bimble
floofy
I'll be tuning in for that one thanks for the heads up.
But really, is this story just over now, nobody talking about why his family were denied help for him ?
Leytonstone tube station "terrorist incident"?
- Thread starter MrSki
- Start date
But really, is this story just over now, nobody talking about why his family were denied help for him ?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
He's charged: sub judice rules have kicked in.
Which, in the bigger picture of innocent -until -proven-otherwise, is a Good Thing.
E2A: sub judice rules forbid reporting anything that asserts his guilt or innocence, or his sanity or otherwise if guilty. So take care here, too.
Last edited:
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
Anger
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No. It's not.
The objective is to inflict the required damage in the name of "the cause", more often than not, political; and to bring about the presumed attendant benefits for others.
"Dying" is just an accepted part of that, which in itself is a powerful statement, but not "the objective" of the action.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
don't post shit - you can do better
bimble
floofy
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
(((((Squirrels)))))
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
It's because mental health services are overstretched and someone has to do something like this before they get the help they need. I've worked in mental health services long enough to know people have to be in crisis before the full service swings in. Let's hope he now gets help, and so does the family.
NB I am not excusing anything.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I hope he gets what's needed as well, but there's a sickening line of well wishers for this failed head chopper and nothing at all for the victim.
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
I understand that. I'm not lining up to well-wish anyone. But I work with severely ill people every day. There's no culpability if someone is medically psychotic, and what the family, and the victim, and society needs now, is help for him.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Who says diff -but not a word for the victim?
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
Oh yeah, hope he's OK. Sorry, that sounds a bit mawkish. I don't know either of them.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yeah, but one gets the support first.
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
Support?
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I hope he gets all he needs etc - yeah, support.
edit: Right, bigly edited post from harpo - not a problem - read above from your post. What do you see?
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
Perhaps you don't understand medical psychosis? I understand your urge to punish but think. Think first.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
wtf
harpo
Listening to Radio Jackie
Come on now, I think you know what I mean.
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
So, if Iain Dunked-in Shit starts interring disabled people/shipping them to special "treatment centres", and I decide that for the good of fellow crips,I'm going to go shake his hand while packing a pipe bomb up my arse, I'm a fruitloop rather than someone looking to ensure the safety of the wider disabled population; and the fictional guy with the opportunity to kill Hitler or Stalin at the cost of his own life (neither of these things, note, are "split second decisions"), he's a fruitloop too.
You know why we're never going to agree? Because you think that your personal knowledge of mental illness makes you qualified to judge, whereas I see my personal experience of mental illness as only qualifying me to speak for myself, but see my military experience as well as my postgraduate academic experience as making me qualified to advance points of fact.
.
Why the fuck not just kill Iain Dunked-in-shit rather than take your life as well? You could just shoot him, you don't have to blow yourself up with a pipe bomb shoved up your arse, why waste your life? You would be a fruit loop if you did that, thats why you don't do it, because you're not a fruit loop.
The IRA when they went and blew people up they clearly had no intention of dying themselves, that's because despite having their absolute convictions they weren't nuts or using people who were nuts to do the deeds.
I'm sorry... insult me all you fucking like... as usual it's the usual gang on U75 that get together mob handed to jump on someone that dares to have a different opinion particularly on Middle Eastern topics. I never revert to personal insults like you, Butchers whatsits and others do... 15 alerts from three of you all having a pop at me in under 20 minutes, like I'm some stupid cunt... get a grip it's just an internet forum some people have different views and opinions.
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
I said one of the objectives is to die... remember they think they are going to get martyrdom?
bimble
floofy
I think that's a bit of a misreading - what it looks like from here, now we know his family begged for help and were denied it due to lack of resources etc, is that this whole story turns out to be not about terrorism at all but about the current state of mental health services - so just possibly a (missed) opportunity for that issue to be raised. Not quite the same as 'siding with the headchopper' against his victim(s).
Batboy
Trumpeting is good for you...
The following is an article from New Scientist the author is Adam Lankford a criminal justice professor at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. His thoughts mirror mine but according to some on Urban 75 I have no knowledge and I guess by that correlation stupid. I guess that makes Lankford stupid too.
I get tired of the personal slants especially from Violent Panda. who it seems as soon as you challenge his view point has to revert to personal insults. This is disappointing and is made even more disappointing when others endorse his postings without really looking at the wording.
You can't be persuaded to think different, because you "know" (without actual knowledge) that you're right. In other words I am thick and stupid. You lose my respect when you post comments like this. Over the last few years I have learnt to temper my responses, many of us do it including me at times.
It is part of the problem of internet forums and why threads general into spats and bunfights as opposed to serious debate and exchange of ideas. It's a shame.
Anyway here is Lankfords article, there are many more out there on the internet. He has no agenda that I can see and there are others that are coming around to his way of thinking.
New Scientist 6 July 2013
IN THE aftermath of 9/11, terrorism experts in the US made a bold and counter-intuitive claim: the suicide terrorists were psychologically normal. When it came to their state of mind, they were not so different from US Special Forces agents. Just because they deliberately crashed planes into buildings, that didn’t make them suicidal – it simply meant they were willing to die for a cause they believed in.
This argument was stated over and over and became the orthodoxy. “We’d like to believe these are crazed fanatics,” said CIA terror expert Jerrold Post in 2006. “Not true… as individuals, this is normal behaviour.”
I disagree. Far from being psychologically normal, suicide terrorists are suicidal. They kill themselves to escape crises or unbearable pain. Until we recognise this, attempts to stop the attacks are doomed to fail.
When I began studying suicide terrorists, I had no agenda, just curiosity. My hunch was that the official version was true, but I kept an open mind.
Then I began watching martyrdom videos and reading case studies, letters and diary entries. What I discovered was a litany of fear, failure, guilt, shame and rage. In my book The Myth of Martyrdom, I present evidence that far from being normal, these self-destructive killers have often suffered from serious mental trauma and always demonstrate at least a few behaviours on the continuum of suicidality, such as suicide ideation, a suicide plan or previous suicide attempts.
Why did so many scholars come to the wrong conclusions? One key reason is that they believe what the bombers, their relatives and friends, and their terrorist recruiters say, especially when their accounts are consistent.
In 2007, for example, Ellen Townsend of the University of Nottingham, UK, published an influential article called Suicide Terrorists: Are they suicidal? Her answer was a resounding no (Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, vol 37, p 35).
How did she come to this conclusion? By reviewing five empirical reports: three that depended largely upon interviews with deceased suicide terrorists’ friends and family, and two based on interviews of non-suicide terrorists. She took what they said at face value.
I think this was a serious mistake. All of these people have strong incentives to lie.
Take the failed Palestinian suicide bomber Wafa al-Biss, who attempted to blow herself up at an Israeli checkpoint in 2005. Her own account and those of her parents and recruiters tell the same story: that she acted for political and religious reasons.
These accounts are highly suspect. Terrorist leaders have strategic reasons for insisting that attackers are not suicidal, but instead are carrying out glorious martyrdom operations. Traumatised parents want to believe that their children were motivated by heroic impulses. And suicidal people commonly deny that they are suicidal and are often able to hide their true feelings from the world.
This is especially true of fundamentalist Muslims. Suicide is explicitly condemned in Islam and guarantees an eternity in hell. Martyrs, on the other hand, can go to heaven.
Most telling of all, it later emerged that al-Biss had suffered from mental health problems most of her life and had made two previous suicide attempts.
Her case is far from unique. Consider Qari Sami, who blew himself up in a café in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2005. He walked in – and kept on walking, past crowded tables and into the bathroom at the back where he closed the door and detonated his belt. He killed himself and two others, but could easily have killed more. It later emerged that he was on antidepressants.
Even Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 ringleader and the archetype of the “normal” suicide terrorist, was misunderstood. He struggled with social isolation, depression, guilt, shame and hopelessness for many years.
“Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, suffered from depression, shame and hopelessness for years”
Experts make other mistakes too. They assume that suicidal people are easily identifiable, that they must be irrational, and that suicide terrorists are a subset of the broader population of non-suicide terrorists, who we know tend to be relatively normal.
The misconception has been further exposed by psychologist Ariel Merari of Tel Aviv University in Israel. He recently conducted psychological tests on 15 failed suicide bombers, 12 non-suicide terrorists and 14 organisers of suicide attacks, all associated with Palestinian terror groups.
When the regular terrorists were asked if they had ever considered carrying out a suicide operation, 11 of 12 said that they had not. Among the organisers, nine of 14 said no. None exhibited suicidal tendencies or had ever attempted suicide.
For the would-be bombers it was a different story. Not only had they all agreed to undertake a suicide mission, eight displayed depressive tendencies, six displayed suicidal tendencies and two of them had previously attempted suicide.
Merari’s findings provide compelling evidence that at least some suicide terrorists are suicidal. My own research adds to this, documenting suicidal traits in more than 130 attackers.
Why does this matter? First of all, labelling suicide terrorists “normal” or “martyrs” is dangerous. It plays directly into the hands of terrorist leaders, allowing them to glorify suicide bombers and recruit new ones.
It also inhibits efforts to prevent attacks. From 2001 to 2010, global suicide attacks increased by more than 300 per cent. With the exception of the fence Israel built to keep Palestinian suicide terrorists out, most attempts to combat this deadliest of threats have been an utter failure. That’s why we need to understand suicide bombers properly, so we can find them and stop them before it is too late.
I get tired of the personal slants especially from Violent Panda. who it seems as soon as you challenge his view point has to revert to personal insults. This is disappointing and is made even more disappointing when others endorse his postings without really looking at the wording.
You can't be persuaded to think different, because you "know" (without actual knowledge) that you're right. In other words I am thick and stupid. You lose my respect when you post comments like this. Over the last few years I have learnt to temper my responses, many of us do it including me at times.
It is part of the problem of internet forums and why threads general into spats and bunfights as opposed to serious debate and exchange of ideas. It's a shame.
Anyway here is Lankfords article, there are many more out there on the internet. He has no agenda that I can see and there are others that are coming around to his way of thinking.
New Scientist 6 July 2013
IN THE aftermath of 9/11, terrorism experts in the US made a bold and counter-intuitive claim: the suicide terrorists were psychologically normal. When it came to their state of mind, they were not so different from US Special Forces agents. Just because they deliberately crashed planes into buildings, that didn’t make them suicidal – it simply meant they were willing to die for a cause they believed in.
This argument was stated over and over and became the orthodoxy. “We’d like to believe these are crazed fanatics,” said CIA terror expert Jerrold Post in 2006. “Not true… as individuals, this is normal behaviour.”
I disagree. Far from being psychologically normal, suicide terrorists are suicidal. They kill themselves to escape crises or unbearable pain. Until we recognise this, attempts to stop the attacks are doomed to fail.
When I began studying suicide terrorists, I had no agenda, just curiosity. My hunch was that the official version was true, but I kept an open mind.
Then I began watching martyrdom videos and reading case studies, letters and diary entries. What I discovered was a litany of fear, failure, guilt, shame and rage. In my book The Myth of Martyrdom, I present evidence that far from being normal, these self-destructive killers have often suffered from serious mental trauma and always demonstrate at least a few behaviours on the continuum of suicidality, such as suicide ideation, a suicide plan or previous suicide attempts.
Why did so many scholars come to the wrong conclusions? One key reason is that they believe what the bombers, their relatives and friends, and their terrorist recruiters say, especially when their accounts are consistent.
In 2007, for example, Ellen Townsend of the University of Nottingham, UK, published an influential article called Suicide Terrorists: Are they suicidal? Her answer was a resounding no (Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, vol 37, p 35).
How did she come to this conclusion? By reviewing five empirical reports: three that depended largely upon interviews with deceased suicide terrorists’ friends and family, and two based on interviews of non-suicide terrorists. She took what they said at face value.
I think this was a serious mistake. All of these people have strong incentives to lie.
Take the failed Palestinian suicide bomber Wafa al-Biss, who attempted to blow herself up at an Israeli checkpoint in 2005. Her own account and those of her parents and recruiters tell the same story: that she acted for political and religious reasons.
These accounts are highly suspect. Terrorist leaders have strategic reasons for insisting that attackers are not suicidal, but instead are carrying out glorious martyrdom operations. Traumatised parents want to believe that their children were motivated by heroic impulses. And suicidal people commonly deny that they are suicidal and are often able to hide their true feelings from the world.
This is especially true of fundamentalist Muslims. Suicide is explicitly condemned in Islam and guarantees an eternity in hell. Martyrs, on the other hand, can go to heaven.
Most telling of all, it later emerged that al-Biss had suffered from mental health problems most of her life and had made two previous suicide attempts.
Her case is far from unique. Consider Qari Sami, who blew himself up in a café in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2005. He walked in – and kept on walking, past crowded tables and into the bathroom at the back where he closed the door and detonated his belt. He killed himself and two others, but could easily have killed more. It later emerged that he was on antidepressants.
Even Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 ringleader and the archetype of the “normal” suicide terrorist, was misunderstood. He struggled with social isolation, depression, guilt, shame and hopelessness for many years.
“Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 ringleader, suffered from depression, shame and hopelessness for years”
Experts make other mistakes too. They assume that suicidal people are easily identifiable, that they must be irrational, and that suicide terrorists are a subset of the broader population of non-suicide terrorists, who we know tend to be relatively normal.
The misconception has been further exposed by psychologist Ariel Merari of Tel Aviv University in Israel. He recently conducted psychological tests on 15 failed suicide bombers, 12 non-suicide terrorists and 14 organisers of suicide attacks, all associated with Palestinian terror groups.
When the regular terrorists were asked if they had ever considered carrying out a suicide operation, 11 of 12 said that they had not. Among the organisers, nine of 14 said no. None exhibited suicidal tendencies or had ever attempted suicide.
For the would-be bombers it was a different story. Not only had they all agreed to undertake a suicide mission, eight displayed depressive tendencies, six displayed suicidal tendencies and two of them had previously attempted suicide.
Merari’s findings provide compelling evidence that at least some suicide terrorists are suicidal. My own research adds to this, documenting suicidal traits in more than 130 attackers.
Why does this matter? First of all, labelling suicide terrorists “normal” or “martyrs” is dangerous. It plays directly into the hands of terrorist leaders, allowing them to glorify suicide bombers and recruit new ones.
It also inhibits efforts to prevent attacks. From 2001 to 2010, global suicide attacks increased by more than 300 per cent. With the exception of the fence Israel built to keep Palestinian suicide terrorists out, most attempts to combat this deadliest of threats have been an utter failure. That’s why we need to understand suicide bombers properly, so we can find them and stop them before it is too late.
bimble
floofy
Interesting Batboy.
I think this is a bit of a pointless argument, because of course some of the people who are on waiting lists to strap explosives to themselves will surely be so desperate and in such an extreme state of mind that you could if you want to apply the word 'mad' to them. That last bit up there, the conclusion, is a little worrying though - I mean it looks a lot like he's suggesting that depressed people should be put on a watch list.
Also, the study of Palestinian failed bombers by the Israeli psychologist concludes with this not totally convincing thing:
"None of the 15 would-be suicide bombers we interviewed suffered from a psychosis, but they had one of two personality types. Two-thirds were dependent-avoidant: such people find it hard to say no to authority figures and are more likely to cooperate to carry out tasks against their own judgement. They are also greatly influenced by public opinion. The rest were impulsive and emotionally unstable. '
That just sounds like.. people, not especially mad people ?
I think this is a bit of a pointless argument, because of course some of the people who are on waiting lists to strap explosives to themselves will surely be so desperate and in such an extreme state of mind that you could if you want to apply the word 'mad' to them. That last bit up there, the conclusion, is a little worrying though - I mean it looks a lot like he's suggesting that depressed people should be put on a watch list.
Also, the study of Palestinian failed bombers by the Israeli psychologist concludes with this not totally convincing thing:
"None of the 15 would-be suicide bombers we interviewed suffered from a psychosis, but they had one of two personality types. Two-thirds were dependent-avoidant: such people find it hard to say no to authority figures and are more likely to cooperate to carry out tasks against their own judgement. They are also greatly influenced by public opinion. The rest were impulsive and emotionally unstable. '
That just sounds like.. people, not especially mad people ?
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
A fence to keep out suicide bombers. Oh yes. 'Interesting'. Because that's what really happened.
Or maybe a dependent avoidant type just regurgitated it.
Or maybe a dependent avoidant type just regurgitated it.
bimble
floofy
Yes, it's all very silly. As if people are either
a) 'mad' or
b) have absolutely no grievance against the world, are completely happy and contented.
Having said that, maybe if the whole world was as saturated with Xanex etc as the US population is, it would be a much quieter place.
a) 'mad' or
b) have absolutely no grievance against the world, are completely happy and contented.
Having said that, maybe if the whole world was as saturated with Xanex etc as the US population is, it would be a much quieter place.
Last edited:
Similar threads
