Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

T[*]Why didn't the Imam report to authorities right away when he realized the young man became radicalized?

The statement doesn't imply one way or another if it was reported by the Imam.

[*]With the threat level on high/critical even before the attack, why aren't people who are suspected of potentially carrying out future attacks locked up?

Because you don't arrest people until you have evidence of a potential crime. One is allowed to have radicalized thoughts in a free country. As much as it may make us uncomfortable that's the reality.

[*]If there are known ISIS recruiters in the UK, why are these people not locked up and treated the same as foreign spies or nationals trying to topple the government? If they are foreign, they should be deported.[*]This Imam is guilty by association as far as I am concerned.[/LIST]

You have to have proof. Recruiters need not be in the country illegally and could even be British. Deporting someone is much easier said than done. You have to find them, have reason to and do so in a legal fashion. All annoying steps. Oh did I say annoying? I meant NECESSARY.

No offense but what you have done is issued a guilty judgement on someone based on his religion without knowing what his actions were or weren't.

It's worth pointing out that various news outlets are indicating that the bomber was known to authorities. He was likely on the radar so to speak.

edit: UK home sectratary (Amber Rudd) has confirmed they already knew about him and his suspected links to ISIS. So let's be clear...authorities knew about him and knew his ties. It was already in the hands of the people it needed to be.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by ernie

The statement doesn't imply one way or another if it was reported by the Imam.



Because you don't arrest people until you have evidence of a potential crime. One is allowed to have radicalized thoughts in a free country. As much as it may make us uncomfortable that's the reality.



You have to have proof. Recruiters need not be in the country illegally and could even be British. Deporting someone is much easier said than done. You have to find them, have reason to and do so in a legal fashion. All annoying steps. Oh did I say annoying? I meant NECESSARY.

No offense but what you have done is issued a guilty judgement on someone based on his religion without knowing what his actions were or weren't.

I based my post on information from captain crunch that I took at face value. He said there was a KNOWN recruiter. Being a recruiter for ISIS is a crime since it would fall under aiding/abetting terrorism, so I'm assuming nothing.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Man won't somebody think of the poor white men?

lol, whisper 'white men' and the PC police appear. This is the kind of snap reaction the PC mindset breeds and all it accomplishes is removing nuance from the discussion (well, that and self congratulatory back slapping).

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Man won't somebody think of the poor white men?

#triggered

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I based my post on information from captain crunch that I took at face value. He said there was a KNOWN recruiter. Being a recruiter for ISIS is a crime since it would fall under aiding/abetting terrorism, so I'm assuming nothing.

You still have to have proof..... So yes you are very much assuming that the proof existed and was simply ignored. Also converting someone to a radical ideology is not a crime. Recruiting them for the expressed purpose of carrying out a terrorist attack or ordering them to do so then yes but again you need proof. Clearly the authorities did not have the proof needed.

As my edit said: He was known to authorities. It was in the proper hands. You have no idea what the Imam has or hasn't said to authorities about who has attended his mosque. You specifically said the Imam was guilty by association. What proof other than an Imam simply saying he knew the kid was being radicalized tells you he has any guilt in this?

Further the information about the recruiter seems to be about a realtionship he had with Raphael Hostey who was killed in a drone strike last year I believe. Likely the recruiting wasn't happening with the recruiter on UK soil.

edit: reading more about the Imam. He gave seems to have given a strong anti-Isis sermon a year or so ago and said the bomber afterwards had strong hate in his eyes. That he hated the Imam. After that the bomber essentially stopped attending the mosque on any sort of regular basis. Not sure what else is going to be done. Authorities knew about him and his ties. The mosque may or may not be in contact regularly with MI5 and other authorities (and if they are there is no way they admit it).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I can't wrap my head around why you think an Ariana Grande concert was a gender-exclusive event. "Only girls listen to ____" is something I expect to hear from my lovely but culturally obtuse grandfather.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Isn't the misogyny a given? And would anyone dispute it?

Ok, so first of all, I actually agree with Pepsifree's main point, in that I don't think that the attack was likely aimed at women in particular, so much as a desire to kill lots of people in a high-profile attack. I mean, who knows, they could find the guy's journal and maybe he goes on about how western pop culture stars are symbols of promiscuity and he wanted to strike at the whores, or some such. It's possible, but it seems more likely that it was just an opportunity to do as much damage as possible.

But second, this is surreal. First, Pepsi finds a way to cast Cliff's concern about young girls getting killed as somehow an indicator of latent sexism or something, noting that gender isn't really a factor in the attack. Then Rouge comes and posts that gender was so obviously a factor that it's a given, essentially taking issue with Cliff from the polar opposite perspective. Then Pepsi thanks that post, which totally contradicted him. I mean, do you guys even read this stuff or do you just assume that anyone criticizing the person you're criticizing must be on your ideological team somehow?

Anyway, his point was that there seems to be precious little condemnation of ISIS for its misogynistic practices in comparison to the hysteria for relatively benign offenses (or non-offenses), which, given how extreme ISIS are, would (one would think) they'd be a foremost concern of anyone who claims to care about women. That's true, though a non-sequitur. Meanwhile, I have no idea what the superhero thing is about or how it relates to this.

Originally Posted by CroFlames

This sentence is disturbing.

1. With the threat level on high/critical even before the attack, why aren't people who are suspected of potentially carrying out future attacks locked up?
2. If there are known ISIS recruiters in the UK, why are these people not locked up and treated the same as foreign spies or nationals trying to topple the government? If they are foreign, they should be deported.
3. This Imam is guilty by association as far as I am concerned.

1. Because you can't lock people up for thought crimes.
2. Because you can't lock people up for speech, unless it's directly suborning terrorism or violence. In other words, people are free to talk as much as they want about how great they think everything ISIS is doing is, how much they'd love to live in a Caliphate, or how awful they think it is that women and gays have rights. That can't be a state matter to police. If the "recruiter" is actually instructing people to kill others or facilitating same, that's where the line's crossed. Who knows if that's what happened here.
3. I agree that if he thought he knew that the perpetrator had been radicalized, he should have reported it. But how is he guilty by association? Of what crime? Or do you just mean that he's partly culpable, indirectly? That's a hard judgment to make with the limited details we have, which as far as I know is a sentence written on a message board.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

#triggered

#bazinga

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

1. Because you can't lock people up for thought crimes.
2. Because you can't lock people up for speech, unless it's directly suborning terrorism or violence. In other words, people are free to talk as much as they want about how great they think everything ISIS is doing is, how much they'd love to live in a Caliphate, or how awful they think it is that women and gays have rights. That can't be a state matter to police. If the "recruiter" is actually instructing people to kill others or facilitating same, that's where the line's crossed. Who knows if that's what happened here.
3. I agree that if he thought he knew that the perpetrator had been radicalized, he should have reported it. But how is he guilty by association? Of what crime? Or do you just mean that he's partly culpable, indirectly? That's a hard judgment to make with the limited details we have, which as far as I know is a sentence written on a message board.

Okay but surely you can get arrested for planning a terrorist attack and being caught before it's carried out? Weren't those guys in Toronto arrested for trying to attack CSIS? And surely people who had knowledge of said attack and didn't report it are also arrest-able?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I can't wrap my head around why you think an Ariana Grande concert was a gender-exclusive event. "Only girls listen to ____" is something I expect to hear from my lovely but culturally obtuse grandfather.

There were plenty of young men at this concert, and they have been unfortunately included among the victims. "Attack on an Ariana Grande concert" doesn't ring out as "I hate women" to most people in the same obvious way that "My fave superhero can't be a woman" does, but it's not like ISIS has ever hid their views either. There's no sudden realisation of "OMG, ISIS are a bunch of MISOGYNISTS??" like... yeah... amongst other things. It really just seems like someone looking for something to be upset about and push their personal agenda, which is extremely sad in the wake of a tragedy.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Matata

lol, whisper 'white men' and the PC police appear. This is the kind of snap reaction the PC mindset breeds and all it accomplishes is removing nuance from the discussion (well, that and self congratulatory back slapping).

"Man, how can I make a thread about a horrific tragedy caused by terrorists about me and my in-group?"

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Matata

lol, whisper 'white men' and the PC police appear. This is the kind of snap reaction the PC mindset breeds and all it accomplishes is removing nuance from the discussion (well, that and self congratulatory back slapping).

Also, #thisiswhytrumpwon

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Okay but surely you can get arrested for planning a terrorist attack and being caught before it's carried out? Weren't those guys in Toronto arrested for trying to attack CSIS? And surely people who had knowledge of said attack and didn't report it are also arrest-able?

Yes sure you can be arrested for planning. Absolutely. Clearly no one had any sort of proof or it would have happened. Hell the recruiter in question has been dead for a year. It is clear that this has turned into a cell that wasn't particularly on the radar of the authorities even though they knew of the bomber and his associations. Given it seems the kid basically stopped attending the mosque because the Imam of the mosque was anti-ISIS I'm not sure how one then makes the leap the Imam is guilty by association. That jump makes everyone who attended that mosque with regularity guilty in the same manner. It make his neighbors who saw changes in his behaviour also guilty etc. None of them are. He is. The cell he was a part of that planned this is.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But second, this is surreal. First, Pepsi finds a way to cast Cliff's concern about young girls getting killed as somehow an indicator of latent sexism or something, noting that gender isn't really a factor in the attack. Then Rouge comes and posts that gender was so obviously a factor that it's a given, essentially taking issue with Cliff from the polar opposite perspective. Then Pepsi thanks that post, which totally contradicted him. I mean, do you guys even read this stuff or do you just assume that anyone criticizing the person you're criticizing must be on your ideological team somehow?

For someone who constantly claims to be such a huge proponent of ending "us vs them" ideological practices, it seems pretty ridiculous for you to question someone thanking a post that doesn't entirely agree with their position. Maybe you should spend less time worrying about which thanks fit your team narratives and stick to the discussion.

I believe ISIS hates women. I also believe this attack didn't specifically target them.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I can't wrap my head around why you think an Ariana Grande concert was a gender-exclusive event. "Only girls listen to ____" is something I expect to hear from my lovely but culturally obtuse grandfather.

There were plenty of young men at this concert, and they have been unfortunately included among the victims. "Attack on an Ariana Grande concert" doesn't ring out as "I hate women" to most people in the same obvious way that "My fave superhero can't be a woman" does.

If you honestly don't believe that concert was targeted because of its audience and what they represent to Islamicists, I don't know what to say. ISIS themselves called it a "shameless concert arena."

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It really just seems like someone looking for something to be upset about and push their personal agenda, which is extremely sad in the wake of a tragedy.

I analyze media. It's a preoccupation of mine. I look at what gets covered by who, and how. The narratives, biases, and tribal affiliations that have come to dominate public discourse. Then I try to understand how those narratives, biases, and affiliations came about. That's my agenda.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you honestly don't believe that concert was targeted because of its audience and what they represent to Islamicists, I don't know what to say. ISIS themselves called it a "shameless concert arena."

If "shameless concert arena" doesn't scream "I hate vaginas young and old" I don't know what does!

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I analyze media. It's a preoccupation of mine. I look at what gets covered by who, and how. The narratives, biases, and tribal affiliations that have come to dominate public discourse. Then I try to understand how those narratives, biases, and affiliations came about. That's my agenda.

Look at you... reading and stuff

I would say that it's worth being careful to remember the difference between noticing an issue and looking for one.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Okay but surely you can get arrested for planning a terrorist attack and being caught before it's carried out? Weren't those guys in Toronto arrested for trying to attack CSIS? And surely people who had knowledge of said attack and didn't report it are also arrest-able?

If it's a planned attack, yes, I guess that would be conspiracy to commit murder or maybe attempted murder. Can't remember how that works.

However, if you're just identified as "high risk", as someone who might be a danger in the future, that's a step further removed, which is I thought what you were saying when you posted "why aren't people who are suspected of potentially carrying out future attacks locked up". Maybe I was misreading you.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For someone who constantly claims to be such a huge proponent of ending "us vs them" ideological practices, it seems pretty ridiculous for you to question someone thanking a post that doesn't entirely agree with their position.

That was sort of the point, it struck me as being so entirely "us vs them" that it didn't matter to you what the substance of Rouge's post was, just so long as he was "vs them". I just thought it was funny.

I believe ISIS hates women. I also believe this attack didn't specifically target them.

I'm with you here.

I would say that it's worth being careful to remember the difference between noticing an issue and looking for one.

It's kind of unavoidable. Or, I guess I should say, it's easily avoidable, but only if you delete twitter and probably facebook.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Isn't the misogyny a given? And would anyone dispute it?

This seems like saying "Klan lynches man in rural Mississippi, yet we hear nothing about racism".

So once we've identified that a group of people or a culture are misogynist, we stop talking about it? From where I stand, it doesn't like that's the case.

And if the Klan did lynch a man in rural Mississippi tomorrow, I expect it would provoke an avalanche of commentary about racism and the culture that fostered it.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I wonder how many Calgarypuckers woud be proponents of a Donald Trump-esque travel/immigration moratorium right now if this heinous mass-murder happened at the Saddledome...

Canada quietly already has a strict and streamlined travel/immigration policy. Just ask anyone who's tried to get in. Trump can't even get to that level if he wanted to.

Refugees are a different category.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So once we've identified that a group of people or a culture are misogynist, we stop talking about it? From where I stand, it doesn't like that's the case.

And if the Klan did lynch a man in rural Mississippi tomorrow, I expect it would provoke an avalanche of commentary about racism and the culture that fostered it.

Well I don't know about "stop talking about it", but bringing up the fact that a bunch of religious fundamentalist nuts are misogynists seems like a bit of a waste of breath. I mean, it's kind of a "well, duh" moment.

On the other hand, maybe it should be brought up more?

I took your post to be suggesting that we make a big noise about misogyny when it comes to trivial things that westerners do (bitch about comic books) but ignore it out of some sense of political correctness when it comes to foreign lunatics because "the media" doesn't want to offend them by saying they are misogynists.

Was I off on that?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I took your post to be suggesting that we make a big noise about misogyny when it comes to trivial things that westerners do (bitch about comic books) but ignore it out of some sense of political correctness when it comes to foreign lunatics because "the media" doesn't want to offend them by saying they are misogynists.

Was I off on that?

No, that's about right.