53x13 wrote:In what way have these two (non terrorist attacks, no one terror group admitted nor was ascribed responsibility) made anyone change the way they act? They are simply the result of persons with extreme mental illness lashing out at unfortunate and tragic victims.
Tanveer Ahmed attacked and killed the minority Ahmadi Muslim man, Asad Shah, because he found this Facebook videos to be disrespectful and blasphemous towards Islam. He travelled 200 miles to kill the man. This is obviously going to have a knock on effect, which I suggest was intended by the attacker, in that more moderate or progressive Muslims, especially Ahmadi, will be afraid to express views on Islam that may be considered by other less liberal Muslims as disrespectful or blasphemous.
It seems that the feeling that Ahmadi Muslims are a) not true Muslims and/or b) disrespect the faith through their unorthodox beliefs, could hold true with a number of Muslim groups in Glasgow, as they failed to attend an event against extremism organised by an Ahmadi group, when Sikhs, Christians and others did attend:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ch-glasgow
I'd also like to point you in the direction of the article below:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
By the definitions in the link, both the Jo Cox attack and the attack on Asad Shah could be considered terrorism, as they both fulfil the criteria in one way or another. Both attacks were intended to have an effect on society at large and were done in the hopes of changing behaviour.
It is true that terrorism is hard to define, but I don't think it necessarily requires being part of a specific group. Anders Breivik was convicted of terrorism; even though he was a lone wolf, his violence was obviously in pursuit of a political and ideological aim.
There is another interesting article here, if you care to read it:http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92340&page=1
53x13 wrote:Tragic they are: unforeseeable and completely unpreventable. I've had experience of mental illness in my own immediate family. People with such illnesses have no control over their actions. They are seriously ill, and have to be treated as such.
So everybody with mental illness has no control over their actions? I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue. Those who have no
control over their actions are typically sectioned or cared for away from the community at large. Most people with mental illness are considered responsible for their actions, until proven otherwise.
Mental illness may be a factor, but given that large numbers of people in the UK take anti-depressants (and therefore are considered to be mentally ill), by your logic none of them should be considered responsible if they brutally murder somebody.
People kill each other all the time; though it is not something most people do, it does not automatically relinquish people that do it of responsibility for their actions, even if they are known to have some degree of mental illness.
Maybe that is not the point you were trying to make, but it is the point your words convey.