Global terrorism thread

Not seeing anything on the BBC definitively linking the Manchester stabbings to Islamist terrorism.

From what I've seen and heard, the guy's being treated for a psychotic break. So, no: not Islamic terrorism.

He's getting locked up for evaluation, treatment and to be put on suicide watch, not yet getting charged (if he ever will).

Sounds like a cut-and-dried season-related, stress-and-drug/drink-related blow-up to me.

It's easy to forget, but 'tis the season for mental health to go critical, especially if it's been building (and getting ignored/ misdiagnosed) for a while. :/

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 2nd 2019 at 4:43:07 PM

It's being treated as a terrorist investigation, and the suspect has been detained under the Mental Health Act.

Yeah, about that... Common delusions these days come with a terrorist angle. There're several reasons for that. -_- Not just "online conspiracies tend to be terroristy" or "24/7 news should quit the glamour, already" or "I wish cells would quit targeting people who need real help more than they do encouragement to descend into destructive spirals" or "fucking trolls".

I strongly doubt Mr Stabby-Stab was deep into ISIS or whatever. I don't doubt that his browsing history raises several flags, however.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 3rd 2019 at 11:32:34 AM

At that point there’s essentially no distinction between this and a terrorist incident.

Lone wolf attacks are the current weapon of choice for terrorist groups. Just because they don’t have all the aspects of a traditional terrorist attack (a terror cell, overseas training, actor being part of a formal hierarchy) doesn’t make them any less terrorism.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 2nd 2019 at 10:47:47 AM

You should tell the GMP that then.

It depends on how you define terrorism. Currently, it most often seems to be "whenever a crimminal says he has a political motive" regardless of whatever other motives or circumstances seem to be present. YMMV how helpful or informative such a wide definition may be.

Well, the guy in Germany might have mental health problems or not, but he clearly targeted foreigners, so unless they come up with a surprising twist, I categorize him as terrorist. I am sick and tired of white people attacking other people being categorized as "mental health problem". The moment racism is involved it is a political motivated act, period.

Wasn't that guy Iranian-descended himself?

Anybody can say they're doing an act "because they love you", "because of the children", "because of the suppression of heterosexual white males", "because the end of the world is nigh", "because jihad" or "because the cat told me to".

But, if the primary reason actually is "because your brain chemistry is severely beyond your standard baseline", the wiser course is to bring on the tanker of salt rather than label the act, e.g. a terrorist one.

To be a terrorist isn't just to inflict terror on other people because you forgot to take your meds for three months and subsequently turn sheepish upon getting back on them about all the stuff you came out with at the time. However sincerely held the delusion was, an altered state doesn't always equate to a profound political stance in baseline.

It's like suggesting that the drunk who jumps off a 20 storey building because they think they are Superman/Supergirl is suicidal. It's an act that can look remarkably like suicide, sure. But, the whole "being close to blackout drunk and in a state of delirium" part doesn't mean they exhibited thoughts of actual, you know, suicide before doing so. Thinking you can fly (or just being totally convinced you can make that jump between the ledges/ scaffolds) isn't "deciding to end one's life", even if it actually leads to it.

Accidental suicide isn't "being depressed for months and giving off the warning signs". Incidental acts of deluded, grandiose "greatness" that happen to involve knives and a group of people? Not necessarily as terroristy as the poor perpetrator might have even thought themselves at the time, even if they spiralled down to that over, say, a period of six months.

The drunk who suddenly believes they can fly for a very fatal five minutes can easily have been an alcoholic who should have been treated for years, but wasn't. Imagine how many close shaves an alcoholic can have over years... Eventually, one is likely to cut.

Edited by Euodiachloris on Jan 3rd 2019 at 12:18:39 PM

Except that’s entirely meaningless in the case of terrorism. Nice sentiment, but meaningless.

It doesn’t matter whether the weapon is a true believer motivated to violence by online extremism, or a mentally unstable loner motivated by violence by online extremism. Both are still terrorism, in both the legal and actual definitions.

So, motive is not important in defining what crime has been committed? That's news.

That isn’t motive. It’s a mental state. And no, that is not particularly important to certain crimes. The motivation was religious extremism, it doesn’t matter whether they turned to religious extremism out of mental instability or sincerely held belief.

They could bring up the issue of mental instability in court if that is indeed the case to try for a reduced sentence, but that’s about the best they’ll be able to do.

I’ll also point out we have no evidence of mental instability at this time.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 3rd 2019 at 4:18:21 AM

Mental states provide motive. As silly as it sounds "the cat told me to" is a motive. As is "I felt very hungry, so I went to the fridge and made a sandwich" — hunger is a mental and physical state.

Fatigue — mental and physical state. Falling asleep at the wheel might not seem to have motive, but trying to get back home to get to sleep because you are tired is. Getting behind the wheel to get home, though, would be a wrong decision, but one easily made. Because tired.

"I commuted an act of terrorism because of a number of factors beyond my control, one of them a likely break"? Isn't just a description of mitigating factors. If there is a break involved, that's its own motive.

Mental state provides a mitigating factor, not a motive. If he committed an act of terrorism because he was unstable it’s still terrorism, the instability might just get him a reduced sentence.

It’s a little alarming you’re so ready to diminish terrorism though. Based on what he yelled during the event that’s absolutely what this is. Zero evidence of a mental break at this time.

Edited by archonspeaks on Jan 3rd 2019 at 4:40:08 AM

The motive difference matters for preventing this happening again. We have to do different things to prevent a lone individual begin radicalised online and to prevent someone with a history of untreated mental illness from snapping and lashing out.

We’ve had previous instances of ‘tradditonal’ mental breaks occurring with the person shouting vaguely political sounding statements so as to attempt to appear more rational, it’s worth trying to differentiate the two.

Now if the police are calling it terrorism I’m going to go with them. If I remember right the knife tube attack that ended up similar to what Euo is taking about (it was a homeless man with a history of mental illness and he shouted random political things during his attack) wasn’t quickly clarified to not be terrorism related.

I'm hearing news of a shootout in a Los Angels bowling alley with "many casualties". Can any American Tropers confirm more about the situation?

There was apparently a fight at a bowling alley that culminated in a shooting. Three dead, four wounded.

So far it doesn't seem to be a terrorism incident per se. Just another bit of the gun violence that has become distressingly common in the USA.

Edited by M84 on Jan 5th 2019 at 9:33:47 PM

"Politically motivated violent crime" has become the default definition of terrorism. A mentally unstable person isnt guilty of it, though, just as they arnt guilty of murder, or anything else, because they arnt considered responsible for their own actions. But regardless of that issue, I think the catagory of terrorism is reserved for planned and calculated violent crimes. That is, there should be evidence that the perpetrator prepared to commit the crime specifically to achieve a political effect.

This means some nut yelling something about Allah as they assault someone might not be a terrorist, while members of a violent protest group would be.

20 primary schoolchildren were injured in a knife attack in Beijing, allegedly by a former janitor there.

As the article notes, this has been happening repeatedly for some reason.

It's really sad that part of me is thinking "it could have been worse if the guy had easier access to firearms." China has some pretty strict gun control laws.

Edited by M84 on Jan 8th 2019 at 6:11:10 PM

There's been a few by people disappointed in their life (as noted), a few by a Christian radical group and a few by Uighur radical groups. As the pressure has increased they started popping up, but it works for the CCP allowing for even more pressure.

It does not speak well of their internal security, though.

Years ago in Japan a similar attack was foiled by teachers wielding a man-catcher.

Teachers pin down knife-wielding man with two-pronged 'man catcher'

Wonder if China will start arming their teachers with similar things.

As far as attacks like that are concerned, it's practically impossible to predict or stop easily, unless a bunch of people jump the guy. They were all done with knives so speed, surprise and violence of action are always in favour of the attacker(s). Especially within large groups of people.

Otherwise PRC internal security is fundamentally designed to repress, not solve the issues that might lead to such acts.

Edited by TerminusEst on Jan 8th 2019 at 3:13:01 AM