Infanticide or family annihilator, depending who gives you the answer.
Ansbach explosion: Syrian asylum seeker blows himself up in Germany
- Thread starter craptakular
- Start date
Infanticide or family annihilator, depending who gives you the answer.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 26,523
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Well wish me luck. I'm going to Germany on Thursday for the f1....
Good luck. If you see someone refused entry... Run.... If you are refused entry... Duck and cover
Murder?
Or maybe an act of mercy?
Say they're isis prisoners and they know it's going to be a life of rape and abuse for thier 12 year old daughters before theyre brutal murder or death during childbirth complications caused by genital mutilation.
Then i think a murder suicide would probbaly be a sensible course of action
The fact the guy found the clothing the woman was wearing offensive was a cultural/religions issue, I'm not going to argue otherwise there. There is no evidence to suggest the fact he murdered her was because he was a muslim however. In the same way occasionally a native (christian/agnostic etc.) Brit will flip out and kill someone that has offended them this could equally have been something that was caused by a violent man. No evidence to suggest that either way.
It's not like the country he is from is particularly renowned for being violent and his actions would not be tolerated there either. Just because certain sections of certain societies use religion as an excuse to kill doesn't mean every follower of that religion is violent because of their religion.
Err, because that was politically motivated. Rather than someone flipping out. Not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Why should everything someone, that happens to be muslim, do be attributed to their religion rather than the personality of the person?
Either way:
Was irrelevant and incorrect for the points being discussed.
I'm sure there is a reason the police release this information. We don't know why/what their symptoms were. I'm sure you realise that the blanket names for certain mental illness can cover a myriad of things, and it wouldn't be the first (and won't be the last) time that someone with depression has murdered multiple people.
The major difference, for too many people, between all the times someone suffering from depression has killed people and the mall murderer is the mall murderer can be associated with islam. Unfortunately the reality is this seems to have more parallels with many of the US school shootings than any islamic related terror attack - a depressed, bullied loner snaps and decided to take people with him.
And please don't go conspiracy nut on this as there are already enough of those.
Last edited:
It shouldn't but the religion and its ethos on both the person and the culture the person grew up in has a massive bearing on their life.
You could have an atheist raised in the environments that are present in some parts of the middle east and they will end up highly dysfunctional and it would be fair to say that the culture and the way that some people teach Islam will have had some bearing on that persons actions.
I am not treating religion in isolation I think it is a multi-faceted thing. How religion is interpreted is dictated by the education and culture of the society in which it is interpreted but the religion also has a bearing on how people are educated and how that society is created. You can't take these things in isolation and you must accept that many components are at play.
I don't think it's fair to say religion causes it I don't think it's fair to exclude religion.
Most Muslims don't harm other people.
Most people with mental health problems don't harm other people.
How are we happy for one headline to be included and the other not. We can change your post above and substitute depressive with Muslim and there will be a trace of truth in both so why deny the one but not the other? It's not helpful is it?
I get what you are saying it's creating an us and them mentality and that is probably not good but the problem is if you sweep the effect religion does have to play in shaping these people then the right-wing people get more and more angry. And I think its not wrong at the moment to consider that attacks will go back the other way and it won't be some fundamentalist that gets hurt it will be some poor bloke and his family who have run a family business for 20 years without putting a foot wrong.
You could have an atheist raised in the environments that are present in some parts of the middle east and they will end up highly dysfunctional and it would be fair to say that the culture and the way that some people teach Islam will have had some bearing on that persons actions.
I am not treating religion in isolation I think it is a multi-faceted thing. How religion is interpreted is dictated by the education and culture of the society in which it is interpreted but the religion also has a bearing on how people are educated and how that society is created. You can't take these things in isolation and you must accept that many components are at play.
I don't think it's fair to say religion causes it I don't think it's fair to exclude religion.
Most Muslims don't harm other people.
Most people with mental health problems don't harm other people.
How are we happy for one headline to be included and the other not. We can change your post above and substitute depressive with Muslim and there will be a trace of truth in both so why deny the one but not the other? It's not helpful is it?
I get what you are saying it's creating an us and them mentality and that is probably not good but the problem is if you sweep the effect religion does have to play in shaping these people then the right-wing people get more and more angry. And I think its not wrong at the moment to consider that attacks will go back the other way and it won't be some fundamentalist that gets hurt it will be some poor bloke and his family who have run a family business for 20 years without putting a foot wrong.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,505
That's great and all but isn't that just a no true Scotsman fallacy? My understanding is that ISIS etc. are following a very real version of Islam. As Sam Harris said, what are ISIS doing that Mohamed, i.e. a conquering war lord wouldn't have condoned?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,314
- Location
- RG8 9
The terrorist idiots are following an interpretation of the Koran. Mostly due to Sayyid Qutb in the fifties. Read about him sometime, it is quite interesting how he came to get his views.
Actually Infanticide is the the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth
Family annihilation is correct but the technical term I believe is 'Familicide'
Last edited:
The problem is I just cannot accept that being Muslim/being from a Muslim culture (in general) is likely to make you a more violent person. If you can provide evidence for this then I'm all ears.
While certain areas of the world are more violent it's usually due to ongoing civil strife or other factors, rather than the religion.
I was thinking about this the other day after the comments in this thread and trying to come up with a metric to probe or disprove it. While nothing basic is going to do so thoroughly I'd argue something like murder rate is a reasonable metric to get started with. If a society is inherently violent then murder rates should be higher in my book. That's just not the case though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (Note, as it mentions in the intro it isnt just murder, but the majority will be)
First, some western countries:
(Intentional homicide per 100k)
UK - 0.9
France - 1.2
Germany - 0.9
Poland - 0.7
Austria - 0.5
USA - 3.9
Australia - 1.0
Latvia - 3.9 (Lithuania is a higher 5.5)
And now Morocco and adjoining North African nations (the guy we are discussing was from Morocco)
Morocco - 1.0
Tunisia - 3.1
Algeria - 1.5
And a couple from the Middle East
Syria (prior to the civil war) - 2.2
Iran - 3.9
Saudi - 0.8
And then I wondered what countries with vastly different religions but similar regional location looked like:
Indonesia (high majority Muslim) - 0.5
Philippines (high majority Catholic) - 9.9
And significant parts of the world (such as south/Central America and the Caribbean) can range from 30-70
As I said, I'm not disagreeing that the offense was created almost entirely due to the guys culture (and Islam is certainly a large part of that), but I don't believe there is any actual evidence to suggest the reason he went from being offended to killing someone was because of his religion or culture.
I don't believe Islam is inherently violent, as seen by the stats above, rather certain areas of the world, be it due to local culture or problems they have (for example the Caribbean and Central America and the drugs trade/corruption, and the Middle East due to the seemingly endless wars going on there) seem to be more violent (and in turn perhaps even the normal person has to be more violent just to survive).
Yes there are enclaves of violence within Islam that are preached by certain people, and that does make a subset more willing to use violence - but again how much of it is people with more of a perchance for violence being attracted to them and how much of it is violence instilled into people that were non violent prior to the preaching? And how big is that subset (or should I more rightly say how small? In reality it's likely to be tiny).
So to sum up my argument is that we cannot just assume the main reason he killed those people was because of his culture/religion. Yes, he was offended due to it, but the approach and subsequent crime...? We don't argue every time an American kills someone it is because of their culture (which, using just those stats above would appear to be a more violent "culture") and I don't think we can argue cultures with majority Islam are inherently more violent than Christian/non Muslim cultures.
Last edited:
At last, great to see.