|
On January 31 2012 20:48 MidKnight wrote: Do they really think that serious terrorists would fucking TWEET their attack? What the hell. Just the fact that they are monitoring stuff like this is comical.
Someone "dropped the bomb" on them it seems
|
On January 31 2012 20:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2012 20:35 kinglemon wrote:On January 31 2012 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). not risking it at any cost is not very good and is harming the freedom of the country more than possible attacks. and if somebody really wants to do damage, he'll probably still find a way, especially when he doesn't care to die. I'm not saying *at any cost*, and I would never agree to this slippery slope fallacy. But they would be remiss to investigate someone who explicitly uses death terminology against America, even if it can be read in multiple ways. I get the partying reference. Really, I do. But it's hardly even a question based on our recent history what would be the logical steps to take when something like this is presented. It pretty much had to be checked out just in case. It was a crappy choice of words. But they did not only investigate it (which might have been something one can agree with), they actually came to the conclusion that those people really are a threat in that investigation. Which can only mean that they are stupid, malicious, or have some very strange guidelines if this is true. What i find a bit strange at the moment is that noone has attacked that source, i though daily mail was pretty much pure bullshit. Is there a more credible source for this?
That's my one issue as well... they should have let the two travelers into the country once they found out that the "threat" wasn't real. Also, I don't really see why they put them in cells with convicted felons >.>
I think security really screwed up there.
|
On January 31 2012 20:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:29 Soleron wrote:On January 31 2012 20:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:18 SolHeiM wrote:On January 31 2012 20:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:15 xrapture wrote: So if someone tweets they are going to destroy America before they fly in from a foreign country, Homeland Security shouldn't even bat an eyelash? Technically they shouldn't be monitoring twitter, its illegal. What? You're putting it out there for the public to see. How is it "illegal"? Please, enlighten me. There is no authority under the constitution for the federal government to blanket monitor all public discourse. It's public, they don't need to. So "public" means that a magical beam goes directly to every persons mind and they simply know? You've got to read it to see that it was written my friend, and to be able to pick out the "dangerous ones" you must read all of them. That is illegal.
So the constitution needs to specifically state that there is the authority to investigate a threat against the nation stated in a public forum? There is nothing illegal about that in the slightest.
|
America is getting more and more paranoid. It's getting scary.
|
On January 31 2012 20:50 TheChairman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:29 Soleron wrote:On January 31 2012 20:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:18 SolHeiM wrote:On January 31 2012 20:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:15 xrapture wrote: So if someone tweets they are going to destroy America before they fly in from a foreign country, Homeland Security shouldn't even bat an eyelash? Technically they shouldn't be monitoring twitter, its illegal. What? You're putting it out there for the public to see. How is it "illegal"? Please, enlighten me. There is no authority under the constitution for the federal government to blanket monitor all public discourse. It's public, they don't need to. So "public" means that a magical beam goes directly to every persons mind and they simply know? You've got to read it to see that it was written my friend, and to be able to pick out the "dangerous ones" you must read all of them. That is illegal. So the constitution needs to specifically state that there is the authority to investigate a threat against the nation stated in a public forum? There is nothing illegal about that in the slightest.
This is true. The thing protected from government is private communication, which means stuff like phone, email, mail, talking, etc... Public communication is not protected from being monitored, and it would really not make a lot of sense to do so. After all, it is public. Should government officials not be allowed to read newspapers, go onto twitter etc...?
|
Last time I commented on something this stupid I got a warning for "country-bashing"
Haha, how could this happen? I don't understand how the guards knew about their Twitter accounts... Doesn't that suggest that there is something more involved?
|
On January 31 2012 20:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:50 TheChairman wrote:On January 31 2012 20:34 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:29 Soleron wrote:On January 31 2012 20:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:18 SolHeiM wrote:On January 31 2012 20:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:15 xrapture wrote: So if someone tweets they are going to destroy America before they fly in from a foreign country, Homeland Security shouldn't even bat an eyelash? Technically they shouldn't be monitoring twitter, its illegal. What? You're putting it out there for the public to see. How is it "illegal"? Please, enlighten me. There is no authority under the constitution for the federal government to blanket monitor all public discourse. It's public, they don't need to. So "public" means that a magical beam goes directly to every persons mind and they simply know? You've got to read it to see that it was written my friend, and to be able to pick out the "dangerous ones" you must read all of them. That is illegal. So the constitution needs to specifically state that there is the authority to investigate a threat against the nation stated in a public forum? There is nothing illegal about that in the slightest. This is true. The thing protected from government is private communication, which means stuff like phone, email, mail, talking, etc... Public communication is not protected from being monitored, and it would really not make a lot of sense to do so. After all, it is public. Should government officials not be allowed to read newspapers, go onto twitter etc...?
I'm talking about blanket monitoring all public discourse.
|
On January 31 2012 20:52 yepenaxa wrote: America is getting more and more paranoid. It's getting scary.
Even more scary is, that even in this tread here some people tend to agree with what happened.
WTF? How paranoid can you get.
|
What is most strange to me is that they searched the luggage for spades and shovels. Why on earth would you lug a shovel across the Atlantic at great expense when you could walk into any hardware store in the States and buy one for $10?
I know that security is important, but that just seems incredibly moronic to me.
|
On January 31 2012 21:04 azarat wrote: What is most strange to me is that they searched the luggage for spades and shovels. Why on earth would you lug a shovel across the Atlantic at great expense when you could walk into any hardware store in the States and buy one for $10?
I know that security is important, but that just seems incredibly moronic to me.
Because it takes a special shovel to dig up Marilyn Monroe, for terrorist purposes
|
It's their own fault. They chose the wrong country to visit.
There are countries with with very different laws and rights. Like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapur, Turkey, USA after 9/11, etc.
Also in the US there are terrorist attacks all over the place. Why would someone go there as tourist?
|
On January 31 2012 21:05 holzofenbrot wrote: It's their own fault. They chose the wrong country to visit.
There are countries with with very different laws and rights. Like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapur, Turkey, USA after 9/11, etc.
Also in the US there are terrorist attacks all over the place. Why would someone go there as tourist?
See.. Tourists don't go there, just Terrorists!
They are not to same, they just start both with T!
|
On January 31 2012 21:13 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 21:05 holzofenbrot wrote: It's their own fault. They chose the wrong country to visit.
There are countries with with very different laws and rights. Like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapur, Turkey, USA after 9/11, etc.
Also in the US there are terrorist attacks all over the place. Why would someone go there as tourist? See.. Tourists don't go there, just Terrorists! They are not to same, they just start both with T!
"T" is more then enough for strict actions...what are u saying?
|
It's not only the T, they also both end on "rists". Now so much similarity can't be a coincidence.
|
USA and China are quite similar to some extend. They are so extreme in their own ways that it is so funny
|
LOL AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS FUCKED
|
On January 31 2012 19:43 ReboundEU wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 19:39 Mauldo wrote: The worst thing about this is that people are actually defending my country for denying two Brits entry because they said they would destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe's body in a tweet that was obviously a joke. Can I not make jokes on Twitter anymore? Do I really have to watch what jokes I make on social media out of fear of being rounded up by the FBI, Homeland Security, or denied travel by the TSA? Well..yes..because aparently they (US) are so high-tech they got "bombed" by pajama wearing men using their own planes. So....they have been reduced to eliminating any risks ahead.....But rest assured...kids in their highschools still can enter with guns and shoot their colegues and stuff.... Standard You think this post is appropriate? Leave teamliquid now please. and dont come back. you offend people by your presence
|
On January 31 2012 21:19 Simberto wrote: It's not only the T, they also both end on "rists". Now so much similarity can't be a coincidence.
Oh u are good..... US Security Department would hire u without thinking twice!
|
Can't stop gigglin like a small girl :D That part where they searched spades and shovels cracked me up xD Also the question: Are you on lookout whiule digging marylin up?? xD ahahahaha
sry Mr US and A, if you read this, no harm ment!!!! I wont be so stupid like those 2, I'll buy my spades in your country and will support your industry!
|
|
|
|
|