Pakistani man kills 14 over wedding objections.

[Eddie Teach]

It appears the author of the article is - either rightly or wrongly - implying it is.

That he has accomplices suggests that too.

[grumbler]

It appears the author of the article is - either rightly or wrongly - implying it is.

That he has accomplices suggests that too.

The guy who built the bombs for the Boston Marathon had accomplices.

I don't think that these killings can be considered honor killings at all.  they seem to be, as DG mentions, the actions of a murderous loon.  Had he not started killing out of frustrations over his marriage, he'd likely have done so for some other frustrations in fairly short order.

[Malthus]

This certainly is not what is usually meant by an "honour killing".

Such killings have express or implicit sanction by some section of the local culture - they are motivated when someone breaks cultural norms (for example, a daughter who has sex out of wedlock, or a child who defies their parents' choice of marriage-partner, or who is gay). The "honour" of the family is seen as impaired by the actions of the child, leading to the murder of the child.

There is no cultural sanction anywhere that encourages one to kill one's own family because they oppose a child's marriage. That totally reverses the dynamic of an "honour killing".

[Tamas]

3 fucking post and everyone attacking each other for supposedly questionable choices of words. Grumbler's influence is growing

[Valmy]

That is one way to get somebody to forever hold their peace.

[Eddie Teach]

The guy who built the bombs for the Boston Marathon had accomplices.

That guy had a Cause. This case was a personal vendetta. It's possible the dude had a cult-like influence on some of his friends and could just get people to do his bidding, but more likely they agreed that he had been unconscionably wronged.

[grumbler]

3 fucking post and everyone attacking each other for supposedly questionable choices of words. Grumbler's influence is growing

  No.  You need to look up the term "honor killing."  it has an actual meaning that isn't dependent on your perception of " questionable choices of words."  Once you understand what the words mean, you will understand the discussion.

[grumbler]

The guy who built the bombs for the Boston Marathon had accomplices.

That guy had a Cause. This case was a personal vendetta. It's possible the dude had a cult-like influence on some of his friends and could just get people to do his bidding, but more likely they agreed that he had been unconscionably wronged.

The perps in honor killings don't generally go on the lam (why should they?  They did nothing wrong).  I think you are making a mountain out of the molehill that this perp may (or may not) have had accomplices.

You could be right, but there's lots to indicate that you probably are not.

[garbon]

3 fucking post and everyone attacking each other for supposedly questionable choices of words. Grumbler's influence is growing

  No.  You need to look up the term "honor killing."  it has an actual meaning that isn't dependent on your perception of " questionable choices of words."  Once you understand what the words mean, you will understand the discussion.

I'd also argue that in this instance terminology is really important as article by tacking on that last few bits with honor killings seems to be suggesting this is some sort of endemic thing to Muslim culture instead of simply focusing on how this was a crazed killer.  Can easily feed into the whole broken/evil Muslim culture narrative when this really doesn't seem to be an example of that at all.

[DGuller]

Sometimes a killing spree is just a killing spree. 

[PDH]

Sometimes a killing spree is just a killing spree. 

The dying utterance of General Custer.

[Malthus]

Sometimes a killing spree is just a killing spree. 

The dying utterance of General Custer.

Or perhaps "Freud's lesser-known aphorism". 

[Ed Anger]

Sometimes a killing spree is just a killing spree. 

The dying utterance of General Custer.

Thanks General Steele.