Mentally ill OR radicalized ?

[Sirona]

Germany: Police puzzle over motive of Würzburg knife attacker | DW | 26.06.2021

Germany: 3 people killed in Würzburg knife attack | DW | 26.06.2021

On June 26th, there's been a stabbing spree in the German town of Würzburg. The sources I cited are "old", latest reports say that an Islamistic background is "likely". What makes me sick is the political correctness game, religious fanaticism is not to be mentioned to prevent "counter attacks" against religious minorities. And if there is a connection to a religion it's usually stated that the perpetrator is "mentally ill" INSTEAD of religiously radicalized. Why can't it be both? Mentally ill AND radicalized? Does anybody know about the factors that make individuals more likely to commit religiously-motivated acts of violence?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wish more people could separate the adherents from the thing we call "the religion" itself. Don't target the adherents of a religion for the acts of their most fanatical members. If you want to do something constructive, and that actually makes some sense, go after the religion itself. Find out what it is within the doctrine that has some people taking it to extremes and talk about it, disparage it, and make sure it gets kicked around and discussed so that people know about it, and can make decisions on whether or not it has any business being a part of any sensible ideology. And the things that we generally feel don't have business being such should be openly targeted with scorn, ridicule, and shame until someone who can actually do something about it (herein lies a very pertinent issue - since there is usually NO ONE who can claim such authority) strikes that garbage from "the record."

In short: no one ever got physically hurt by a person attacking an ideology - so that's where any and all "attacks" should be directed, I feel.

 

[Stevicus]

Why can't it be both? Mentally ill AND radicalized? Does anybody know about the factors that make individuals more likely to commit religiously-motivated acts of violence?

It could be both. I guess it could be viewed as a chicken-egg question. Were they mentally ill first, and then they became more susceptible to being radicalized? Or were they mentally healthy first and radicalization is the cause of their mental illness?

 

[sun rise]

It could indeed be both.

 

[Martin]

It could be both. I guess it could be viewed as a chicken-egg question. Were they mentally ill first, and then they became more susceptible to being radicalized? Or were they mentally healthy first and radicalization is the cause of their mental illness?

I think it's more common for mental illness or instability to precede radicalisation and extremism. And sometimes people will be groomed because of their vulnerability.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's really insulting to mentally ill people. That's just the media's lazy excuse they use when they don't want to think about the truth of the matter.

 

[HonestJoe]

What makes me sick is the political correctness game, religious fanaticism is not to be mentioned to prevent "counter attacks" against religious minorities.

Do you have any evidence that was the case here? The possibility has clearly been commented on in the articles you linked and others I've seen about the incident. I do think it's a good thing that the reports you linked didn't go for the tabloid angle with extreme exaggerated headlines about "Muslim Killers" as often happens.

And if there is a connection to a religion it's usually stated that the perpetrator is "mentally ill" INSTEAD of religiously radicalized. Why can't it be both? Mentally ill AND radicalized?

Who said it can't be? In fact there is a quote from a minister in one of your links making exactly that point.

I personally don't see how someone could make this kind of attack without some kind of psychological issue and if they're under medical care for mental health (as was apparently the case here) it's going to be fairly easy to establish any links there. Extremist radicalisation is more difficult to confirm and work out the details of given it's the kind of thing that would be naturally hidden and could involve all sorts of different communications with different people. It's not the kind of thing the authorities are likely to be able to simply declare as proven fact so close to the incident.

 

[Martin]

It's really insulting to mentally ill people. That's just the media's lazy excuse they use when they don't want to think about the truth of the matter.

The truth of the matter could be that sane people wouldn't indulge in such extremism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The truth of the matter could be that sane people wouldn't indulge in such extremism.

Mental illness has nothing to do with political or religious extremism. Yes, it is very offensive, because it's using it as an insult and to distance "normal" people from it. Being homicidal isn't a mental illness, either.

 

[Martin]

Mental illness has nothing to do with political or religious extremism. Yes, it is very offensive, because it's using it as an insult and to distance "normal" people from it. Being homicidal isn't a mental illness, either.

I disagree, I think there is a correlation.

 

[exchemist]

Germany: Police puzzle over motive of Würzburg knife attacker | DW | 26.06.2021

Germany: 3 people killed in Würzburg knife attack | DW | 26.06.2021

On June 26th, there's been a stabbing spree in the German town of Würzburg. The sources I cited are "old", latest reports say that an Islamistic background is "likely". What makes me sick is the political correctness game, religious fanaticism is not to be mentioned to prevent "counter attacks" against religious minorities. And if there is a connection to a religion it's usually stated that the perpetrator is "mentally ill" INSTEAD of religiously radicalized. Why can't it be both? Mentally ill AND radicalized? Does anybody know about the factors that make individuals more likely to commit religiously-motivated acts of violence?

I don't see any poltical correctness here. In fact the state Interior Minister states that radicalisation and mental illness do not rule one another out, explicitly allowing for what you suggest, i.e. both at once.

As to your question, yes, we know a fair amount now about the factors that lead to this. In the UK this has allowed the police to disrupt a large number of extremist plots. Here's small example: What is Radicalisation? - Prevent - Safeguarding - Student Support Services - The University of Sheffield
There is a lot of literature on this topic available. One common theme, so far as I can see, is that it is a mistake to focus just on ideology. There is a great deal to do with individual social circumstances and experience that plays a role.

But tell me, where does the article suggest that "religious fanaticism is not to be mentioned to prevent "counter attacks" against religious minorities."? You seem to have made that up, as far as I can see. Or have I missed it somehow?

And why would it be a bad idea to try to prevent revenge attacks against religious minorities?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I disagree, I think there is a correlation.

Go find one and let me know.

 

[Martin]

Go find one and let me know.

The perpetrators of these attacks are often reported as having a previous history of mental instability.
Or are you saying the authorities exaggerate the mental illness aspect of such crimes, in order to minimise a potential back-lash against particular religious communities?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The perpetrators of these attacks are often reported as having a previous history of mental instability.
Or are you saying the authorities exaggerate the mental illness aspect of such crimes, in order to minimise a potential back-lash against particular religious communities?

I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they're doing. They've done other things with that same aim. For example: Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness

 

[Revoltingest]

It's really insulting to mentally ill people. That's just the media's lazy excuse they use when they don't want to think about the truth of the matter.

Radicalization is a disconnect from reality.
It appears to function just like psychosis.
So rather than "mental illness" being some diplomatic,
manipulative, & PC description, it's accurate...albeit
trimmed of the religious aspect.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Radicalization is a disconnect from reality.
It appears to function just like psychosis.
So rather than "mental illness" being some diplomatic,
manipulative, & PC description, it's accurate...albeit
trimmed of the religious aspect.

What? It really isn't. I have no idea where you're getting that view of it from. Radicals are just people who think that society needs more "radical" structural change, outside of what the present socio-political structure can offer. It literally has nothing to do with mental illness. Literally. Nothing. People with or without mental illness can be radicals.

 

[Revoltingest]

What? It really isn't. I have no idea where you're getting that view of it from. Radicals are just people who think that society needs more "radical" structural change, outside of what the present socio-political structure can offer. It literally has nothing to do with mental illness. Literally. Nothing. People with or without mental illness can be radicals.

The context isn't about all radical beliefs.
Their religious beliefs are highly dysfunctional
delusions, eg, the need to murder innocent
people because an imagined deity commands it.
There is nothing normal or healthy about that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The context isn't about all radical beliefs.
Their religious beliefs are highly dysfunctional
delusions, eg, the need to murder innocent
people because an imagined deity commands it.
There is nothing normal or healthy about that.

It's due to their interpretation of their religion, not because they're literally "hearing voices" or having actual psychotic episodes. I think people need to stop misusing health concepts just to make a point against those they disagree with.

 

[VoidCat]

It's really insulting to mentally ill people. That's just the media's lazy excuse they use when they don't want to think about the truth of the matter.

it's like those who say autistics cause school shootings. We are more likely to be victims of crime not cause it!

 

[Revoltingest]

It's due to their interpretation of their religion, not because they're literally "hearing voices" or having actual psychotic episodes. I think people need to stop misusing health concepts just to make a point against those they disagree with.

It can certainly differ from expressions of other mental illnesses,
eg, schizophrenia, in origin & symptoms, but the outcome is
still a mental dysfunction severe enuf to be labelled thus.