Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
This sentence is disturbing. - 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?
- 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.
|
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.