On February 01 2012 03:39 AeroGear wrote: Lesson learned? Maybe people will start to think and filter what they say and publish on social medias. I cant blame either party, policies and threat assessments have to be objective and strict. Their tweet altough harmless (yet provocative) raised a red flag and they got punished for it.
Way too many derails in this thread (and every other lately..)
I'd never put you in a cell with two cocaine smugglers for posting a Family Guy quote on Twitter.
We better get on training HLS on family guy episodes.
If they know how to look up a Twitter message, it shouldn't be beyond them to Google the quote when the guy told them it was from Family Guy. Then at that point they could have done things like not put him in a cell and not ship them back to Britain. If they can't notice when they're wrong, what's the point of the organization existing?
This is an interesting proposal, next time I'm a terrorist trying to conceal my identity and let something slip about my true intentions I'll say it was in the context of Family Guy.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
The examples he listed were just to show you that these things are possible. Just because he doesn't have an example from someone foreign doesn't mean it can't happen. There's a first time for everything, why take the risk if they seem even slightly suspicious? That's their job. Do you think if someone was the first person to ever post a video on YouTube saying how they'll go shoot down a school that the police would be like :
"Oh, no one is that stupid to post it on Youtube, it's never happened before! So silly!"
No, they'd obviously wouldn't just let that slip. Anyways, what I'm saying is that it's their job to keep their country safe from ANYTHING that can harm them. Just because no one has posted on twitter some terrorist plan, it doesn't mean it will never happen.
I'm requoting this paragraph again so more people can see it. I agree strongly with what it says.
Every single thing any single person can say is "slightly suspicious". If I have my hands in my pockets and walk into a store I could have a hand granade in there. If I post on twitter that "IF I FAIL THAT TEST TOMORROW IM GONNA !%&$" then it might mean that I'll kill someone or it might mean that I'll be pissed as fuck. If I don't post it, both is still possible to happen.
There has to be a point where someone who's job is to keep a country safe applies common sense. If he doesn't then everyone has to be under surveillance 24/7 because everything can be seen as suspicious without common sense.
On February 01 2012 03:39 AeroGear wrote: Lesson learned? Maybe people will start to think and filter what they say and publish on social medias. I cant blame either party, policies and threat assessments have to be objective and strict. Their tweet altough harmless (yet provocative) raised a red flag and they got punished for it.
Way too many derails in this thread (and every other lately..)
I'd never put you in a cell with two cocaine smugglers for posting a Family Guy quote on Twitter.
Thing is, I dont do/say/talk about these things unless to friends or relatives. Am really not a facebook/twitter user except to keep in touch with friends or follow specific companies or finance related news.
Not everyone will interpret it as harmless, all it takes is 1 person to ruin your day. Some agents are nice and friendly, others are very strict. Given what has happened in the past years, knowing the escalated security protocols at airports, train stations and all, it really shows lack of judgement to say these things "out loud". The last thing I want to do when I'm at an airport is draw attention or be uncooperative, I know the possible consequences.
Your example is a bit extreme btw, but even being held for a few hours at an airport could be a major hindrance to a vacation or business trip.
While I can ultimatly agree that the response from authorities was perhaps excessive, it is known that they are very cautious since the events that happened in many parts of the world.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
The examples he listed were just to show you that these things are possible. Just because he doesn't have an example from someone foreign doesn't mean it can't happen. There's a first time for everything, why take the risk if they seem even slightly suspicious? That's their job. Do you think if someone was the first person to ever post a video on YouTube saying how they'll go shoot down a school that the police would be like :
"Oh, no one is that stupid to post it on Youtube, it's never happened before! So silly!"
No, they'd obviously wouldn't just let that slip. Anyways, what I'm saying is that it's their job to keep their country safe from ANYTHING that can harm them. Just because no one has posted on twitter some terrorist plan, it doesn't mean it will never happen.
I'm requoting this paragraph again so more people can see it. I agree strongly with what it says.
Every single thing any single person can say is "slightly suspicious". If I have my hands in my pockets and walk into a store I could have a hand granade in there. If I post on twitter that "IF I FAIL THAT TEST TOMORROW IM GONNA !%&$" then it might mean that I'll kill someone or it might mean that I'll be pissed as fuck. If I don't post it, both is still possible to happen.
There has to be a point where someone who's job is to keep a country safe applies common sense. If he doesn't then everyone has to be under surveillance 24/7 because everything can be seen as suspicious without common sense.
Well that's the land of the free for you. They shoot people with crowbars, kids murder kids and get let off because it's 'self defense', and they imprison you for life if you have a few pictures of underage kids on your computer.
On February 01 2012 03:46 FabledIntegral wrote: Destroy as a slang for party? As in, "everyone there was destroyed"? If so, that's not even British slang, but used in Southern California all the time...
Yes, it's kind of the same as 'I'm gunna get wrecked', not sure if you heard/know of that too, or maybe 'I'm gunna get smashed!', you see (refering to others not the person i'm quoting), destroy/smash/wreck all mean the same thing.
Here in Canada I know of all those terms, we use them frequently. But when you say "I'm gonna get wrecked/smashed/destroyed!" It's obvious that YOU are going to get drunk n whatever, but the way the guy phrased it in his tweet was weird. He said "..destroy America..". The same goes for if you say "I'm gonna smash/wreck this stadium". It's not used in that way anymore :S You would say "I'm gonna GET smashed/wasted at the stadium" or something like that.
On the other hand, I do understand that you can say something like "I'm gonna destroy this club tonight" meaning you're going to drink and have a blast . But you do need to understand that as security, they can take that the wrong way, and they most definitely need to investigate just in case.
Like it was posted a few posts above:
I've been to England enough to know the British slang is "destroyed" as in "I'm so destroyed" on booze or whatever, Why wouldn't Leigh Van Bryan have written, "before I go and get destroyed in America? or something to that effect. To write "...before I go and destroy America?" totally sounds like a threat and actually makes no sense. I bet if American tourists had twittered they planned to "destroy the UK" as opposed to "get destroyed in the UK" before their flight, they would've been detained then sent back to the US.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Top notch profiling right there.
He's got all 6 seasons of Criminal Minds on DVD, which makes him an expert in the field of profiling terrorists and criminals.
Actually I used my brain and the power of statistics. Please use google the next time before you try to denounce someone who worked with psychologists who deal with this type of stuff on a daily basis the next time. Thank you very much.
Maybe next time use the power of statistics with someone else's brain.
Throwing out random insults really help your case.
Terrorism refers to the act of killing civilians by non-gouvernment groups to create a media spectacle. Terror is systematic. It is most likely politcally motivated.
Someone running Amok is a single person who just "clicks" out of personal reasons and decides to give "pay back" to those people who caused their problems. This is more likely to occur in their personal environment (hint: a place close to where they live).
Someone who wants to spread terror is looking for a place where he can create a media spectacle. This also includes travelling to a certain symbol of their "holy crusade" and blowing it up. Therefore it is more likely to occur at a place that is NOT the home of the terrorist.
PS: Penis != brain.
"More likely" implies inherent risk to both.
Now multiply your "less likely" risk by the total number of uncertain incidents and see where you end up. 637 million total passengers in 2011, impossible to get data on how many were considered potential threats but we can safely assume 10.000 (that's only 30/day) or more http://www.transtats.bts.gov/
On February 01 2012 00:38 asseT wrote: for all that dont know destroy means your going to slam a girls back doors in... I.E I'm going to destroy these girls tonight
So they were talking about engaging in anal coitus with the USA.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
The examples he listed were just to show you that these things are possible. Just because he doesn't have an example from someone foreign doesn't mean it can't happen. There's a first time for everything, why take the risk if they seem even slightly suspicious? That's their job. Do you think if someone was the first person to ever post a video on YouTube saying how they'll go shoot down a school that the police would be like :
"Oh, no one is that stupid to post it on Youtube, it's never happened before! So silly!"
No, they'd obviously wouldn't just let that slip. Anyways, what I'm saying is that it's their job to keep their country safe from ANYTHING that can harm them. Just because no one has posted on twitter some terrorist plan, it doesn't mean it will never happen.
I'm requoting this paragraph again so more people can see it. I agree strongly with what it says.
Every single thing any single person can say is "slightly suspicious". If I have my hands in my pockets and walk into a store I could have a hand granade in there. If I post on twitter that "IF I FAIL THAT TEST TOMORROW IM GONNA !%&$" then it might mean that I'll kill someone or it might mean that I'll be pissed as fuck. If I don't post it, both is still possible to happen.
There has to be a point where someone who's job is to keep a country safe applies common sense. If he doesn't then everyone has to be under surveillance 24/7 because everything can be seen as suspicious without common sense.
Well that's the land of the free for you. They shoot people with crowbars, kids murder kids and get let off because it's 'self defense', and they imprison you for life if you have a few pictures of underage kids on your computer.
Oh man, here we go. Let's base our view of a country from selective news stories on a Starcraft forum. Who cares if the country has 310 million individuals and all kinds of stuff happens and doesn't happen, let's be biased and not realize it!
Please, don't start sewing anti-American bullshit. It demeans you, and spirals the thread downward.
Maybe it's just hard to tell if they're joking or not? You'll never know if they did have those intentions or not...or if something would have happened if they did nothing. What if they wore rags and other clothing to cover the entire body...? And weren't they making it more difficult than usual?
On January 31 2012 19:25 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: reminds me of: - when there was a lot of controversy about certain "pro" gamers using the word "rape" - the movie "Yes man" with Jim Carrey when he got arrested in the airport for being a terrorist
There's always "ravish" and "ravished" but no one really uses it since it's not monosyllable...
I believe that we're seeing the result of an extreme cover-your-ass mentality.
There is a chance, even though incredibly small, that the person in question really will commit some act of terrorism. What are the payoffs to the individual making this decision of all the possible options?
Not a terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Not a terrorist, let him in: no cost.
Terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Terrorist, let him in: lose your job, your career, get to testify before a hostile Congress, become a national scapegoat, etc. etc.
As far as I know, there are no consequences for deporting someone in a situation like this. Thus, even if the chances that he's a real terrorist are incredibly small, the fact that they're nonzero, and the fact that knowledge of this tweet would inevitably result in massive fingerpointing in that remote event, means that deportation is the obvious best choice. There's no benefit to letting him in, and some benefit to deporting him.
You see this sort of thing pop up in any large bureaucracy. There are rarely penalties for "better safe than sorry", even when taken to an absurd degree, but there are huge penalties for a failing to take that approach in the event that you miss something.
My wife just finished a thorough government background check, including an in-person interview about all of her international travel activity for the last X years, several calls for followup questions about relatives and their jobs and potential ties to foreign governments, etc. The job they're checking her for? Web designer at the Smithsonian. Not exactly a repository of national secrets here.
That background check makes no sense from a cost-benefit analysis, but makes tons of sense from a cover-your-ass bureaucratic analysis. Looks to me like the exact same thing happened with this tweet.
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
The examples he listed were just to show you that these things are possible. Just because he doesn't have an example from someone foreign doesn't mean it can't happen. There's a first time for everything, why take the risk if they seem even slightly suspicious? That's their job. Do you think if someone was the first person to ever post a video on YouTube saying how they'll go shoot down a school that the police would be like :
"Oh, no one is that stupid to post it on Youtube, it's never happened before! So silly!"
No, they'd obviously wouldn't just let that slip. Anyways, what I'm saying is that it's their job to keep their country safe from ANYTHING that can harm them. Just because no one has posted on twitter some terrorist plan, it doesn't mean it will never happen.
I'm requoting this paragraph again so more people can see it. I agree strongly with what it says.
Every single thing any single person can say is "slightly suspicious". If I have my hands in my pockets and walk into a store I could have a hand granade in there. If I post on twitter that "IF I FAIL THAT TEST TOMORROW IM GONNA !%&$" then it might mean that I'll kill someone or it might mean that I'll be pissed as fuck. If I don't post it, both is still possible to happen.
There has to be a point where someone who's job is to keep a country safe applies common sense. If he doesn't then everyone has to be under surveillance 24/7 because everything can be seen as suspicious without common sense.
Well that's the land of the free for you. They shoot people with crowbars, kids murder kids and get let off because it's 'self defense', and they imprison you for life if you have a few pictures of underage kids on your computer.
Oh man, here we go. Let's base our view of a country from selective news stories on a Starcraft forum. Who cares if the country has 310 million individuals and all kinds of stuff happens and doesn't happen, let's be biased and not realize it!
Please, don't start sewing anti-American bullshit. It demeans you, and spirals the thread downward.
I think a lot of this is because many Europeans can't really grasp a country the size of USA, Canada, or China. They don't understand that every state is like one of their countries and no single one entity or even the government of a country can claim to speak for everyone. They're used to compact countries with just a few million people each, many of whom are very homogeneously populated, unlike USA.
One thing I implore you all to do in this case is to think of this in a risk vs. reward way
2 people were detained and sent back to their country. There was no abridgement of their right of free-speech, no corporal or financial punishment, no real harm done to them. On the other hand, if we do not monitor public expression (things that anyone can see), we lose a good way to fight crime/terrorism that doesn't hurt anyone. Let me elaborate:
The 4th amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And here is the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The fourth amendment protects your privacy from the government, so it applies to whatever cannot be seen by anyone. If you have a T-shirt on that says "I have a gun and I want to kill the president" police don't have to get a warrant to arrest you if you go out in public. The first amendment protects free speech with few omissions which are discussed here. Since the tweet could be viewed by any individual, it cannot be protected by the fourth amendment. And since the First Amendment does not protect threats, this tweet legally is afforded no protection from the first amendment.
In conclusion, using systems that catch potential threats that are published on the internet can save lives and do not break any of the rules which have made America one of the most "free" nation in the world for several hundred years. I agree that more research should have been done (it could have been done), but if the officers could not find anything else I think their actions were spot on.
Edit: I sort of agree with this, but the wording is sort of biased Not a terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Not a terrorist, let him in: no cost.
Terrorist, deport him: no cost.
Terrorist, let him in: lose your job, your career, get to testify before a hostile Congress, become a national scapegoat, etc. etc.(and allow an unknown number of people to die in an unknown way)
On February 01 2012 04:24 LunaSaint wrote: I'm less depressed that this happened, and more depressed that things are severe enough that this level of security is necessary.
I KNOW!~ i am scared to go outside bcos of terrorist attacks on my street. seems like everyday a plane flies into buildings near me.
I dunno i don't say im going to England and say " I will destroy England" or I will dig up "Queen Elizabeth!" it seems stupid to be detained but why would they even bother posting something like that on twitter or FB a few days before?
On February 01 2012 03:04 Mordanis wrote: For all of the people who are not educated about America's relation with terrorism, I'd like you to read this post and then think about the tweet about "destroying America"
First off, many people in this thread seem to be assuming that every terrorist will be an Arabian Muslim with a big beard. America has only had one experience with terrorism performed by this "group", and countless from other types of people. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing for instance. It was done by an American who used to be in our military. Also look at Jared Laughner, who killed six people including a federal judge and injured several more including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords. He was born and raised in America, and he just happened to be insane. There is no reason why Bryan should have been given a free pass because of his ethnicity or country of origin.
Another complaint I've been hearing is that no real terrorist would announce his plans ahead of time on the internet. Just a few weeks ago there was a case where a couple in Arizona released Youtube videos of their plans to lure police (and SWAT teams) into their home and then detonate a bomb to kill them. The couple named individual officers in the video and described exactly what they planned to happen. Jared Laughner, who killed several people and injured many more, also released a video in which he burned a flag and "warned" Giffords. There are precedents of people doing this type of thing, and therefore the Homeland Security agents had every right (and mandate) to detain and probably deport this guy based on what he wrote. The only discussion I can really see with this issue is whether they should have detained him while checking to see if he really had any plans to harm anyone or let him go back home immediately. Also I think it is totally reasonable for security agents in this line of work to not use their sense of humor when the lives of hundreds of people could be on the line.
Voice of reason. Great explanations. Thank you for this.
No it's not. He's talking about threats from within the country while the topic is about threats from the outside.
If someone wants some form of attention he's more likely to blow up stuff close to his home, if someone wants to spread terror at a certain place... he's more likely to travel there.
Homeland security assumed a foreign threat targetting american soil based on a twitter message. ... And, therefore the original argument is still valid: No real terrorist who wants to actually accomplish spreading terror would announce his plans ahead of time.
None of the cases mentioned above has got anything to do with foreign terrorists posting announcements about their planned deed on twitter.
How the fuck can you even compare a video of a couple ANNOUNCING NAMES and DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO to someone posting what the british couple did?
The examples he listed were just to show you that these things are possible. Just because he doesn't have an example from someone foreign doesn't mean it can't happen. There's a first time for everything, why take the risk if they seem even slightly suspicious? That's their job. Do you think if someone was the first person to ever post a video on YouTube saying how they'll go shoot down a school that the police would be like :
"Oh, no one is that stupid to post it on Youtube, it's never happened before! So silly!"
No, they'd obviously wouldn't just let that slip. Anyways, what I'm saying is that it's their job to keep their country safe from ANYTHING that can harm them. Just because no one has posted on twitter some terrorist plan, it doesn't mean it will never happen.
I'm requoting this paragraph again so more people can see it. I agree strongly with what it says.
Every single thing any single person can say is "slightly suspicious". If I have my hands in my pockets and walk into a store I could have a hand granade in there. If I post on twitter that "IF I FAIL THAT TEST TOMORROW IM GONNA !%&$" then it might mean that I'll kill someone or it might mean that I'll be pissed as fuck. If I don't post it, both is still possible to happen.
There has to be a point where someone who's job is to keep a country safe applies common sense. If he doesn't then everyone has to be under surveillance 24/7 because everything can be seen as suspicious without common sense.
Well that's the land of the free for you. They shoot people with crowbars, kids murder kids and get let off because it's 'self defense', and they imprison you for life if you have a few pictures of underage kids on your computer.
ANNNND I believe you get the same life sentence if these few pctures of underage kid is pictures of your younger self.
EPT
