Breaking News - woman beheaded by a man at her house in Edmonton

no you cant what idiocy - A almost every terrorist is differnt, and B how many known terrorists have actually been studied - and from which countires? what a stupid assertion.

and again -who knows, you are the one obbsessed with the cat, he also beheaded a british woman which you seem to be ignoring. why did they behead a british journalist? none of these matters make sense, which was my point. the only consistent factor is the background of islamic doctrine

name the last major US military base that was attacked and wasnt followed by a US military operation dark night the fictional movie you mean?

regardedless of what the media span, it would still draw the us into a fight more than killing of one journalist or aid worker- which is the excuse you were trying to make

media coverage doesnt determine us military policy, reality does.

no we were talking about the difference in the cases, i said there was little difference - the link in all cases was the islamic background, dont fully know yet the mental state of those in IS, but that may also be a factor. again no backtracking, jsut your lack of comprehension

no i didnt
again nowhere did i say an islamist cannot also be insane.



what, both mental and sane? Or sane but with no strategy? And IS, certainly. The murder? Eh maybe, like I have shown it has happened without Islam before.

i dont have a problem with psychology , i have a problem with your interpretations, because psychology is a study of sets of behaviours and linking to mental issues in people. terrorism is far broader than that, it can have political religious financial motivations, and it can involve various things, from murder, to no murder, jsut damage of buildings institutions etc. im only talking about this type of terrorism, ie islamic , (which in itself even has variation) and pointing out similarities ie the behadings and islamic influence.

killing a cat doesnt show he is insane (though it is likely he was) neither does killing a jounalist. im saying neither action had any logical purpose ( apart from that in the head of the culprit) IS beheadings havent frightened anyone execpt other journalists and aid workers who are out there- so thats pointless. it is has barely antagonisied us,seeing as we are still pulling troops out. if antagonism was a genuine motive- IS could lay siege to all embassies in all surrounding countries - they would get a military response immedialty. but they dont. they have no such action directed at us apart from a beheading - which was pointless. as beheading a cat

yeh, i dont take my opinions from movie scripts. we are not talking about a Mayor anyway, but an unknown journalist. killing a mayor or a senator would make much more sense, if you were IS. even an ambassador.

becuase it has rarely happened. not in the mid-east anyway, where IS are. it happened to minor camps in afganistan and US always responded with heavy military strikes.
again if your claim is IS are trying to encourage major US action, why are they jsut killing individual journalists?

what was the public opinion about uk going to war in iraq
tell me?

i said their mental states were likely similar, dont mis-quote me. to me someone who can behead a human being can be as insane as one who beheads a cat. to you it seems, thats normal behaviour

again nowhere did i say an islamist cannot also be insane.

no, both mental and influnced by islamic doctrine

They are not my interpretations. You clearly haven't read the article, it is talking about the factors that predispose people to radicalization and says that terrorists do not generally have any actual mental pathology. If you disagree with the research, come up with a better argument than simply calling its conclusions idiocy.



the context of the cat killing (screaming it stole his lighter) shows he was at least temporarily insane. As for the rest, for a start you are making the fallacious assumption that a plan not working means it was an illogical plan. Secondly it has created widespread calls for action throughout the western world, and has led to an increased military involvement from the US.

T
As for that last part, I genuinely can't tell if you are being intentionally dense. Lay siege to all the embassies in surrounding countries? They may as well stage a land invasion of the US. I think the embassies closest to IS controlled areas are probably in Bagdad, and if IS could have taken that already they would have.

just a quote I thought was applicable. The point is soldiers dying in combat is far less newsworthy than a civilian. I am sure if they could get an ambassador they would, but you can't deny that the Foley murder got more coverage than any soldier who died in combat in Iraq or Afganistan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/big-blast-hits-near-u-s-embassy-in-afghan-capital/ two days ago a suicide bomber killed two americans by an american military base. Was this front page news? No. If they are going for publicity, clearly executing civilians on camera is working. Maybe they would get a bigger reaction by killing more than individual journalists, but at the moment they don't exactly have the capability to do that. Of course there is always the possibility they are actually trying (and failing) to discourage us from getting involved.

Not that supportive. But do you think America would have gone to war in Afganistan if it wasn't for the support the war had because of 9 11?

"likely similar" is still unjustified and probably wrong. It is a well researched fact that perfectly sane humans will do awful things to other humans given the right influence. Beheading somebody is not an indication of insanity.

and yet you seem to be under the (incorrect) opinion that most islamists are insane, from the fact you are still arguing that beheading somebody means they are mental

possible, it it still clearly seems that the actual causative factor was the insanity (because of the cat thing)

US was already preparing action in iraq due to IS prescence. the killing of one hostage has not effected strategic deployment and action

its irrelevant if IS would be successful or not - you claimed their motive was to provoke the US, the quickest way to do this would be to attack their embassy. but they have chosen not to. they are not interested in bringing the USA over, they want to kill shias.
there is no logic in anyway you look at beheading their hsotage, in the same way beheading people in london, or indeed a cat is insane. but as i said form the being these are not normally minded people.
you seem at pains to accept the reality.

s i explained to you, foregin policy is not detmined by media coverage - obviously learning movie scripts parrot fashion has not taught you this. various military operations take place without any link to prior media coverage and indeed are not even known about by the media. your analysis is simplistic

a suicide bomb outside the gates is not an major attack on the embassy. if they had taken the embassy ( which is deemd as american soveringty) then the us would be forced to act.

america does want the government and senate wants, based on military advise. vietnam, bosia, sonalia, iraq, afganistan etc. again you seem to be in some cuckoo land where governments follow public polls and media stories to stage their military action.

indeed , but it does offer the suggesstion of islamic influnce, which in this case was shown, as well as IS

'most' is a subjective statement, certainly many of them are, equally many simply have tiny minds which are easily manipulated by sheikhs and other people in positions of authority.

no it doesnt. the cat could be a distraction, if he was only insane, he may have tried to eat the cat. you have to ask yourself what was his specific obsession with beheading.

so you think the killings and the public outcry it has caused have not and are not going to have any effect on US policy towards IS? Also, you just completely ignored everything I wrote in the section you quoted there. You know, the whole "research shows you are completely wrong about the link between terrorism and mental illness"

Are you even reading my posts? They can't reach the US embassy. I have no doubt they would attack it if they could, but they are unable to assault Baghdad. There is strategy to them killing the hostages, trying to either frighten us or anger us (how well that actually works is irrelevant). There is no strategy to beheading a cat because you think it stole your lighter, that is just madness. Once again, they are not insane. Refute the article if you are going to continue to disagree with that

I did not say foreign policy is determined by media coverage, but it is undeniable that it is strongly influenced by public opinion.

Well for a start you are completely ignoring the fact that IS is not in any position to actually take over a US embassy at the moment. Secondly my main point there was that an attack on US military personnel at a US building that killed two and injured others had far less public impact than the killing of a single reporter. If IS wants publicity, the latter is clearly the way to go. Yes taking over an embassy would result in a greater response, but that is outside IS capabilities. Killing a hostage is easy, low risk and high impact.

I am not saying that the public dictates military policy, I am saying it influences them.

so you admit you were wrong about the mental state thing then?

And I agree it could be islamic influence (although not necessarily), but the only reason he carried it out is because he is mentally ill. If hyothetically a mentally ill Christian decided to kidnap and crucify a random stranger, would you say christianity is to blame (as there is obvious christian influence in the act) or would you blame the mental illness? Because that is at most the equivalent here.

how on earth do you back up that "certainly many of them are" mentally ill? Because once again the research does not support that, as you continue to ignore. What the research does say is that people in certain situations become predisposed to radicalization. It is not a case of having a tiny mind, most ordinary people will do awful things given the right influence, like the Nazis. Again that is a well researched and accepted fact.

Why would he want a distraction? If he was doing it for Islam, he would have wanted that to be clearer. After all, disguising the point of a terror attack completely defeats the purpose of a terror attack. And if he wanted to pretend it wasn't due to Islam he would have avoided beheading altogether.

i have ignored it becuase its nonsensical. you cant establish all terrorists mental sate from one study, which i doubt even interviewed an islamists. your assertion is laughable. show me a global empircal study and i will discuss. and no the media reports the news and we get angry about it, but foreign policy is not driven by anger but common sense.

IS marched into a differnt country, they could march on bagdahd if they wished. they have already seizied some 30% of iraqi army munitions. their beheadings etc are a rather stupid throwback to 7th century islamic times., there is no logic or strategy attached.

public opinion =/= foreign policy as explained to you about 10 times.

they dont have to take over an embassy, the simmply have to make a major attack. they have rockets mortars etc, this would not be difficult. they may lose life, but who cares- you claimed the aim was to instigate the americans
. you are jsut trying to find a roundabout way of saying you were talking rubbish

no it doesnt

irrelvant, the west already knows about IS.

not at all, i clearly said both factors exist - you simply are unable to read.

partly , yes. you cannot ignore the significance that A he was muslim and B beheadings are big in islam and indeed current right now.

im saying beheading people is an insane act. you seem to think its normal behaviour, which is why isaid take a good look at yourself

i didnt say he was 'doing it for islam' i said islam was an influnece. there is a difference. a child copying an older kid punching someone is not ' doing it for that kid'

re-explaining every point to you is getting tiresome. please read everything 3 or 4 times before quoting me.

Remind me where you have provided any evidence whatsoever for your position? One study is a hell of a lot better than what you have given, why don't you come up with something linking terrorism to mental illness? I have provided evidence which you have failed to either rebut or provide counter evidence, that is not successful debating. And while not a massive amount of research has been done on terrorism specifically, indoctrination and the psychology behind atrocities has been studied for decades. If the Nazis were not mentally ill, I do not see why Islamists would have to be.

And if public opinion had no effect on foreign policy, why have we taken so long to respond to IS when it was clear at the time we could have nipped the problem in the bud a couple of years ago? It couldn't possibly because the government didn't want to start another war in the middle east because the public had turned against the last one?

if they could march on Baghdad, why don't they? They are trying to conquer Iraq and Syria, if they have the capability to simply take the capital they would have done it by now. In fact, looking it up the areas around Baghdad are actually contested by IS and they appear to be making their way closer to the Capital, but just attacking Baghdad and taking a US embassy is not something they could do as easily as you for some reason think.



"I did not say foreign policy is determined by media coverage, but it is undeniable that it is strongly influenced by public opinion." reading, try it some time

the embassy is in the middle on a capital city that they don't control, "simply making an attack" on the US embassy would be the biggest offensive they have ever conducted. If they took Baghdad that would obviously merit a great response, but if they did that it would be for far more than antagonizing the US. Killing hostages on the otherhand gives them easy publicity.

well that is just plain false.

We already know about Coke, doesn't stop them advertising. Killing the hostages made them more newsworthy, made them a bigger deal in the eyes of the western public. Terrorist organisations rely on publicity, killing hostages give it to them.

ah so you continue to argue in the face of contrary evidence with no support of your own.

I ignored the fact beheading was involved when a nutter did it to someone down the road, don't really think it is significant when another nutter does it. Especially when, and I can't stress this enough, he does it to a cat.


I don't think it is normal behaviour, but that doesn't make it indicative of insanity. Gassing people is abnormal, that didn't mean the Nazis were insane. Normal people do abnormally awful things given the right influence, this is a commonly accepted fact supported by decades of research that you are still ignoring. The fact you are continuing to say beheading somebody makes you insane is making it look like you are wilfully ignorant as to what insanity is. Hint: it doesn't mean "doing something I really don't like"


I already said that I agree that may be the case, here was responding to your bizarre suggestion that the cat was a "distraction", which I assume you meant would be him trying to disguise the Islamic nature of the crime.



oh there is the pot calling the kettle black