‘The assumption that many extremists had mental health problems was wrong. Instead terrorists recruiters ‘vet out’ those with such conditions.
“Only 2% of members of terrorist organisations suffer from mental health problems compared with an average of up to 30% of members of the public.”
MI5
As terrorists roam Europe, and the world, the Sunday Times two weeks ago titled its editorial ‘Living with the murderous enemy within’ suggested that Merkel’s open door policy was ‘fraught with risk’ and imposed ‘severe difficulties on Germay’s EU partners.’ No kidding. As with 7/7, it says there are two fears…one of many more terror attacks, and that there would be a backlash and an increase in racial tension. Again, no kidding.
The BBC on the other hand blithely continues to campaign for open borders and mass, uncontrolled immigration, and naturally doesn’t connect such a policy with that ‘increase in racial tension’...whereas it rapidly and insistently associates Brexit with any hate crime it can. In other words it looks the other way or downplays the conflicts when genuine problems are caused by immigration but exaggerates and politicises hate crimes by blaming them on something like Brexit that it abhors.
In the same way the BBC instantly connected the murder of Jo Cox to Brexit and has blatantly ignored the fact that the killer had mental health issues whilst at the same time instantly claiming that any killing by a Muslim is due to mental issues…the police of course are also complicit in this…glaringly self-evident in the case of the Russell Square attacker in which there was an instant announcement that this was nothing to do with Islam and radicalisation but was a mental health issue.
That may or may not be the case but it is hard to see how the police came to such a conclusion and stated it so confidently almost as they turned up on the doorstep of the attacker’s home especially when you know the background facts…which might indicate there is more to this than a man with mental health issues, a term which covers a whole range of issues from the very mild to very serious problems.
Looking on the BBC website the stabbings in Russell square seem to have been tidied away…the BBC isn’t going to be doing a follow up and a background investigation of the killer.
The Mail though is keeping an eye on the story….and ironically it is a BBC presenter, a Sikh, so not afraid to speak the truth about ‘race’ matters, who upsets the carefully contrived police and media narrative that this was purely a mental health issue and that Zakaria Bulhan, the killer, was a devout Muslim who pledged support for Moazzam Begg, now one of the ‘leading lights’ of Cage…the extremist, Islamist group.
Scotland Yard believe Zakaria Bulhan, 19, a Norwegian national of Somali origin who moved to the UK in 2002, was not ‘motivated by terrorism’ but its officers are trawling his possessions for extremist material.
Neighbour Parmjit Singh, a BBC radio DJ known as ‘DJ Precious’ on the Asian network, said he had known ‘impressionable’ Bulhan for seven years, adding: ‘His mental health problems are a scapegoat.’
The 36-year-old said: ‘They said he had mental health issues but that was not the boy I knew.
‘The news of his mental illness is completely new, we never heard that. Honestly, I think his mental health problems are a scapegoat.’
Asked what he thought motivated the attack, Parmjit said: ‘I think peer pressure, hanging around with gangs. He wasn’t working, he was hanging around with Somalian boys and I think they had possible links to serious ISIS people – not directly, but they see all this stuff and are inspired by it.
‘Why would he attack an American woman tourist in a random attack? I think boys have put pressure on him to go there and do something. He was very impressionable growing up’.
Friends have described their shock at the knife attacks, describing him as a ‘teacher’s pet’ and a ‘devout Muslim’ who would love debating religion.
Online postings show a man named Zak Bulhan is interested in Islamic study, and in another he pledges support to former Guantanamo Bay inmate Moazzam Begg.
Rakesh Naidu, 18, said: ‘I can’t believe it, I’m just telling myself it must be a mistake. We used to get really competitive over grades in maths and debate religion all the time.
‘He was a devout Muslim and he would passionately defend it, but he respected my opinion too. He was a bit socially awkward but as far as I knew he didn’t have mental health problems.
The other side is that the attacker suffered from depression…
Today it has emerged that Bulhan, who was held miles from his south London home clutching a knife, appears to have been depressed and had tried to kill himself three times in the past six months, family friends have said.
One told The Times: ‘He has been very unwell. He wanted to kill himself. I saw his mother with an ambulance outside their flat and she said Zac had called it because he wanted to hurt himself. He’s called the ambulance about two more times because he was feeling unwell. His mother was very afraid’.
The police and the BBC have opted to only propagate the last narrative as the cause of this attack. This may be so but what was the trigger that made him do this? His sister was ‘westernised’ and suddenly became a very devout Muslim. What influenced her? Was it the same influence that lead to the attack by a man who was also very devout?
Such awkward questions seem to have been forcefully sidelined and buried in favour of a line about a man with mental health issues who acted violently because of them.
However people who deal in mental health issues will tell you that violence is very, very infrequently a result of mental illness….how do I know? The BBC itself says so:
The Myth of Mental Illness and Violence
Violent crime statistics tell a different story, though. One survey suggested that only 1% of victims of violent crime believed that the incident occurred because the offender had a mental illness. In the UK, between 50 and 70 cases of homicide a year do involve people known to have a mental health problem at the time of the crime – but these perpetrators make up a tiny minority of the 7 million people in the UK estimated to have a significant mental illness at any given time.
So people with mental illness are very unlikely to commit murder.
The BBC also notes that just because someone has a mental health problem it may not be the actual cause of their crime:
Those who have examined the issue in detail point out that the figures don’t prove that mental health problems actually led the offenders in prison to commit their crimes.
And
The trigger for these attacks may have been frustration, not mental illness alone. The study showed that only a minority of patients behaved aggressively in the absence of aversive triggers.
And yet every Muslim who commits a terrorist attack or an attack that on the face of it looks very likely to be one is ‘excused’ by the BBC on the grounds of mental illness. What is the BBC saying? What is the connection between Islam and mental health? The BBC seems to be suggesting that Muslims suffer very disproportionately from mental illness and that they are more likely to be violent if the stats are to be believed.
In the Sunday Times today the likes of the BBC’s claims about terrorism and mental health are rubbished as nonsense…by people who are steeped in the subject and don’t rely on a degree in English to help them interpret the world.
The Times reports on a specialist group in MI5 that helps to predict which terror suspect is likely to actually ‘go live’ and try to follow through on the talk and carry out a terrorist attack. The group is expert in behavioural analysis and seeks to identify those moving on from rhetoric to violence.
What stuck out from the report was this:
‘The assumption that many extremists had mental health problems was wrong. Instead terrorists recruiters ‘vet out’ those with such conditions.
“Only 2% of members of terrorist organisations suffer from mental health problems compared with an average of up to 30% of members of the public.”
The BBC ignores its own evidence about the ‘myth of mental health and violence’ and that of the experts in the subject.
Then again, believing devoutly in any religion in the face of all available evidence disproving them could be interpreted as mental illness, or at least an extreme lack of intelligence. Perhaps islam itself is a symptom of idiocy and mental retardation. Even then though, most Muslims don’t kill people and most religious people are not devout or fundamentalists, they accept science and logic and accept most of what their texts tell them is fable-based rather than factual. There are obviously nutters but why is it that fundamentalist Christians and Jews aren’t slaughtering people en mass? Sure there’s been Christian bloodshed before, but it was always led by corrupt or misguided authority, not usually sectarianism or tiny groups on the fringe as is happening with Islam. Meanwhile Buddhism, Sikhism, Ahmadiya and Hinduism have probably fewer violent theocratic incidents between them in their histories than Islam is responsible for in a year, so it can’t even be attributed to culture and certainly isn’t due to race. The issue is clearly within the teachings of Islam itself, and until we’re willing to tackle this honestly and intelligently, and not be bullied into silence by the victimisation lobby and reverse-racist pseudo-empathetic liberals, we will see far more misery. The only thing preventing worse from happening in Britain is that we’re fortunate enough to have an additional massive sea between us and Europe.
ALM “Then again, believing devoutly in any religion in the face of all available evidence disproving them could be interpreted as mental illness”
A traditional Communist view. BBC holding that view? Maybe. Or at least a Metro-liberalised form of Communism. Maybe, more likely not, at least not fully.
I have to take issue with this: “most religious people are not devout or fundamentalists, they accept science and logic and accept most of what their texts tell them is fable-based”.
That is obviously wrong.
Christians and Jews DO accept that ‘their texts’ (ie. the Bible) are NOT fable-based but divinely authorised and inspired and because of those texts, they endeavour to live peaceful lives, conforming to the core of the Judaic law, found highlighted in the Ten Commandments. That is also true of unbelievers in Europe and the west due to the influence of Christianity over two millennia. Moreover, that spiritual & ethical code desired by God is actually now followed increasingly around the world to the benefit of more & more people. There is plenty of evidence of that.
There is also evidence now that as the (for want of a better title) ‘First World’ de-Christianises it reverts to greed, barbarism and violence.
Your penultimate sentence is correct, ALM, and underscores a point that several have made on B-BBC.
The Communist view is that the only stance to take on religion is atheism.
The secularist view is that no religion should be visible nor influential within the public square.
The multiculturalist view is that all religions are morally equivalent.
The BBC apppears to accept and propagate all of the above, with an additional twist of Islam friendly bias.
The fallacy with each of those views is that “all religions are the same” until this fallacy is addressed and Islam stops being treated with favour then we can expect a continued and deepening crisis caused by the clash of civilisations.
“The secularist view is that no religion should be visible nor influential within the public square.”
Nope. You obviously don’t understand secularism.
Secularism is the separation of religion and politics. Secularism is the freedom of religion and from religion. The USA is the largest secular country in the world yet it is one of the most religious.
You, embolden, have so blatantly made up your own definition of secularism in order to add weight to your own pathetic and biased argument.
Pah!
Hello Edward, I refer you to the dispute over the plaque of the 10 commandments at the Oklahoma courthouse, removed following a law suit on the ground that state property (the public square in this case, is secular) The dispute over the ground zero cross also subject to litigation.
Also to French secularism which seeks to remove religion from the public square, hence disputes about catholic schools and bans on burkas.
Secularisms great problem is that Islam does not recognise the supremacy of any legal or political system over Sharia, yet secularism insists all religions be treated as equivalent and subject to secular law.
Render unto God what is Gods and unto Caesar what is Caesars, is a pretty good definition of dividing church from state……this of course is a teaching of Christ.
Demonstrating that all religions are not equivalent, and suggesting that states formed in historically Christian lands need to wake up to the differences between religions pretty quickly.
But ‘Pah’ was used, meaning he wins in debate. Apparently.
Do I detect some doubt as to Edward’s sub-pontine status?
[arches eyebrow] /;)
The reason the 10 commandments was removed from the Oklahoma Capitol was because other religious and non-religious groups were demanding that their own monuments should also be displayed, and not because of any anti-religious decision.
“…hence disputes about catholic schools and bans on burkas.”
So you would defend the wearing of the burka then. That’s fine.
No Edward I wouldn`t “defend the wearing of the burka”. But then I am not a secularist, neither am I a liberal and I do not believe that all religions and all cultures are of the same value to humanity….but then …you knew that didn`t you?
And the US example illustrates the point magnificently. All religion is not the same, therefore there should be no presumption that they should all be treated the same. The argument that “because there`s a 10 commandments on display there should also be other religious displays” is facile. Actually the case hinged on state land (held to be secular) being used to promote a Judeo-Christian artefact .
Discrimination between cultures and religions is o.k. indeed in the the current situation it is a requirement.
Mental my arse- the fact that our traitor calss refer to ‘radical islam’ as our enemy rather than ‘moderate Islam’ is irrelevant. In WW2 Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical islam. We must understand that the pieties and criminal lies of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace. Yes we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the BBC TV News, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call it appears that is supported by our ruling elities who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves. Fact to face, that Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. If war comes in a decade ot two, then Left-liberals have made it inevotable.
Mental my arse- the fact that our traitor class refer to ‘radical islam’ as our enemy rather than ‘moderate Islam’ is irrelevant. In WW2 Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical islam. We must understand that the pieties and criminal lies of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace. Yes we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the BBC TV News, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call it appears that is supported by our ruling elities who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves. Fact to face, that Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. If war comes in a decade ot two, then Left-liberals have made it inevotable.
The problem here is the very definition of ‘mental illness’. You can find definitive evidence of a fractured bone via an X-ray, but ‘mental illness’ is defined only by opinion. There is simply too much variance in such opinions for them to be regarded as definitive in any way.
Clearly, the BBC (and the Left in general) is lost in one of of its familiar logical inconsistencies. It disparages anyone who suggests the mentally ill might sometimes be dangerous and yet it leaps for mental illness as a convenient reason for violence in the next breath. We see the same thing again and again because it starts from a set of very basic errors which are magnified as they are expanded.
Given this unreliability, ‘mental illness’ isn’t really a very helpful notion at all. Terrorism may. or may not, be attributable to ‘mental illness’ but it remains terrorism regardless and it is undeniably motivated by religious and political ideas. It is they that should be explored and extirpated, not concealed with excuses.
Not relevant to ‘homegrowners’ but as far as refugee status goes a declaration of mental illness can make it a little more difficult to remove an individual and even enhance a claim, not to belittle those with genuine illness, but the system is open to abuse.
I`m sure the BBC will prefer it if we refer to them as “organic” terrorists…or “low airmiles or sustainable terrorists”.
Sadly that local carbon footprint that treads light upon Gaia is somewhat negated by the splattering of blood, bone and lots of acrid soot and smoke that hardly helps Mother Earth when they blow themselves up.
Good analysis and comparators above Alan…won`t forget that MI5 say they`ll be saner than the general population-except for that Islam chip of theirs-nor that mentally ill people commit less violent attacks that the general population( and thanks for reminding us that the BBC have always said this when SANE or Young Minds are in the building).
Final point-“national”…”origin” “resident”…come on Beeb how many MORE of these ill-defined adjectives are you going to need to try to avoid the obvious words “Muslim” “man” and “ex druggie with too many video nasty games to play”?
I`ve already thought of “heritage” “extraction” “migrant””citizen”-and there`s loads more of course…we`ll have to draw up a list of them for permutations for the BBC…
We all know why the left prefers to use labels such as “mental illness” whenever one of their favourite group are involved in any violent crime.
This term dilutes the impact of the crime and almost gives the impression that the perpetrator didnt really have a choice in his actions.
– he was forced to do it by all the demons in his head! After all most of us have had friends or family who have experienced mental illness in one form or another only difference being the people I know who have had mental issues did not have to express their distress by committing vile murder, mass rapings and sexual assaults etc.
Maybe I am being a little harsh here perhaps all these young men came to Europe seeking treatment and all these recent violent outrages are merely a cry for help. Maybe we should show more compassion!
It seems to me that in the BBC any serious crime committed by “asylum seekers” is first denied/ignored then if this is not possible then they look for reasons to excuse this abhorrent behavior.
This is all part of left wing, arrogant and patronising view that they can come out with any old shit to justify themselves or prove a point and the proles will believe it. Amazing the speed that Joe Coxs killer was declared a terrorist and the rest of these terrorist related incidents were declared the results of a mental condition.
In this case maybe the BBC should ask why we are allowing large numbers of people into this country who are suffering from violent psychotic episodes. We all know this question wont be asked because we all know (including the BBC) that the whole concept is a crock of shit.
If left unchecked this violence will eventually touch us all. My only hope is that eventually one or two of the close relatives of these left leaning politicians and media are personally touched by these crimes, suffering serious assault, rape, murder or similar. Whilst as individuals I would not want this to happen to anybody, there would certainly be some grim sort of “natural justice” if this were to happen. And it says it all about the caring left that they do not have the capacity to empathise with their own population only with the “assylum seekers” (see Sweden for the perfect example of this) Only then would their parents/mothers/fathers possibly stop and think for a minute what they have inflicted on us all.
Unfortunately by then it would probably be too late for the rest of us.
I doubt it would make the slightest difference to those paralysed by lefty ideology. The ‘thinking’ would go something like this: there is no reason to feel less compassion for the rapist/murder just because somebody close to me was raped/murdered. After all, he no doubt came from a deprived background and was abused as a child and to discriminate against him just because I am personally affected would be hypocritical on my part, would it not?
Somebody pass me a bucket.
True Too, what you say is very true (pun not intended). The examples are some of the rape victims of Sweden and Germany who start blaming themselves and their society for the depravity of their attackers.
Demon, yes, Sweden especially is suffering from mass insanity and unfortunately it doesn’t appear to be temporary.
OK beeboids , we will take you at face value and say that these terrorists are mentally ill .
Do you think they should be incarcerated ( in an asylum ? ) forever to keep the rest of us safe ?
Nibor
They tried that once but then resorted to ‘care in the community’. 😉
Hang on Alan – these German attacks, you know, the ones that now have verifiable links to Saudi comms and instruction, they were nothing to do with Islam. I cite as Exhibit A this, from the BBC website just now, not from way back before the inevitable truth was outed, now:
“Until, it turned out, that it wasn’t an act of Islamist terror at all – but rather a US-style shooting spree, carried out by a disturbed German-born teenager obsessed with right-wing extremism and mass shootings.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36985861
Seems legit. That it is so easy to believe of the BBC makes it more so.
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsfirst/status/762289860573032448
Notice how deceitful everything about the bbc tweet is:
The wording: “Impressionable 19 year old boy”, designed to gain sympathy for the ‘BOY'(??!!) Poor diddums.
The omissions: name, ethnicity, religion.
The photo: not of our impressionable young lad as you might expect, but of his victim. Wonder why?
It’s not actually a BBC tweet, but so easily could be.
It’s a shame Godfrey Elwick is now so well known.
The real shame this highlights is the near invisibility of the victim and family to the media.
Was the tweet a spoof? Hard to tell fact from fiction these days.
I believe so, yes. On both counts. Of course I may have been double spoofed.
Whichever way, it has served a valuable purpose, and the victim at least seen in happier times.
American tourist killed and Israeli injured in stabbing attack by Somali youth,
would be more honest.
Incidentally what are the odds of that in an “indiscriminate” series of assaults inspired by “mental health”?
So for the BBC 19 years old is still a boy, but they think 14 year olds are old enough to vote. Amazing hypocrisy from them as always.
Alternatively are they using “boy” in the perjorative term used in the old Deep South Democrat states to refer to black men of all ages? That is racist of them.
The above was in reply to peterthegreat.
“Living with the murderous enemy within”
As the Muslim population grows with each passing day, the enemy within will become more and more aggressive. In less then 20 years, I believe we will be the enemy within of a putative Sharia state.
This is the state that our idiot politicians, ignorant of history, have done to the UK. Even the threat of Nazi Germany pales into insignificance from the existential threat that Islam poses.
We are confronted by religious fanatics using terrorist methods . I don’t think that mental
health issues are a useful line of approach in tackling either aspect of this horrendous confection.
I don’t like any kind of religious fanatic. Christian fundamentalists are being just as illogical as Muslim fanatics but I wouldn’t say they are mentally ill. The ones I have encountered tend to be egotistical and often hypocrites but I wouldn’t say they are mentally ill. The main difference is that Christian fundamentalists don’t tend to be driven to murder other people , at least in the modern era. The only possible exception may be the right to life fanatics in the USA but instances of murder of doctors performing abortions have been restricted to one or two cases I believe. Muslim fanaticism is of a different order of magnitude . The explanation as ever, lies in the religion of Islam itself. Until the BBC and the left liberal elite in general accept this, we will never be on the first step to sorting this problem
out.
Islam condones violence against non believers . The only restraint on those fanatical enough to act is lack of capacity to carry violence out successfully or without overwhelming reprisal by the non believers. Usual military methods cannot be employed because Western states are too militarily powerful . That is why ISIS wants its own state. If it became powerful enough it would wage traditional inter state war to wipe out Christendom, just as the early Muslim Arabs did following the death of Mohammed. ISIS has never been strong enough to do this against a Western state hence its reliance on terrorist methods against the West . The terrorists are not mentally ill, however much we dislike their perverted logic. They are simply following what their religion tells them to do and using the only means at their disposal.
It would be nice if what erdogans doing in turkey could be reported honestly. Clear as day to me staged coup to gain more control. Torture rape murder for thousands of people. Does anyone care?
Theresa May allowed Muslim bomber wanted for jihad terrorism and death of schoolgirl to remain in UK
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/theresa-may-allowed-muslim-bomber-wanted-for-jihad-terrorism-and-death-of-schoolgirl-to-remain-in-uk
What the hell is the matter with our politicians? Will they not be happy until Britain is Islamic?
I have often wondered who is pulling the strings behind Teresa May. Always soft on deporting terrorists, despite speeches at Conferences where she called for less immigration she has tacitly supported open borders, and we await the findings of her ‘independent’ inquiry into the role of sharia here in the UK.
I trust her much less than Cameron.
And that article’s comments lead to this one:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/british-mps-face-booze-ban-as-parliament-moves-to-building-governed-by-sharia
It’s hard to believe that someone, somewhere is authorising this stuff. Allowing Islamic bonds to own such stuff, and then rent it out?? I am probably very naive, and this is probably much more widespread but we are walking into a disaster with our eyes open. Makes me very sad, and worried for my children.
Europe’s Last Chance
We Saved Our Democracy
This is just too good.
The excellent Douglas Murray on so-called Islamophobia and “The intellectual disease of America and Britain”.
Should be compulsive viewing for beeboids.
“It’s laziness masquerading as moral sophistication.” – Well said.
Thanks very much for uploading – most interesting. I really like Mr Murray’s theories about virtue-signalling and he raises the excellent point about Turkey and the Cyprus occupation. I will be looking for more programmes with Mr Murray!
Douglas Murray took part in a good debate on “Is Islam a religion of peace”, with the excellent Ayaan Hirsi Ali, below.
Both always manage to state their arguments with calm intelligence and dignity, often in the face of hysterical criticism (though not here).
Watched the first hour so far.
Could the BBC put on a debate like this?
I think not. The “adjudicator” would be jumping in to put the BBC “view” all the time.
And there again, the religion of peace DOES look after its own…… Unless, of course, you are a woman: http://madworldnews.com/judge-frees-muslim-gang-rapists/
Ughh, a horrible story. A 17 year old girl in Morocco kills herself after her 8 gang rapists are released on bail and threaten to put film of her rape on Youtube. I’m sure the feminists will be kicking up a big stink about this, perhaps even Harriet Harman herself will raise her concerns about the plight of women in Islamic countries….
This is the sort of thing the BBC will get their investigative teeth into I’m sure.
‘It’s one less jihadi bride!’ Nick Ferrari in furious LBC rant at death of Brit schoolgirl.
Are you still allowed to say things like that without having your collar felt in Big Brother Britain?
Not on the beeb you ain’t.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699307/Renounce-citizenship-Britons-join-depraved-ISIS-stateless-Nick-Ferrari
Listening to that interview it was interesting to hear how flustered Dr Usama Hasan sounded, it was almost as though he’d either had never experienced or, had never expected, being challenged so rigorously.
One very revealing moment:
FERRARI: “They went and helped the enemy, if we go back a few decades, if we go back half a century that’s like bringing in some Nazis”
HASAN: “ah…er….Ok but she was a child in this case, this is the difference”
FERRARI: “I don’t care!”
When all else fails Hasan goes straight for the sympathy/victim angle and Ferrari was having none of it, and I suspect neither are the majority of the British public.
“Ok but she was a child in this case”
Really?
From the British Army recruitment website:
“To join as a regular soldier you need to be at least 16 years old, although you can start the application process earlier, with your parents’ permission. If you’re under 18, you’ll also need parental consent to join.”
At 17, she was old enough to know what she wanted.
One less, IMO.