Yes Nicky.
Acting like a Terrorist would
Using a van
but then gets HIS gun
and shoots himself.

It might not be racist intent and it might well be backed up by past statistics but it is nonetheless (the literal definition of) prejudice. As in, pre-judgement, or jumping to conclusions before the facts are known.

Surely by now we should realise that a little patience and observation before jumping to supposition would be sensible? I mean... It would sure save a lot of eggy faces... :hehe:

Nothing to do with racism - as Muslims and Islam are about religion, not race. Pretty bored now how some insist on lumping them together as an ism when factually that is incorrect.

Well it's a good thing I said "it might not be racist intent" then :think:. Do people even read posts before replying any more?

I read - but the mere mention of the word was enough. :think:

However, it is prejudice and you can't bloody argue with the flat definition of words. Surely!

Prejudice

From the latin;

Praejudicium

"prae" = in advance

"judicium" = judgement.


So "prejudice" literally only means "judgement in advance", or assessing a situation and making a claim about the nature of that situation speculatively, in advance of the factual evidence.

In this case, speculating that an attack was committed by a radical islamist when it would literally only have taken a matter of hours to wait for the relevant information to see if that was the case. Which on this occasion, it was not.

Really all it comes down to is simple impatience, and maybe seeking an opportunity to say "aha! Told you so!" if it turns out to be an accurate guess. Which is fine... It's a punt, but it's fine... BUT at least be humble and accept the omelette face if it doesn't pay out :laugh2:.

Which word. Egg? :think:

I personally think that it's worth pointing out that in the most RECENT attacks, in fact going back 6, 12 months +, most of these style of attacks have been committed by random troubled people with no links at all to religious / radical groups. So... The "safe bet" would actually be "random nutter" at like maybe 10/11 with "radical Islam" 2nd fav at 2/1.

I'd have given under the table odds on that if someone had asked. Not through the tills though I don't think it would go down well :joker:.

2/1 is far from a safe bet :nono:

Copy cat attacks are pretty common with these widely televised violent acts, so I think it's a safe bet either direction... there's only a handful of conditions where people would go through with these acts.

Otherwise, I don't really understand giving up your life to kill others in a random act of violence promote a cause. I think it's a waste of life all around. But the religious fanatic truly believes there will be some payback, in the spiritual sense... for mental health folk, I guess if they're feeling quite virulent and angry with society (or maybe just schizoid/delusional), this would be the "trip out" of it so to speak... any other attachment would likely seem meaningless.

I don't typically associate shooting oneself in the head with religious fanaticism. A mentally ill person though would be more prone to do it, especially to create the shock and trauma in the other people who are witnessing it... as someone who is very angry at others would do to send the message of being "the affected"

I thought the goal of a Islamic fanaticism was to take out as many people as possible... lest the enemy stop you, i.e. forcing them to shoot you or blowing themselves up, etc? I thought suicide wasn't allowed in Islam in this way, except to go out "in flames"... so when I read "shot themselves", I didn't connect this with Islamic terrorism. I connected this more readily with mental illness because of the message it sends... i.e. "Look what you made me do"... whereas I think Islamic terrorists, they are genuinely concerned with a higher death toll (i.e. their resolution towards their calling)... granted either is possible I think.

Just some thoughts.

You make far too much sense Maru, you should be in serious debates....ooooops, I see we are,:joker:

Has it actually been determined what the motivations are? I assume it's probably a case of right wing extremism if it's not an Islamic attack.

Not sure Dezzy, I think it is another nutter.
To be honest, I class them all as nutters.

It's awful that people are now using vehicles to deliberately hurt and maim. It's shocking because it's not something you heard of much in the past. It's also bewildering because it's not the anonymous, hidden sort of crime that terrorism seemed to be before, with the perpetrators seeming quite willing to die as well.

Since most of these crimes in the last few years have been due to Islamic terrorism, it's not a big stretch that is what people think it is when it first happens. But I see the finger pointing is gleeful as usual.

Its not a big stretch but it is a prejudiced one, as I mansplained above.

As are any posts assuming it must be right wing terrorists if not Islamic. Any assumptions must be prejudice in that case - all or nothing!

given there has been a history of islamic terrorists using this method to kill people in Germany, its hardly prejudiced to think that it could be the same again.

Again, as I explained above, all prejudice means is making an assumption before being in possession of the facts. So it is literally, etymologically, prejudice. It is a pre judgement before the facts were known.

Unless you're claiming that either;

1) it was not an assumption or supposition

Or,

2) the facts were known


... Then you can't possibly claim that it's "hardly" prejudiced. It is definitively prejudice.

Now you could claim that given past events it is an understandable prejudice, but that's a totally separate debate.

Correct brillo; any assertion made made based on suppositions / guesswork in an absence of evidence.

Assuming it was an islamic terrorist can both a fair bet and "prejudiced", I guess.

It cuts both ways really. When we assume mental illness, we are also reinforcing and playing up the stigma against mentally ill people... that illness automatically means they are more prone to violence, are instable, can't be trusted, should be incarcerated, are broken, etc... i.e. something to avoid

We are human beings and our brains are programmed to seek contrasts, i.e. things not like us, and this is how we weigh threats and potential "obstacles". Our brain is highly focused on these contrasts... so it's a survival instinct to some degree that can't be completely unwired I think. It may not necessarily have any malicious intent...

Chinese culture is fairly different to ours, and despite that contrast they're not well known for vehicular murder.

Oh, well maybe what I meant when I say 'contrasts' is when thinking in terms of "new and unusual", experience-based, less different entities... though it would need to also be different in order to be "extraordinary" enough to stick out.. I'm talking about like if we go into a restaurant and see a food that is an unusual texture or color... something we would never associate with a food, our brain would focus on that... we may know the staff is good and that the place itself is fine, and that may be the only way we would try it... but I think if thrown in a situation where we had to determine ourselves with no other information, we wouldn't trust it. (and with good reason I think)

With Chinese or known cultures, I think we've integrated enough of the culture into our own understanding of what it is and how it functions, that we have some understanding there it's not a true contrast in that sense, since we've found a common ground between each society...

(Edit) Anyway my point is, we need some prejudice in order to function and to establish risk...

...this is the only information I can find about the two who lost their lives...


The victims were a 51-year-old woman from near Lueneburg, in the north of the country, and a 65-year-old man from Borken, near Muenster. Some 20 others were injured.