed. If this is not the case then I apologise. I just thought ( probably wrongly ) that his mental health was mentioned because it was the reason he attacked the man.

Something like that. We don't have enough information to say for sure. I also think it's very likely that a terrorist group wouod target vulnerable people to carry out their attacks.

Thus guy could have grown up in an environment which views jews as an enemy and when he had a psychotic episode he attacked someone he considers an enemy.

learn_more wrote:

If I understand your position, you are saying that this guy is a terrorist and he simply has some mental health issues that he maybe needs treatment for.

We don't know. He could be a terrorist with a mental health history. He could be a man with mental health history who attacked someone. He could be a man with mental health problems who was targeted by terrorists to carry out an attack on their behalf.

I do t see any beef to separate mental health from terrorism. I imagine most people who commit serious crimes have some form of mental health problems and I doubt terrorist attacks are much different.

learn_more wrote:

I suppose it's hard to imagine people who do crazy things doing everyday humdrum things or having everyday problems. Like when you watch serial killer documentaries one doesn't think about them doing their grocery shopping or doing the hovering.

The guy was living in the community. Who else getsys his groceries or dies his washing up? People with mental health problems are all around you doing all sorts of humdrum tasks.

Mental health problems make people vulnerable. That's why there is always a need for more resources to treat people.

Johngoose wrote:

Ya it seems to be the new thing in Germany to cover up terrorist attacks.Was there not a savage attack prior to this which was blamed on mental illness in Germany also?Angela has flooded Europe with Muslims,so she doesn't want to take the flack for religiously motivated attacks.

There's a really well documented link between schizophrenia and religious beliefs. Not to mention that religions often explain hearing voices as being a god's method of communication.

Walter, there's no reason to expect someone with mental health problems to attack jews. But some mental health problems such as schizophrenia, make religious fanaticism more likely. That's why I would guess this is a case of mental health combined with religious fanaticism resulting in an attack which could easily be categorised as terrorism.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's a really well documented link between schizophrenia and religious beliefs. Not to mention that religions often explain hearing voices as being a god's method of communication.

Walter, there's no reason to expect someone with mental health problems to attack jews. But some mental health problems such as schizophrenia, make religious fanaticism more likely. That's why I would guess this is a case of mental health combined with religious fanaticism resulting in an attack which could easily be categorised as terrorism.

I'm not at all convinced of the mental illness angle here but at the same time I know of this phenomenon and I would like to know more about that, as I'm genuinely interested. I used to visit a friend in a psychiatric ward and of the other patients, a few women had frequent visions of Our Lady.

Widdershins wrote:

I'm not at all convinced of the mental illness angle here but at the same time I know of this phenomenon and I would like to know more about that, as I'm genuinely interested. I used to visit a friend in a psychiatric ward and of the other patients, a few women had frequent visions of Our Lady.

The link between Schizophrenia and religious belief is a well established. I'm not sure exactly which theories explain the phenomenon but it's real. Schizophrenia is also related to delusions and hallucinations and they are 2 of the diagnostic criteria.

Religions often explain hallucinations and delusions as god communicating with the individual. The rate of schizophrenia in prisons is way above the average population as schizophrenia CAN lead to harmful or criminal behaviour (not intended to make people feel frightened of the mentally ill).

If you were trying to convince someone to carry out a religiously motivated attack your best bet would be to start with people with schizophrenia, paranoid delusions. I know nothing about the attacker's past but I know you'd have a better chance of success with some groups of people over others.

This is no excuse for anything. The guy had proven himself to be a danger to society. I'd say it's too much of a coincidence that he has a history of attacking jews. I'd say it's likely that he has been ' radicalised' whatever exactly that means. (I think it used to be called brainwashed). Someone with schizophrenia would he the ideal candidate for radicalisation.

That's why I don't see any need to preclude terrorism if the attacker gas a mental health history.

As there seems to be a lot of mental illness experts in this thread, is the Frenchman(in the link below) a fanatical muslim or a mental muslim, or both?
And I do value your expert diagnosis!

A FRENCH man allegedly yelled “Allahu akbar” before stabbing to death a young British backpacker at a north Queensland hostel on Tuesday night.
Multiple law enforcement agencies are investigating if terrorism is behind the killing of the 21-year-old woman, and the attempted killing of a 30-year-old fellow Brit.
Witnesses reported the 29-year-old French national yelled “Allahu akbar” — “God is the greatest” in Arabic — before fatally attacking the woman and critically injuring the 30-year-old British male backpacker.

http://www.news.com.au/national/northern-territory/young-british-backpacker-dead-after-hostel-stabbing-in-home-hill-queensland/news-story/e85f91bb0ee4ed42d4be823fd30754ce

Time to cut the cancer out!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not an expert but I have more experience than the average bear.

There nothing in the article about the killer do we can only speculate in really vague terms. It looks like a religiously motivated attack but who knows? Maybe he fancies yet wan and had canal thoughts which are against his religion and killed her as a result. Maybe he was striking a blow for ISIS. Both would be a religiously motivated but would you class them both as terrorism?

On a related point it would be handy to figure out what we mean by terrorism exactly. It seems to mean all things to all men. Is terrorism defined by the act? By by the motivation for the act? By the actor's affiliation with a terrorist group?

If a fella with a history of mental illness murders someone over something trivial, was it his mental illness? What if the same guy had taken drug's beforehand, was it the drugs? What if the guy was Muslim, was it mental illness or drugs or terrorism?

It could be all three but I get the impression that some people are only happy if it is all classified as terrorism full stop. I don't even really know what terrorism is, so it's a difficult question to answer.

I think the best definition of terrorism, or at least the most commonly accepted is the use of violence in pursuit of political objectives. However after that it gets a lot more difficult when military vs civilian, legitimate targets, religions, mental illness etc. all get brought into the mix. For example why were the massacres against the general population in Mexico (still ongoing) during its Drug Wars not classed as terrorism? Or why do atrocities committed by government's for political purposes not get classified as terrorist actions?

The Guardian (a very old article - 2001!) has a very good discussion as to what can and can't be termed terrorism for anyone who is interested.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/07/terrorism

Without more information regarding this murder in Australia it's completely impossible to say is it a terrorist attack or not. As you say "maybe he fancies yet wan and had canal thoughts which are against his religion and killed her as a result. Maybe he was striking a blow for ISIS. Both would be a religiously motivated but would you class them both as terrorism?"

Butters1979 wrote:

It's Muslims targeting innocent people because they are not Muslim. They're in the west targeting women and children with cowardly attacks. (And in Muslims countries targeting anyone who doesn't agree with this policy including other Muslims ). And their religion preaches this is justified. I'm not talking about what's written in a book. I mean activity preaches it. And these attacks are not going to stop if we treat them like victims of circumstance and make excuses.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you said but I'm curious about what you think is being put forward as an excuse. It has come up a few times in this thread but nobody has replied with an example of the excuses being made.

Do you think the mental health aspect is an excuse of some kind?