UKC

IS hit Tunisia

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 dale1968 26 Jun 2015
More deaths
In reply to dale1968:

They are having a busy day
2
 dek 26 Jun 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> They are having a busy day

Ramadan innit? Holy month of 'pieces', and all that bollocks? I guess the dead holidaymakers were 'islamophobes'?
2
 dread-i 26 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968:

Nice to see that we're continuing their work. Spreading fear and outrage. Good for you.
13
OP dale1968 26 Jun 2015
In reply to dread-i:
Think you will find its well spread without my input, but you also added to it by giving the thread a bump up, so we'll done on helping spread the fear
1
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

What a disgustingly flippant remark. People have been killed by these lunatics who are 'having a busy day'
9
 mark s 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

Does lunatic imply madness? These are totally sane people who are killing people in the name of Islam.
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to mark s:

I think they are idiots and maniacs, whatever that implies
 toad 26 Jun 2015
In reply to dek:

I suspect the Isis attack on the Kuwaiti mosque won't fit your narrative
1
In reply to redsonja:

Not sure that labelling them with words whose history is as terms of abuse for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems really adds much to the debate, to be honest.
4
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

my point was that people have been killed and someone flippantly commented on how busy they have been. I wasn't aware that people with mental health problems are called idiots and maniacs. that's not what I meant. But good old UKC twists what people say
In reply to redsonja:

I took the comment you refer to as a bit of gallows humour. Of which there is a long tradition and which i dont think is inappropriate given the circumstances.

Not sure what you mean by twisting what you said. Just pointing out that the names you are calling them have contexts and history to them. And you also used the word lunatic, which i thought would be fairly widely recognised as a term of abuse for people with mental health problems. If you just mean they are bad people, we can all agree on that, we don't need to use that sort of language.

I don't know how much that helps us though, in the face of horror like this. Gallows humour may not be your taste, but its a legitimate way of try to deal with this, when nothing much else is likely to make a difference
2
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

well I don't know how 'gallows humour' helps either. I just wrote what I felt at the time. sorry. I won't bother again
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

> well I don't know how 'gallows humour' helps either.

Lightening the mood while recognising the seriousness of the matter. It does require people to have a sense of humour to be effective.
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

when it comes to people being killed by terrorists, sorry but my normally great sense of humour is sorely lacking.
1
In reply to redsonja:

In many respects, life is grim. People die in plane and car crashes, from violence of all sorts, from any number of horrible diseases. Most of which is out of our control.

'In the midst of life we are in death'

Laughing in the face of this, and at those who would seek to make us live our life in fear, is one way that helps make the knowledge that we will one day have to face our end, be it at the hands of terrorists, accidents, or illness, bearable.

Sorry you cant see that for now, but its a feature of our species that's been around a long time, probably since we developed an awareness of how short and arbitrary our brief lives are....
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I find this sort of thing shocking, not funny. My way of dealing with it is to think of these people as lunatics. Sorry if that's different to your way of dealing with it, which seems to be to laugh. I wonder if you had lost loved ones to terrorists if you would still find it funny?
 dek 26 Jun 2015
In reply to toad:

> I suspect the Isis attack on the Kuwaiti mosque won't fit your narrative

Does it fit Yours?! Care to remind us why the RIP wants to turns the middle east, into an outdoor abbatoir?
 Phil Murray 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

What a stupid , PC response to redsonja. It's not a "debate". She wrote what she felt, and I feel the same way. Do we have to pass some sort of UKC Forums "PC" / "100% literally accurate" descriptive entry exam before we post, or suffer the inevitable consequences?

I am old enough to remember being called a "spastic" in the playground - and calling other small boys "queers" & and "spackkos". So hang me - be my guest. Also if I make any grammatical error's . Go on! there's one for you to start with rightaway.

To redsonja: "I won't bother again" - I know exactly how you feel. I often feel the same way on here.

People are murdered, today. Probably in the name of Islam - the "religion of peace". Squabbling / quibbling over whether or not a term that first comes to mind is "PC" or not, is quite frankly, pathetic. Get over yourself. Really.

No wonder UKC Forums has a bad name amongst my climbing mates.
2
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to Phil Murray:

Thanks Phil. Funnily enough, I just posted a reply to you on 'does UKC need a group hug'.
 dek 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

> Thanks Phil. Funnily enough, I just posted a reply to you on 'does UKC need a group hug'.

It was only the 'Egg' nobody bothers about his longwinded, wittering tripe. You carry on Sonja.
2
In reply to redsonja:

There you go again- 'lunatics'. Ive already explained that this is a term of abuse for people suffering from mental illness

Whatever else these people are, they are not suffering from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression or any other mental illness. They are doing bad things, but are responsible for their actions. Equating 'carrying out acts of violence that I find shocking and can't understand' with being mentally ill, which you are doing by using the term lunatic, whether you intend to or not, is perpetuating stigma. Whatever our disagreements over the place of gallows humour in the face of acts of evil are, please stop doing this.

As to my reaction if I'd suffered directly- it may be different, I don't know. I'm sorry if you have, and that is the reason for the discomfort this appears to be causing. I have no intent to offend, or distress.

But it doesn't alter the fact that since time immemorial one way people have adopted for dealing with the shadow of the reaper is to laugh in his face. Humour as a way of facing the unfaceable may be uncomfortable, but when nothing else can help, it can at least make the place more bearable

2
In reply to Phil Murray:

Nasty.

Do you go around using racial slurs too, or just ones that pick on disabilities?

If not, what's the difference?

And- its not just PC nitpicking. The attitude that hard to explain acts of violence = mental illness is a widely held one. It gets in the way of understanding what really drives people to do things like this, and it has real consequences for people living with mental health problems, who end up being assaulted by people who think like that. I make no apologies for pointing out that its unacceptable.
5
In reply to dek:

Have a nice day, Dek, its always good fun sharing the boards with you...
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

oh well, now you've told us, now we know
In reply to redsonja:

Reading bbc website now, at least 36 dead in Tunisia, 25 in Kuwait. Sickening.

There's a time and a place to make a stand on the use of language about mental health, and I accept this is not it.

A sad day.

Best wishes everyone

Gregor
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

and a guy in France had his head cut off and put on a fence with Islamic writing all over it.

whatever the politically correct term to call the person who did this, I think to laugh about it is pretty sick
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

No one is laughing about the act. It's laughing at the human condition generally.
OP dale1968 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja

> whatever the politically correct term to call the person who did this, I think to laugh about it is pretty sick

Who's laughed about it?

A lot of difference between a flippant. Remark and having a ' laugh about it'
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968:

no-more-scotch-eggs
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:
Assuming you are not trolling, have a read

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallows_humor
Post edited at 18:31
OP dale1968 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:
Really don't think he's rolling around in fits of laughter, he seemed to me to be explaining that sort of humour
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968:

it might be appropriate in some cases, but not today
1
In reply to redsonja:

Not laughing. Just accepting that the comment upthread by bjartur was a fair response to the news. Dale sums it up. I doubt if anyone actually laughed out loud on reading it, but it wasn't 'disgusting'

Anyhow, sorry for derailing the thread. And sorry if an impression that there are people sitting round giggling about this was created; its not like that at all,

Best wishes

Gregor

 Yanis Nayu 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Not sure that labelling them with words whose history is as terms of abuse for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems really adds much to the debate, to be honest.

You get the award for PC comment of the day for that one!
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Probably...!
In reply to redsonja:

...and just a final thought- given that your initial reply to me you complained of me twisting your words, what do you make of this-

I object to a comment being called 'disgustingly flippant', and give some context about gallows humour, and you state that I'm laughing at a decapitation.

Are you sure that you've not just done what you accused me of?

Anyway, have a good weekend, and I hope the news is better tomorrow than its been today,

Gregor
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

Thinking of them as 'lunatics' is lazy and inaccurate, and is actually not helpful at all as it prevents a proper analysis of what's going on - and so what to do to stop it.
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

you said something about laughing at those who make us live in fear. I objected to that in just the same way you objected to my comment 'disgustingly flippant' and some other PC stuff. Until you told me, I didn't know the word 'lunatic' had another meaning. ok so, i'm thick. but at least I have some compassion
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

what do you think of them as?
1
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I remember one time some comedian from iran, (can't remember his name) said we shouldn't call them terrorists, but should call them 'nancy boys', and just laugh at them. what do you think about that? is nancy boys a PC term that shouldn't be used?
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

Not mentally ill.

Maybe Islamic fundamentalists would be a good starting point?
1
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

I didn't say they were mentally ill
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:
I think you're getting confused, as I assume you mean non-PC? 'Nancy Boys' is in the same vein as using 'gay' as an insult in my books. Using the shorthand of calling something 'PC' just looks like a right-wing tinged dismissive slur against just avoiding using language that's offensive to certain groups of people. Do you think not being able to use the word nigger is just PC gone mad?
Post edited at 20:06
1
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:
Erm, didn't you call them lunatics? Do you know what that word means and the history to it?

Post edited at 20:05
1
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

They pretty clearly are mentally ill. Sane people don't set out ti inflict carnage and pain on innocent bystanders. Lunatic is an entirely reasonable description I would say. Although not one that helps prevent future attacks perhaps.
1
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

yes, but as I have said several time, I was unaware that lunatic meant mentally ill. you call them what you want and i will think of them how I want
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:
Wow, that's amazing you can diagnose mental illness like that.

So, sane people don't set out to inflict carnage and pain on innocent bystanders then? So, all the WW2 bomber aircrew (amongst many others) were insane by that token then?
Post edited at 20:12
2
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

No, that wasn't the the bombers aim.

You think someone who decapitated a stranger is sane? OK. I don't.
1
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

me neither. and it can't really be compared to a WWII bomber squadron
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

Don't get confused again, I wasn't comparing it to a WW2 bomber squadron. I asked a question in response to his quip that all those who set out to inflict carnage and pain must be insane.

Which isn't how the law sees it either, so seems a bit odd he does.
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:
So if they're insane are they responsible for their actions? And if so why, seeing as they're mentally unwell in your estimation?
Post edited at 20:18
In reply to JayPee630:

Any form of warfare is insanity, any justification that we need to kill people to stop people killing people is insane. War is insane. Polititians who make up dodgy dossiers about none existent weapons are criminally insane, and prosecussion of those criminals would be a good place to start undoing this sorry mess and start building for the golden future of peace, oh yeah and anyone who doesn't understand 9/11 was an inside job is also insane.

3
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

Possibly. Not too bothered. They shouldn't be on the streets either way.
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

Wow, that's a coherent argument MG.

And how did 9/11 as an inside job suddenly make an appearance, FFS.
1
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:
> Wow, that's a coherent argument MG.

Well I agree locking up insane murderers does have some coherence, yes.
Post edited at 20:26
 Yanis Nayu 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:

No,it's not just you. Nobody sent me the memo either which said that calling a load of murderers lunatics was more worthy of debate than the acts of the murderers themselves.

I can't help thinking that if people want others to change their use of language, adopting a less sanctimonious, bullying and preachy tone would be more productive.

Don't let them get you down.
 FactorXXX 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

Erm, didn't you call them lunatics? Do you know what that word means and the history to it?

To most people, the word has evolved from the precise definition that you are referring to and is now more akin to calling someone 'a bit of a nutter', etc. Same applies to the terms 'idiots' and 'maniacs'. So, to call someone that chops someone's head off and plonks it on a fence a 'lunatic', 'idiot' or 'maniac' is pretty much spot on.
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:
Yes, I accept it has a dual usage, but the root is still there, and anyway, it then moved on to people actually saying they were mentally ill.

My argument is that to say they are insane it is actually detrimental to understanding why this is happening, and actually let's them and the ideology that drives them off the hook. This needs to be understood to be beaten.
Post edited at 20:57
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

I think it was you who used the words mentally ill
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to redsonja:
FFS, yes as you used lunatic, and I was trying clarify.

Anyway, I accept you didn't know the meaning or root of the word lunatic, but now you do you still seem to say they're insane/mentally ill? Is that the case?
Post edited at 21:01
1
 FactorXXX 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

My argument is that to say they are insane it is actually detrimental to understanding why this is happening, and actually let's them and the ideology that drives them off the hook. This needs to be understood to be beaten.

They've obviously got some mental health issues, otherwise they wouldn't be so readily susceptible to be 'brainwashed' to carry out some of the acts they do with no apparent guilt.
Whether or not they would be classed as having a mental disorder serious enough to render them not to be in control of those actions is another matter...
1
redsonja 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

I think they're lunatics and idiots and maniacs and you can derive from that what you want. anyone who cuts someones head off and scribbles all over it or puts someone in a cage and burns them alive is evil beyond description and in my opinion makes them maniacs
1
 JayPee630 26 Jun 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

I agree some probably have (statistically if nothing else), although again I think saying they've been 'brainwashed' is lazy rather than critical thinking and probably inaccurate for most.
1
 FactorXXX 26 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:
I agree some probably have (statistically if nothing else), although again I think saying they've been 'brainwashed' is lazy rather than critical thinking and probably inaccurate for most.

So what's your explanation for why someone leaves the comfort of the UK, travels 1000's of miles to live in basic conditions and then either kills themselves and/or kills others in a barbaric fashion?
Leaders of extremist groups have been using people like this for millennia. People that are easily coerced into doing acts that others wouldn't do. They might not have a 'serious' mental health condition, but there is definitely something wrong with their wiring somewhere...
Post edited at 22:55
1
 MG 26 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968:

Add drowning people in cages while filming to the list...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/26/islamic-state-tunisia-...
In reply to redsonja:

> I think they're lunatics and idiots and maniacs and you can derive from that what you want. anyone who cuts someones head off and scribbles all over it or puts someone in a cage and burns them alive is evil beyond description and in my opinion makes them maniacs

Well, the thread derail appears well and truly to have developed a life of its own, so I might as well come back in

A declaration of interest: my work is in the field of mental health. So my issue in this is not one of political correctness. It is seeing the very real discrimination, stigma, and prejudice that people I work with experience on a day to day basis.

There is a widely held view, evident from some posters on this thread, that doing bad things, expecially violent things, is a sign of mental health problems. Around that, there is the use of pejorative terms for people with mental illness as terms of abuse towards people who have done things we find hard to understand, and that make us angry. The wider impact of this is that large numbers of people believe that people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (=manic depression- which mania is a symptom of- and so 'maniac') are inherently dangerous and not able to be part of society.

I'm pretty certain that the people that carried out the atrocities in Tunisia and Kuwait were not mentally ill. They were, in all likelihood, as sane as the people reading this thread. As were the 9/11 hijackers, and the 7/7 bombers. They were evil, but that is not the same as being ill, except in the minds of the bigoted. Using terms of abuse to describe terrorists that imply mental illness caused their actions both downplays the culpability and evilness of the terrorists, and smears people who genuinely have severe mental disorders, adding to the stigma they already experience.

The terrorists are bad people, who do bad things. Call them names if you want, if it makes you feel better. That's entirely fair enough, they are scum, who should rot in hell for eternity, if such a place existed. But please stop using abusive terms that equate being ill with being a terrorist. There are plenty of terms of abuse left you can still use.

It is really rather disappointing that, having explained all this already, posters are still freely using the terms nutter, lunatic, maniac. It's as if it was explained why the terms paki and nigger were not really acceptable, and people just went on doing it. You wouldn't, would you? Well why is it ok because maniac, nutter, and lunatic mean mentally ill?

The capacity of human beings to behave in ways that are revolting, appalling, and evil, never ceases to surprise me. From concentration camp guards (Godwin's, I know), to stalin's and pol pots thugs murdering millions, to American administrations sponsoring state terrorism in Central America, to the hell on earth of Somalia, south Sudan, Syria, to the everyday mundane evil of child abuse happening on an industrial scale across the towns and cities of Britain, we are capable of boundless depravity. But there is one common theme there- none of these atrocities were carried out by people with severe mental illnesses. So why on earth, when it comes to expressing how disgusted we are at their behaviour, do were turn to the language of mental disorder?

Why? Because it makes us feel better. It's mad people that do bad things. They're different from us, and I'm not mad, so I couldn't do something like that. We can tell who they are, by their madness, and we can do something about them, stop them walking the streets.

Except that it isn't like that. The soldiers that massacred Muslim kids at srebrenica, , or Vietnamese kids at Mei lai, weren't mad. They were normal young men, who did unspeakable things because of the situation they were in. And the young men carrying out whatever the medieval atrocity of the month is in the Islamic state aren't mad. They know exactly what they are doing. And they are fully responsible for it. I hope they see the inside of a court, where it is shown to them that the law of man does indeed carry more authority than the law of god,

Best wishes
Gregor
1
Lusk 27 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I'm pretty certain that the people that carried out the atrocities in Tunisia and Kuwait were not mentally ill. They were, in all likelihood, as sane as the people reading this thread.



You reckon?!?!?!

Which mad suicide mission have they got lined up for you then?
3
In reply to Lusk:

<sigh>

Ok, which one of these have they got then?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10_Chapter_V:_Mental_and_behavioural_di...

I might just about give you F60.2 (dissocial personality disorder) for some of them.

But other than that, you're just going to have to get used to the idea that being an evil bastard isn't a medical diagnosis.
2
 marsbar 27 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Edit just re read your post.

It fits well in some cases. I don't know that classifying a disorder is or should be the same as removing responsibilities.

It does seem to me that generally the issue is a very extreme view on " us and them " and an ability to dehumanise "them".

Anyway.... This is off the point, bad things happening.

The WHO's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition (ICD-10), has a diagnosis called dissocial personality disorder (F60.2):[8][9]

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others;
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations;
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;
Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;
Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment;
Marked readiness to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
The ICD states that this diagnosis includes "amoral, antisocial, asocial, psychopathic, and sociopathic personality". Although the disorder is not synonymous with conduct disorder, presence of conduct disorder during childhood or adolescence may further support the diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder. There may also be persistent irritability as an associated feature.[9][10]
Post edited at 01:54
1
 JayPee630 27 Jun 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

I think putting the factors for IS down to brainwashing is ridiculous, and you're talking about a fraction of the people that make up it's ranks when you talk about the people from overseas who have gone there. What about the thousands of people from Iraq and Syria that have joined? Are they all brainwashed too, or are there complicated geo-political, cultural, and religious factors for them joining?
1
 JayPee630 27 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Excellent post, thank you.
1
 wbo 27 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968: so you really believe this is a mental health problem rather than these guys deciding they're at war with a decadent and depraved west?

1
 JayPee630 27 Jun 2015
In reply to wbo:

It's really odd isn't it? No serious commentator or writer on this stuff thinks the factors for IS are down to mental health, but myriad complicated and long standing issues globally. But here on UKC a few folks have it all figured out... they're all just nutters, end of conversation.
1
 mark s 27 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968:

Back on topic
What a f*cked up world we live in when people think its ok to kill someone because they don't follow the Koran. Wouldn't wipe my arse on it,let alone read it.

Tunisia will die on its arse now,it relied on money from tourists. Isis wouldn't be so powerful if people on the ground didnt support them.
 MG 27 Jun 2015
In reply to wbo:

It can be both, you know. I think those who decapitate strangers have mental problems by any sensible definition. That doesn't mean there aren't myriad other problems and reasons.
 MG 27 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:
It was suggested as one reason in the article by Freedland linked on the other thread.
Post edited at 08:51
 Dr.S at work 27 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

> It can be both, you know. I think those who decapitate strangers have mental problems by any sensible definition. That doesn't mean there aren't myriad other problems and reasons.

Being brutal to strangers is 'normal' human (and other species) behaviour, we may wish it not to be normal but its hard to characterise it as a mental health issue.
1
 MG 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Being brutal to strangers is 'normal' human (and other species) behaviour,

Where do you live!?

Sadistic murder is not normal at all.
 Simon4 27 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> There is a widely held view, evident from some posters on this thread, that doing bad things, expecially violent things, is a sign of mental health problems.

Which on occasion it may be. But that in civilised societies becomes the very difficult decision to determine if someone is fit to stand trial for their actions, or their mental health problem is so severe that they essentially cannot separate reality from fantasy.

> I'm pretty certain that the people that carried out the atrocities in Tunisia and Kuwait were not mentally ill. They were, in all likelihood, as sane as the people reading this thread.

Not only is it not accurate to describe them in terms of mental illness, it is not helpful either - in the sense of reducing the risk of this happening again. They were most likely not insane, not "un-islamic" and not irrational. These attacks seem to be part of an entirely rational strategy to destabilise Tunisia as a comparatively successful, more or less democratic result of the Arab Spring and a reasonably workable predominantly Muslim state that can nonetheless live with Western countries - and thus is a total anathema to Islamic hardliners. There is every reason to believe that this strategy (which included the museum attack a few months ago), will work. It is also entirely consistent with the brutal, violent teachings of Mohamed.

> The terrorists are bad people, who do bad things.

Except for the famous paradox of "the banality of evil". It is quite likely that if you met them out of context of this atrocity, not only would you think them sane (medical or colloquial definition), you might think them quite amiable (probably you would NOT go for a beer with them though). Stories of IRA murderers speaking undercover to journalists, reaching out to burp their babies while simultaneously justifying the "execution" of members of a swing band or a group of protestant workmen are legion, as are tales of Nazis boasting of their wholesome home lives with their wives and children.

> The capacity of human beings to behave in ways that are revolting, appalling, and evil, never ceases to surprise me.

"Cruelty hath a human face
and rage the human form divine
and curiousness the human dress"

On the other hand, the term "evil" is almost as misleading as describing Islamic or any other terrorists as "nutters". Some proportion of the population, say 5% will always act in a harmful, sometimes very harmful way. 5% will always be "saints" and will never do any harm and much good, even to their personal detriment. The rest of us, the vast majority, will act tolerably well in a benign society and behave like monsters when the surrounding culture is monstrous. I strongly suspect that these killers are from the pliable and influenceable majority, not from the tiny extreme fringes.

> Why? Because it makes us feel better. It's mad people that do bad things. They're different from us, and I'm not mad, so I couldn't do something like that

Agree, it is a major category error and it grossly distorts any rational strategy for dealing with them. It dehumanises them as much as they dehumanise their victims.


 Dr.S at work 27 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:
> Where do you live!?

Somerset

> Sadistic murder is not normal at all.

Where do you live?!

That aside - yes we do not consider this behaviour socially acceptable, we consider it morally indefensible - but that does not make it abnormal behaviour for humans. Look around the globe, or back at the history of the UK, violently unpleasant killing of Humans is something Humans do. Are all the people who have done this down the years 'ill' or do they just not conform to our societal standards?

Slavery, persecution of homosexuals, judicial killing, physical mutilation as punishment, Prima Nocta, rape within marriage, rape, paedophilia, infanticide, colonisation, cannibalism, Female genital mutilation, enforced sterilisation....... All horrible things, which we now consider abhorrent in fairly civilised society, but which have been considered or are considered normal behaviour in others.

Post edited at 09:22
In reply to MG:

> It can be both, you know. I think those who decapitate strangers have mental problems by any sensible definition. That doesn't mean there aren't myriad other problems and reasons.

Well, I posted the link to the ICD classification of mental disorders- that's the WHO classification- which one do they have?

Like I said, perhaps dissocial personality disorder in some cases, but that's just a medical shorthand for 'we think you're a bad person', its not an illness.

Sadly as others have pointed out as well, a propensity to violence seems to be present in very many of us. Psychology experiments have shown this for decades- google the milgram experiment if you're not already aware of it. Pinker's 'better angels of our nature' makes the case that this tendency to violence is being reduced by the societies that we live in, but it hasn't gone away; its therefore no surprise that when people who would do such things are removed from a context that makes it difficult to one that positively encourages and even requires it, that really nasty things start to happen.

It the risk of sounding like a broken record, that doesn't mean that the people doing it are mentally ill,

Best wishes

Gregor
 FactorXXX 27 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

I think putting the factors for IS down to brainwashing is ridiculous, and you're talking about a fraction of the people that make up it's ranks when you talk about the people from overseas who have gone there. What about the thousands of people from Iraq and Syria that have joined? Are they all brainwashed too, or are there complicated geo-political, cultural, and religious factors for them joining?

Well, I was referring to the western nationals that have left their native country to join ISIS and aren't these people being radicalised, which is effectively the same as being 'brainwashed'.
As for more local people joining ISIS, then yes, they might well joining for political and/or religious reasons.
The vast majority of both groups, will only act in the same way any soldier in any army would act. It's the minority that are willing to carry out such acts as beheading that have got some sort of mental health issues and the ISIS command structure rely on that character trait as have all extremist organisations in the past.
 TobyA 27 Jun 2015
In reply to JayPee630:

> It's really odd isn't it? No serious commentator or writer on this stuff thinks the factors for IS are down to mental health,

Hang on, that's not exactly true. When I get off my phone and onto a keyboard I'll try to explain why but basically within academic terrorism studies, there are serious studies looking at the mental health of some perpetrator groups.

 JayPee630 27 Jun 2015
In reply to TobyA:

Yeah, and I've read some where it's mentioned as *a* factor in some sub-groups within groups like IS, but it's not the sole reason which seems to be what some of the above posters are suggesting by just dismissing them as 'mentally ill'.
 wintertree 27 Jun 2015
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The vast majority of both groups, will only act in the same way any soldier in any army would act. It's the minority that are willing to carry out such acts as beheading that have got some sort of mental health issues and the ISIS command structure rely on that character trait as have all extremist organisations in the past.

Why does an orchestrated beheading of someone - as opposed to just killing them by gunfire - suggest mental health issues? To be clear I mean planned acts of terrorism and not spontaneous violence.

To me deciding to kill someone - by any means - to further a religious cause is the big abhorant step someone takes. The further step to mutilate the person, whom they've already decided to kill, purely for PR purposes - now that is not as evil as deciding to kill them, and could be viewed as shrewd, rational and sane thinking. Evil and abhorant, but with a rational purpose.

Being evil is not the same as being mentally ill.
 FactorXXX 27 Jun 2015
In reply to wintertree:

Why does an orchestrated beheading of someone - as opposed to just killing them by gunfire - suggest mental health issues?

It's not the actual physical act I'm referring to.
It's the whole process leading up to that point. The fact that some people are more susceptible to being convinced that conducting this sort of act is acceptable in the name of religion, etc. It's only a very small minority, but a truly rational person wouldn't carry out such acts no matter how strongly they believed in the particular cause they're involved in.
 FactorXXX 27 Jun 2015
In reply to the thread in general:

What exactly is 'evil' anyway?
It seems to have many different meanings and seems to range from a description of 'a bad person' to 'the work of the devil' and all manner of things between.



 marsbar 27 Jun 2015
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I cut off someone's head because my sky fairy told me to isn't exactly sane. It's just that religions (of whatever flavour) have become so normalised so we don't see it as insane when people do strange things in the name of religion.

1
 wercat 27 Jun 2015
In reply to marsbar:
people don't generally do that for what you deprecatingly refer to as a "sky fairy". they do it because someone with an excess of persuasive ability has convinced them that they have to do it. Sometimes those cult leaders or gang leaders terrorise them into it and sometime they use cult leaders skills to convince them. Some highly successful cult leaders, including those who persuade their groups into mass suicide may well have questionable mental health but they are evil anyway as they fully understand what they are asking the subordinates to do to others.


I think you are a teacher - "sky fairies" ? Do you vet what you say to kids so it is more reasonable?
Post edited at 13:40
1
 mark s 27 Jun 2015
In reply to dale1968:

When people on here discuss christian sky fairies almost everyone rightly joins in to mock the bull shit that is Christianity.

When people mock the bullshit that is Islam and Mohammad people get very defensive of them.
1
 Mr Lopez 27 Jun 2015
In reply to mark s:

For ten points, explain the difference between:

A) Discuss
B) Mock
C) Spout lies based in prejudice and trying to pass them off as facts

I'll help you a little to get you started.

A- Is perfectly acceptable
B- Is childish and disrespectful
C- Is unacceptable by anyone with a shred of intelligence and only used by idiots, backed by imbeciles, and used in hopes that other people with similar low IQ's believe the crap and joins the camp.

Once you understand the difference, try reading the thread again and classifying the posts according to this infallible criteria, You'll find out that people "getting defensive" are using A while replying to people using B and C such as yourself
5
 Mike Stretford 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> B- Is childish and disrespectful

You're attempting to mock Mark, so where does that put you? Of course mockery is not necessarily 'childish', sometimes it's very clever. So what if it is 'disrespectful'? Not everything deserves respect.
 marsbar 27 Jun 2015
In reply to wercat:

This is ukc not my classroom. Also, I mostly teach sums. I'm sorry that you find the sky fairy analogy offensive, but it wasn't aimed at any of the perfectly nice religious people. If they want to do nice things because God says so, that is not really an issue. I was just taking a step back and looking at the picture as an outsider to this world might see it.

As for why they do it I agree with you, but if you ask them why they will tell you it is the will of God. Is that sane, to do something bad because someone persuaded you to, but to say that it must be ok to do something bad because God wants it?
1
 marsbar 27 Jun 2015
In reply to mark s:

I clearly said sky fairy and religion of whatever flavour quite deliberately. It was not defending or attacking any faith.

As has already been said above, these people use religion as an excuse. IS no more represent Muslims than KKK or the IRA do Christians. I think that is worth repeating.
 marsbar 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Do you find my post mocking?
Bogwalloper 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> For ten points, explain the difference between:

> A) Discuss

> B) Mock

> C) Spout lies based in prejudice and trying to pass them off as facts

> I'll help you a little to get you started.

> A- Is perfectly acceptable

> B- Is childish and disrespectful

> C- Is unacceptable by anyone with a shred of intelligence and only used by idiots, backed by imbeciles, and used in hopes that other people with similar low IQ's believe the crap and joins the camp.

> Once you understand the difference, try reading the thread again and classifying the posts according to this infallible criteria, You'll find out that people "getting defensive" are using A while replying to people using B and C such as yourself

This ^^^^^ especially the sarky "I'll help you a little to get you started" bit is mocking Mark and cleary comes into your category B. And people wonder why everyone is leaving the forum.
UKC really is shit sometimes.

Boggy
 mark s 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Mocking religion is perfectly legitimate in my eyes.
Believe in the ridiculous prepare to be ridiculed
,if you don't like that I could not give a f*ck.

I don't suffer from a low I.q as a little starter for you,if you can reach from up there.
In reply to Bogwalloper:

At the risk of further derailing the thread, while I agree with you that mr lopez's post was mocking and the irony of this appears to have been lost on him, I don't think people are leaving because of posts like that.

If they were going to, they'd have done it years ago. I've been around long enough to remember the days of norrie muir, niggle, etc- you needed a thick skin in those days, and the flame wars had a real bite to them. If anything, the forums are too bland now, and people seem to take the huff too readily over trivial sleights.


Not intended as a criticism of you in particular, just an observation that the forums on the whole seem tamer, while at the same time people are complaining more about even reading other people's arguments,

Best wishes
Gregor
In reply to TobyA:

> Hang on, that's not exactly true. When I get off my phone and onto a keyboard I'll try to explain why but basically within academic terrorism studies, there are serious studies looking at the mental health of some perpetrator groups.

I'd be interest to read those, Toby. As I said up thread, I have a professional interest in the subject.given that many of the perpetrators are young men who are in the highest risk age of developing schizophrenia, it would be a surprise if none of them ever had mental illnesses. The 'lone wolf' decapitations such as what appears to have occurred in France would be a higher risk of that I'd have thought- while not suggesting that this was the case here. The organised attacks such as Tunisia do not appear consistent with having a severe and enduring mental illness though.

I would fully expect that the psychological profiles of IS activists would be abnormal in many ways by the time they are committing atrocities, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the aftermath of the involvement many of them struggled with a variety of mental disorders- especially if they were subject to coercion to participate by 'higher ranking' IS leaders.

But the suggestion that some seem to be making on here- that simply carrying out these sort of acts is by definition a sign of mental illness being present- isnt one i would recognise as plausible from my experience of dealing with patients suffering from these conditions, including in forensic settings,

As I say, I'd be interested to read the literature you mention,

Best wishes
Gregor

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...