|
On February 01 2012 13:45 GARO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:39 turdburgler wrote:On February 01 2012 13:36 oxxo wrote:
You guys are hilarious. If you make a threat, joking or not, you deserve whatever comes your way. How are they supposed to know you are joking? They can't know and it's completely stupid to think that they should.
If it wasn't America you guys wouldn't be talking at all. are you serious? you think that posting it on twitter isnt a big enough give away that maybe he isnt going to actually be bombing america? maybe people in the UK are just a bit sour over the US's idiotic stance on terrorism, but you'll have to forgive us since it was only 5 years ago that the US stopped funding people blowing up parts of the UK every few months. Source now or you are absolutely full of shit.
american money and weapons were a large part of the IRA's background, US governments didnt like to publicly condemn them and often gave face time and good press to IRA supporters to appear good in the eyes of irish americans. same shit they pull with american jew votes by blindly supporting isreal.
it was only with america changing its tune that the ira was finally convinced to give up, long after losing much public sympathy in ireland, when the mood in the US changed they lost their support and had to decommission.
|
On February 01 2012 13:27 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:10 white_horse wrote:
Do you really think that the only thing that security agencies in the US and other countries do to prevent terror attacks is to search for tag words on the internet or did you just accidently imply that? I hope its the latter. how else to you end up arresting people for making comments on twitter, who have no reason to hate the US. he doesnt need to imply anything, thats what they clearly just did. it seems to an outsider that the fact an automated system can catch a keyword, then without even the slightest bit of human checking, they are flagged as "high risk" shows the utter contempt they feel for just about....everyone. they think that anyone planting bombs is so stupid as to post on twitter about it? or perhaps they just feel that its worth locking people away first, do their jobs later is a good strat to protect the land of the 'free'. just look at the major western terrorist attacks since and including 9/11. scanners would of stopped none of them, going through twitter would of stopped none of them, bans on liquids would of stopped none of them. so far all this american lead/style "defence against terror" has had a 0% success rate, has cost millions of dollars and has caused more terror than the terrorists.
Firstly, whether it is contempt, or a sense of duty, I hope that they hold the same standards for everyone... As people have stated multiple times so far this thread, not all terrorists have turbans and big beards. So the fact that they suspect everyone equally will most defiantly make me feel safer when I travel.
Also, claiming that DHS has a 0% success rate is pretty absurd... If DHS stopped a terrorist attack, you most likely wouldn't know about it. Claiming that it has a 0% success rate when your only data points are successful terrorist attacks is rather ridiculous...
|
On February 01 2012 13:27 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:10 white_horse wrote:
Do you really think that the only thing that security agencies in the US and other countries do to prevent terror attacks is to search for tag words on the internet or did you just accidently imply that? I hope its the latter. how else to you end up arresting people for making comments on twitter, who have no reason to hate the US. he doesnt need to imply anything, thats what they clearly just did. it seems to an outsider that the fact an automated system can catch a keyword, then without even the slightest bit of human checking, they are flagged as "high risk" shows the utter contempt they feel for just about....everyone. they think that anyone planting bombs is so stupid as to post on twitter about it? or perhaps they just feel that its worth locking people away first, do their jobs later is a good strat to protect the land of the 'free'. just look at the major western terrorist attacks since and including 9/11. scanners would of stopped none of them, going through twitter would of stopped none of them, bans on liquids would of stopped none of them. so far all this american lead/style "defence against terror" has had a 0% success rate, has cost millions of dollars and has caused more terror than the terrorists.
I don't know why people are saying this is because of the war on terror, these authorities have always been like this. They are widely known for their lack of humor and understanding. And the 0% success rate is just pulled out of your ass, of course.
And they weren't locked up and do the jobs later. That's a totally separate issue.
I honestly don't see an issue with them being pegged as high risk for such offhand comments. I only see an issue that after they were searched and everything, they still didn't allow them into the country.
|
its not ridiculous at all. the fact that bombers are still 'getting through' around the world with these changes show there are gaps in the system and even the dumbest shoe bombers are able to google how to get through them. and even ive heard all the way in england each agency tooting its horn whenever they foil an attack, so clearly they are more than happy to let people know when it all works. but so far its fair to say, twitter has a 0% success rate in stopping terrorists.
|
A small number of people are concerned about bots reading Twitter and logging information and names.
A small number of people are concerned that the first review required a more thorough investigation (Do you have shovels?).
A large number of people are concerned that after investigating, they were kicked out and had their passports taken after determining there was no threat.
The above 3 groups are being told "I love our country and our security" or "I wish we had this security".
One group values independance and freedom. One group values unity, beaurocratic thoroughness and security. Humans, we're a strange bunch.
|
*Call me an idealist but when did "WE" Americans start to become naive to everything around us. We detain and deport British Citizens for a Tweet that was taken way too out of context. Remember certain words, especially slag words have an entire different meaning in context to the person who is saying it. Yes, I think that certain words should not be used in certain situations such as Bomb or Fire in a public place. Yet, there is a huge exergeration in that everyone "suspecious" is trying to kill Americans anytime they board an Airplane. Sorry thats just paranoia setting in. Last time I checked there are plenty of "suspecious" people roaming a Wal-Mart between the hours of 12am-6-am yet the majority of them do not cause any problems. Point is... its really sad to be an American when you have to live in constant fear of "Terrorists" and "Mexican-Drug Cartels" sneaking into America comming to murder you or kidnap you.
* Fact is what happened to the British couple was a lack of reasoning by TSA. Sure detain them and find out there motives for traveling to America, but do it within reason. Any sane individual who is not brain washed by paranoia could tell that it was a joke taken way out of context.
*9-11 wasn't some grand heist that our Government did not see comming. There were warning signs miles a way before that day occured. It wasn't a victory for Al-Quaida as much as it was a failure of our Government agencies not communicating properly with each other. The information was there but no one could piece it together due to "red tape".
*One more thing, I'm tired of individual rights being chipped away in the name of National Security. I am truely sorry for those who died defending our country or were on the recieving end of terrorist attacks. But in reality if you spend all your time protecting the borders of our country while neglecting the area inside it, then what are you really protecting... We got massive amounts of people unemployeed. We got a national debt that your childrens great grand children will still be trying to pay off. We got law enforcement beating protestors in the street and in jail cells. We got a whole generation of people who are hooked on preciption pain killers. What I am saying is we got plenty of problems and they are not going to get solved until the government agencies such as TSA, Law Enforcement, FDA, ect stop abusing their powers and start to work peacefuly with their citizens. If we cannot coexist peacefuly as a country then I fear that what happened to the British Couple will start to happen more frequently and escalate even further.
Edit: Sorry for the Long post and typing errors (spell check later). I dont do that TL:DR stuff.
|
Theres no system in the world thats gonna prevent people from bombing your plane if theyre really adamant about it. But no the industry is not gonna just accept as truth because that affects people's behaviors. The security is there so it makes people feel safe and they continue flying. Just like when some old lady takes hapkido class she feels better about herself. They should have let the brits thru since its just bunch of bs anyway and all they have to do is pick on bunch of brown people and all the white people in the plane will feel better. theres no need to do it to white people either. :p
|
On February 01 2012 13:55 turdburgler wrote:
its not ridiculous at all. the fact that bombers are still 'getting through' around the world with these changes show there are gaps in the system and even the dumbest shoe bombers are able to google how to get through them. and even ive heard all the way in england each agency tooting its horn whenever they foil an attack, so clearly they are more than happy to let people know when it all works. but so far its fair to say, twitter has a 0% success rate in stopping terrorists.
You make is sound as though the DHS pays a man to search twitter for posts about "destroying america" which is not the case. If you are as well versed in homeland security as you claim to be you should know that the DHS uses an algorithm to search as much of the internet as they can to find any possible threats. Whether it finds a hit on twitter, youtube, facebook, or ANY social website, it should be taken seriously. It is easy for us to criticize the agency for being aggressive in their work, yet a mess-up could cost people their lives, as opposed to sending a couple back to England to be 100% sure nothing goes wrong, which will only piss off the two travelers. The reward vs. punishment for that scenario seems loud and clear to me.
|
On February 01 2012 12:10 Alethios wrote:
Yeah well. Americans don't really get humour.
Objection. Suppose all this article isn't made up, which i highly doubt,
" when they asked me if I was going to be Leigh's lookout while he dug up Marilyn Monroe."
shows quite a good sense of humor.
On February 01 2012 13:27 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:10 white_horse wrote:
Do you really think that the only thing that security agencies in the US and other countries do to prevent terror attacks is to search for tag words on the internet or did you just accidently imply that? I hope its the latter. so far all this american lead/style "defence against terror" has had a 0% success rate, has cost millions of dollars and has caused more terror than the terrorists.
Did pulling out random statistics out of your ass work out for you so far?
|
1019 Posts
On February 01 2012 13:22 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:10 white_horse wrote:On February 01 2012 00:36 Euronyme wrote:On February 01 2012 00:27 white_horse wrote:On February 01 2012 00:10 Euronyme wrote:On February 01 2012 00:01 Count9 wrote:
Anyone dumb enough to joke with airport security about destroying the country they're trying to get into shouldn't be allowed into the country. The security guards obviously knew they were joking, they aren't robots but there are things called protocol. I'm sure the guards knew the chance they were actually there to destroy america was basically 0 but I'm sure they have a manual somewhere that says they have to take every threat seriously. Dude you didn't even read the op. This was a tweet. If you don't know what that is, I can only redirect you to www.twitter.com. The medium through which that rhetoric was expressed doesn't matter. I can tell you that the government here is very serious about preventing terrorist attacks and they've been able to succeed because of this hardline policy. I can sift through 10 years of news articles and I can give you 10, 20 cases where they ferried out terror cells, terror plots, and terror attempts (e.g underwear bomb guy to the detroit bombing attempt). We should applaud the government for helping to keep its citizens safe. I'm sure it's been said a billion times already: it's better safe than sorry and I would rather see this kind of overreaction then read about an article about TSA ignoring a tweet hinting about a terror attack that left a plane full of dead people. Btw, a lot of threads in the general forum appear to be thinly veiled attempts at bashing america or offering a chance for others to bash america. Probably because theres so many europeans who come here. haters gonna hate. You don't see a difference at all between making an inside joke with your friends on a social media, and talking to a security guard at an airport? The choice of words is obviously quite different. We're talking about twitter here. Twitter posts can be seen by anybody, including the US government. If it's an inside joke they should have kept it to themselves. Again, I'd rather see an overreaction than a couple hundred of dead bodies at the airport. Like someone else said at the beginning of the thread; if TSA had actually foiled a terror attack by holding these people and finding out that they were albeit very stupid terrorists, everyone in the world would be applauding the US and everyone would be scrambling because they would have to monitor pretty much any kind of suspicious rhetoric, regardless of it being a joke or not. Terrorism isn't restricted to bearded muslims; it can be anything from "lone-wolf" to an insane couple like it could have been here. On February 01 2012 13:01 MilesTeg wrote:
If the security relies on terrorists announcing they're going to blow things up on twitter, then aren't we all a bit fucked? I somehow expected a little bit more sophistication on their part, not just acting like brainless robots looking for tag words on the internet. Do you really think that the only thing that security agencies in the US and other countries do to prevent terror attacks is to search for tag words on the internet or did you just accidently imply that? I hope its the latter. What I'm saying is that I'd rather not have brainless goons in charge of your security. I honestly never would've expected intelligent people like you guys to defend this. I guess it's either cultural differences, or nationalistic pride. Either way I don't see anything good coming out if this conversation, so allow me to respectfully surrender from this thread, in the true French tradition.
One small event about an overblown response to a joke suddenly makes our department of defense, NSA, CIA, and the TSA "brainless goons"? This is why human psychology is so sad. So much stereotyping. I applaud what they did and like I wrote several times already, I'd rather see an overreaction than ignoring a potential trace.
Europeans and other non-americans are probably thinking that the US government and the people that support this kinds of overreactions are very paranoid, which is wrong. It's not paranoid to investigate any suspicion when 3000 of your people got killed because we were sitting around doing nothing. If there is one thing that americans learned from 9/11, they realized that lots of people around the world hate the US. You know, it's a very powerful message to us when you tell us that you hate us enough to kill 3000 of our citizens. And the government here is basically bending its mind to stop something terrible from happening again. I don't see whats so wrong about that.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 01 2012 15:02 white_horse wrote:
You know, it's a very powerful message to us when you tell us that you hate us enough to kill 3000 of our citizens. And the government here is basically bending its mind to stop something terrible from happening again. I don't see whats so wrong about that.
Aside from the fact that these people paid for airfare, and set aside a part of their lives due to a fairly reasonable assumption that they'd be able to enter america, cos, you know, they didn't actually have anything to hide.
Yes DHS's nervousness is somewhat justified, there are people out to get you. It's impossible to prevent every possible potential for violence entering your country, for all you know a returning national could completely lose it, go purchase a gun somewhere and go on a random shooting spree, it's possible but extremely unlikely. The US and the DHS have every right to look out for their safety, and technically they are within their rights to refuse entry (iirc the US reserves the right to deny any non-US citizen entry for any reason they feel like), but you have to draw the line between due diligence and full blown paranoia somewhere, you could also also protect yourself from external threats by dissallowing all flights into the US or destroying the rest of the world with nuclear weapons, but you don't do that either cos that would be fucking insane(thoughi guess probably effective).
Back to the 'threat' that those two posed, the fact that they were not eventually allowed to enter the country goes to show just how out of touch these people are with reality. Their actions don't 'border' on paranoia, they take a massive long jump into the realms of paranoia. Yes you are within your rights to refuse them entry, and the rest of the world can see your motivations, but we also have right to think that the decision was bat shit crazy.
If the system is going to arbitrarily deny people for reasons so far detached from any semblance of sanity then you may as well just not let anyone fly into your country, at least that way people won't be purchasing a plane ticket/other preperations only to be arbitrarily denied by nothing more a paranoid, out of touch beaurocracy.
|
you know, I have a pretty clean record travelling and all. I went to school here and I work here now and I still have a passport that starts with "Islamic Republic" and I dont really care to change that. What I will tell you is this. Being vigilant and keeping your country safe is paramount. I am willing and always have been to go through upto eight hour waits at the airport just to have 5 lines filled in mind you, sometimes the officer incharge of students SEVIS cba to come to work or took a really really long break and the login to process entries isnt available to anyone else. But I dont mind, its someone else s country and they must keep it safe, however they choose to do it is their prerogative, unprofessional and inefficient as it might be. (Also I can easily pass for a white person, I have no accent and most people dont even know Im an international)
Problem Ive noticed is and this again doesnt really reflect on everything across the board..
Aside from the odd decent officer (and this is just JFK) DHS is often really lazy and really really bad at their jobs efficiency wise anyway. Alot of the US Marshals too (plain clothed always pretty much check every flight Ive ever been on.) Dont really take their job seriously or atleast it doesnt look like it. Im sure alot of them do but alot of the time theyre just joking around and bullshitting people because they have nothing better to do.
Example Officer 1 "Hey do we wana let this one through ?
Officer 2 "No No leme have em I gotta do sumthin.."
The guideline for them appears to be very random. If there is some consistency on how they do their job I have yet to figure it out just by observation atleast. I myself have never been harrased or anything, but Ive never given them any reason to. My documentation is always in order, Im polite and no matter how much im inconvenienced (cuz the DHS officer is in a bad mood) I just do as they say. Maybe they do have some reasonable doubt which is why X guy is detained for a bit but Ive studied the pattern alot and sometimes the treatment is just second class citizen like which is unnecessary if its just routine checks.
And thats where the problem is. Its highly unlikely that anyone who wants to cause harm to this country will waltz in with the profile of someone who you expect. Im pretty much a model traveler and a bad guy could be just like me. There is sadly absolutely no way of knowing and whatever they may tell the public DHS knows it to, therefore the randomness of the checking. As far as Im concerned they have absolutely no idea.
There is some very reasonable behavior aswell, alot of the time latin americans or on my most recent trip some Turkish guy had a fake visa. They dealt with him so well I was flabbergasted, they explained to him what was wrong, why he couldnt step on US soil (airport doesnt count before you leave customs) and made sure that everything could be done so he wasnt blacklisted (which is what most people get done to them on a whim just like that "*snap* you aint never coming back here") and could visit later with the proper documentation.
Brown people on visas (if they managed to get them) very rarely give any trouble, because if anything even remotely goes wrong the ordeal is so hellish they have pretty decent practice in making sure they dont provide any excuse for further checking. Just the idea scares them shitless, they will check double check and then check some more if they can.
Frankly its upsetting what happened to the British couple but the system is not perfect and just like any other organization you will deal with unreasonable people and reasonable ones. Seems like they hit the jackpot on unreasonable but there is nothing wrong specifically with how this countrys borders are being protected imo.
edit :
As for someone mentioning the part where 3000 people were killed, yes its tragic I was at those towers on vacation 12 days before they went down but lets be clear it is a paltry sum compared to how much suffering Ive seen. The only way you will be reasonable about it is once you get over the taboo. I work for NGO's in the high risk districts when I go back (my parents hate it) and entire villages get razed on the suspicion that they might get some grunts taken out. It works to a large degree but you have to ask yourself to what extent is the collatoral acceptable. Or are the lives of non americans not worth as much, or anything at all.
|
On February 01 2012 15:02 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 13:22 MilesTeg wrote:On February 01 2012 13:10 white_horse wrote:On February 01 2012 00:36 Euronyme wrote:On February 01 2012 00:27 white_horse wrote:On February 01 2012 00:10 Euronyme wrote:On February 01 2012 00:01 Count9 wrote:
Anyone dumb enough to joke with airport security about destroying the country they're trying to get into shouldn't be allowed into the country. The security guards obviously knew they were joking, they aren't robots but there are things called protocol. I'm sure the guards knew the chance they were actually there to destroy america was basically 0 but I'm sure they have a manual somewhere that says they have to take every threat seriously. Dude you didn't even read the op. This was a tweet. If you don't know what that is, I can only redirect you to www.twitter.com. The medium through which that rhetoric was expressed doesn't matter. I can tell you that the government here is very serious about preventing terrorist attacks and they've been able to succeed because of this hardline policy. I can sift through 10 years of news articles and I can give you 10, 20 cases where they ferried out terror cells, terror plots, and terror attempts (e.g underwear bomb guy to the detroit bombing attempt). We should applaud the government for helping to keep its citizens safe. I'm sure it's been said a billion times already: it's better safe than sorry and I would rather see this kind of overreaction then read about an article about TSA ignoring a tweet hinting about a terror attack that left a plane full of dead people. Btw, a lot of threads in the general forum appear to be thinly veiled attempts at bashing america or offering a chance for others to bash america. Probably because theres so many europeans who come here. haters gonna hate. You don't see a difference at all between making an inside joke with your friends on a social media, and talking to a security guard at an airport? The choice of words is obviously quite different. We're talking about twitter here. Twitter posts can be seen by anybody, including the US government. If it's an inside joke they should have kept it to themselves. Again, I'd rather see an overreaction than a couple hundred of dead bodies at the airport. Like someone else said at the beginning of the thread; if TSA had actually foiled a terror attack by holding these people and finding out that they were albeit very stupid terrorists, everyone in the world would be applauding the US and everyone would be scrambling because they would have to monitor pretty much any kind of suspicious rhetoric, regardless of it being a joke or not. Terrorism isn't restricted to bearded muslims; it can be anything from "lone-wolf" to an insane couple like it could have been here. On February 01 2012 13:01 MilesTeg wrote:
If the security relies on terrorists announcing they're going to blow things up on twitter, then aren't we all a bit fucked? I somehow expected a little bit more sophistication on their part, not just acting like brainless robots looking for tag words on the internet. Do you really think that the only thing that security agencies in the US and other countries do to prevent terror attacks is to search for tag words on the internet or did you just accidently imply that? I hope its the latter. What I'm saying is that I'd rather not have brainless goons in charge of your security. I honestly never would've expected intelligent people like you guys to defend this. I guess it's either cultural differences, or nationalistic pride. Either way I don't see anything good coming out if this conversation, so allow me to respectfully surrender from this thread, in the true French tradition. One small event about an overblown response to a joke suddenly makes our department of defense, NSA, CIA, and the TSA "brainless goons"? This is why human psychology is so sad. So much stereotyping. I applaud what they did and like I wrote several times already, I'd rather see an overreaction than ignoring a potential trace. Europeans and other non-americans are probably thinking that the US government and the people that support this kinds of overreactions are very paranoid, which is wrong. It's not paranoid to investigate any suspicion when 3000 of your people got killed because we were sitting around doing nothing. If there is one thing that americans learned from 9/11, they realized that lots of people around the world hate the US. You know, it's a very powerful message to us when you tell us that you hate us enough to kill 3000 of our citizens. And the government here is basically bending its mind to stop something terrible from happening again. I don't see whats so wrong about that.
I'll skip the part where you put words in my mouth, and the one where you contradict yourself, to go to the important part.
It's this sense that your country is specially vulnerable, because "your people" got killed. Terrorism is a threat in many countries, even in Western Europe. Countries like Spain and the UK have lived with it for most of their recent history. And a country like France, with its long history with Northern Africa, is probably just as targeted and more vulnerable than the US. I consider the people who got killed in New York "my people", just as I consider the people who were killed in Mumbai, or London, or Madrid "my people". So don't accuse me of being less sensitive to the terrorist threat because I'm not American. I understand it just as well as you.
That being said, I also have a brain, and the capacity to exercise judgement, and I expect the people who are in charge of your security and my safe travel to also possess those attributes. Is it really too much to ask?
|
@whitehorse
An overreaction is better than no action but its not a good thing which is what pisses people off. There are better alternatives to deal with this situation. And also their suspicions were unjustified so no, acting on suspicion isnt always good. And oh yes since it is unjustified, you can bet its paranoia.
|
On February 01 2012 15:02 white_horse wrote:
I applaud what they did and like I wrote several times already, I'd rather see an overreaction than ignoring a potential trace.
This is the crux of the problem.
The story being presented is that on the one hand you have a bottomless horror, unnamed, unseen, unknown until it has happened. 9/11 mark 2, an atom bomb, a biological or chemical attack. If we were to create a scale on which we marked good and evil, with evil being negative and good being positive, we can set this event at approximately minus infinity. Infinity evil.
If you believe this is true and if you believe that this is what the states involved in the war on terror are trying to avoid, then any actions in support of this cause which have negative consequences -whether it's a British couple being denied entry to the U.S. or the Haditha massacre- is justified by looking at "the bigger picture".
This is entirely rational.
It's also entirely foolish.
It's entirely foolish because the basic assumption which the rational began with does not reflect reality. There is no infinite evil and if you accept that there is you are inviting tyranny when you ask that your state prevent it. Once you surrender in the face of fear, once you accept that any action is justified to keep you from what you fear, you are simply waiting for someone to use your fear to enslave you. This is what I understand from the oft repeated quote given in the OP: "he who chooses security over liberty deserves neither".
We cannot say with absolute certainty that the couple posed no risk to the U.S. However I think we can say with as close to absolute certainty as is feasible that they posed no more risk to the U.S. than the average human who gets on an airplane. We also know with a good deal of certainty that denying these people entry to the U.S. has a cost. A cost to couple themselves in the form of a lost holiday, lost time and lost money. Another cost to the image of U.S. security as these people tell their friends or, as has actually happened, news media get hold of the story.
Stories such as these have had a small personal cost for me. I traveled to the U.S. recently and while I was getting ready it crossed my mind that some of my posts on this forum have been out of step with the narrative of the war on terror; the west as defenders of light and freedom, the best choice in a world of difficult choices. It crossed my mind that these postings are public and, briefly, it worried me. It worried me again briefly as I got off the plane and approached U.S. customs. A very small cost to be sure, but a personal cost to me that I can be absolutely sure of.
Once more, if you are willing to place absolute evil on the other side of the scale then these costs are worth paying. Any cost is worth paying. And thus the security sector expands, money is wasted and more senseless security precautions are taken which inure us to institutions invading our privacy. Thus friendly undemocratic regimes are supported and senseless wars are fought.
Thus, perhaps, the west will give up freedom for security and get neither.
|
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote:
But what if these had been actual terrorists? How are they supposed to deduce if a tweet is real or not? Now you might not think that many "solo" terrorists would openly announce to the world that they're going to destroy America, but when large terrorist organizations openly announce that they will, how can they not take things like this seriously?
There is no way that they can know if this is a real threat or not, therefore they have to treat it as a real threat.
A real terrorist probably wouldn't post publicly on Twitter what they're about to do...
|
On February 01 2012 17:06 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 15:02 white_horse wrote:
I applaud what they did and like I wrote several times already, I'd rather see an overreaction than ignoring a potential trace. We cannot say with absolute certainty that the couple posed no risk to the U.S. However I think we can say with as close to absolute certainty as is feasible that they posed no more risk to the U.S. than the average human who gets on an airplane.
Fair enough. Now multiply that risk by total threats/suspicions, and let me know if you'll still feel the same about filtering/ tolerance of filtering.
|
It's amazing that people are defending two idiots for their stupidity. It's like a man eating a steady diet of paint chips and suing the manufacturer for the illness he gets.
The internet isn't pretend.
edit: ITS SERIOUS BUSINESS LOL
|
On February 01 2012 17:40 danielrosca wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 17:06 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 01 2012 15:02 white_horse wrote:
I applaud what they did and like I wrote several times already, I'd rather see an overreaction than ignoring a potential trace. We cannot say with absolute certainty that the couple posed no risk to the U.S. However I think we can say with as close to absolute certainty as is feasible that they posed no more risk to the U.S. than the average human who gets on an airplane. Fair enough. Now multiply that risk by total threats/suspicions, and let me know if you'll still feel the same about filtering/ tolerance of filtering.
If by filtering you mean U.S. customs retaining the right to turn back people attempting to enter the country without the kind of evidence you would need to get a conviction in a criminal case then I haven't actually stated my position on filtering. I have stated my position on this particular case, a case of poor filtering.
I'm not sure if you intended to but you seem to have conflated "average human" with "threat" which I don't think is a very realistic, or even healthy, attitude to have.
|
On February 01 2012 00:33 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2012 00:31 Eisregen wrote:On February 01 2012 00:28 cz wrote:On February 01 2012 00:26 Eisregen wrote:On February 01 2012 00:25 cz wrote:On February 01 2012 00:24 Eisregen wrote:On February 01 2012 00:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2012 00:04 ticklishmusic wrote:This guy in the comments section puts it perfectly: If someone is stupid enough to tweet this without recognizing the consequences, I pretty much expect them to be checked out. It's like walking over to a cop and telling him you're going to commit a serious crime later on in the day. You *can* do it, even if you're joking or using play-on words or a figure of speech. Because hey, you're exercising your right to freedom of speech! And then he's going to exercise his right to detain and investigate your ass, because now you've given him reasonable suspicion, and legal authorities (*especially* when it comes to terrorism and stopping another 9/11 scare) are going to put the safety of the country before your own comfort- especially when you're the one who went out of your way to be a bonehead and be tactless in your conversational rhetoric. Better safe than sorry. That being said, I don't really like the fact that they had to share cells with drug addicts (*actual* convicted felons) and ended up being sent home anyway in the end.
Thank you  No it is not like walking to an officer, nor an offical and telling him/them they would commit some serious crime. sry to ruin your scenario. Do you guys love to make up such scenarios? I know 9/11 was and is still a big shock (myself included), no doubt, but sometimes I have the feeling the border to paranoid behaviour is crossed and everyone will find excuses for some just stupid behaviour by making up horror scenarios. Questioning these guys at the airport? Ok, I can live with that, though even with common sence you may have seen no need to. What I think are the prolly most retarded and expecially also hilarious parts, are the questions they asked and the decision to send em home afterwards :D I mean, asking them if one would be the lookout when they are digging up marylin, or looking for spades in the suitcase? wtf? That's the point were I am on the floor rolling around holding my stomach cause it hurts xD Says the guy from a country that restricts speech about certain issues. Enlighten me? about which issues arent you allowed to talk? :D Cant wait to get the comedy started :D Holocaust denial and promoting certain Nazi things. You can talk about holocaust denial sure. But you get punished for actually saying the holocaust didnt happen, as it is disrespectful for those human beings died in it, thats a big difference =) Promote certain nazi things? whats that? what would you want to promote? You are free to speak about the time 1933-45 as long as you keep it to the facts. How the hell did they even find out about the tweet? Kind of scary if you think about it.. Actually through searching the social media with programs for special keywords Exactly, Germany restricts free speech on certain issues. Because people died. Just like how you shouldn't make twitter jokes bout destroying America then hope to get through customs. Because people died. Germany doesn't even have free speech and you're criticizing America, lol.
Wow... just wow... what a ridiculous comparison...
Maybe you should take some history lessons.
Basics of this topic is that America is scared and good at scaring it's citizens as well... you got down to seeing some English young couple talking bout partying as terrorists and a lot of people applauding them for ''overreacting''.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
