Well, I'm not a really good title writer, so hope people won't see as "sensationalist" or whatever...
The basic idea is that two british tourists were barred from entering America after joking on Twitter that they were going to 'destroy America' and 'dig up Marilyn Monroe'.
After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last Monday afternoon the pair were detained by armed guards.
Despite telling officials the term 'destroy' was British slang for 'party', they were held on suspicion of planning to 'commit crimes' and had their passports confiscated.
'It got even more ridiculous because the officials searched our suitcases and said they were looking for spades and shovels. They did a full body search on me too.
'We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweet. He would not hurt anyone.'
Leigh posted the tweet on January 16 before the pair flew to LA last Monday.
Leigh said: 'It's just so ridiculous it's almost funny but at the time it was really scary. The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of terrorist.
I saw this on twitter, was retweeted by Joe Rogan a few hours ago.
For example in comic slang you use words like "bomb" "killed" "destroyed" .... are they gonna put them under terrorist suspicion for using such words ?
It seems to me that this false sense of security won't help anyone, and since it escalated, if we won't move off the track....more abuse will come
I for one believe that is better to, well firstly change foreign policy on US, because most of it are causes to hate towards America ( as detailed by the CIA , and 3 more US Generals as well ), then after a while when water cools, loose all the ridiculuos laws of paranoia and let the people live free and without fear of not saying the "wrong" words or whatever. What would happen ? Without this hate for America, terrorist acts would only be commited by seriously sick people ( clinicly proven ), and most of them are spotted before they might do any damage...
I believe Benjamin Franklin had it right .... "he who chooses security over liberty deserves neither"
Some people suggested I should add some links to this starting post so :
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
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
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Terrorist won't anounce on a public social media device that they gonna attack. How are they gonna succed? .......
And yes, the bigger question is how much they monitor twitter....Or all social medias, for "hot" words or whatever...
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
On January 31 2012 19:23 Paulio wrote: I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
No one is checking twitter for posts. They have a computer algorithm (or something like that anyway) that searches and flags certain tweets. There is no one who is getting paid to search on twitter for "terrorist activity."
The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
Oh shit, my friends and I must be intending to commit atrocities upon ourselves when we go out clubbing and get "destroyed"! OH THE HUMANITY, EVERYTHING IS LITERAL
This kinda stupidity by authorities happens in lots of countries, and is as stupid in all of them.
those british tourists will return to the UK unhappy, and then all their friends will know about how terrible the experience was. as a result, there will be fewer tourists from the UK，meaning there'll be less revenue... besides money, america's reputation will be negatively affected as well.
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Terrorist won't anounce on a public social media device that they gonna attack. How are they gonna succed? .......
And yes, the bigger question is how much they monitor twitter....Or all social medias, for "hot" words or whatever...
Osama Bin Laden? Attacked the World Trade Center more than once and announced he would before hand. Them getting detained is only as silly as his tweet...
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Terrorist won't anounce on a public social media device that they gonna attack. How are they gonna succed? .......
And yes, the bigger question is how much they monitor twitter....Or all social medias, for "hot" words or whatever...
But they can't do that though. They can't say "oh, they're probably not terrorists. Terrorists wouldn't be that stupid..." and then ten hours later a plane gets blown up or crashes into the Statue of Liberty. What are they going to say to the American people? "Oh, but they announced it on twitter. We didn't think terrorists would be that stupid, so we didn't bother. Very sorry."
On January 31 2012 19:23 Chaosvuistje wrote: You can't trust the British guys, they might take your liberty and put you back under the command of the Queen like before the independance.
Can't say I'm surprised though, those people would take the gameboy away from a child for suspected terrorism.
Exactly, they better watch out for us.
You foiled us this time Americans, but your liberty will not protect your Marilyn Monroe forever - our Queen must FEED!
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I'm not sure how funny you'd find it if you had to just take the 1000 something dollar tickets =\
One thing you havn't concidered is how many people they have employed to find terrorists and how many of them actually found one (which would be very few). I'd say that most of those security guys are so bored with not finding terrorists they take even long shots to break their boredom and maybe maybe find a terrorist.
On January 31 2012 19:34 ztranger wrote: One thing you havn't concidered is how many people they have employed to find terrorists and how many of them actually found one (which would be very few). I'd say that most of those security guys are so bored with not finding terrorists they take even long shots to break their boredom and maybe maybe find a terrorist.
If they did catch someone before they did anything you would never hear about it*
Just when I thought these threads were gone for the day, one pops up.
It's unbelievable what can be used against you these days. A twitter post? really? thats equal to accusing singer/songwriters of acts commited in their lyrics, which has happened. I could have understood it if they said it in the airport, since theyre really anal about threats like that, but twitter... sigh.
It's amazing how far the Government stretches its power. Yea, the Government promising security is always good... Let them tell you can't J-walk, talk on a cell phone crossing the street, smoke in doors, breath because it's carbon dioxide, where does it end? People think giving up stuff like this means nothing but it's all to see how much they can get away with, and it never goes away it only compounds. America is becoming what it fought to become independent from, the Government sucks no matter where you go.
They treat everyone like a terrorist. I don't mean to generalize but I think a lot of them are simply self righteous people who think this country would be a field of glass without them and their jobs.
Although I think that this is really crazy silly... Goes to show don't eff around with America we are serious(although a bit TOO serious) about safe guarding our country.
Lesson to be learned from this? Watch what you say.
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?
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
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Terrorist won't anounce on a public social media device that they gonna attack. How are they gonna succed? .......
And yes, the bigger question is how much they monitor twitter....Or all social medias, for "hot" words or whatever...
But they can't do that though. They can't say "oh, they're probably not terrorists. Terrorists wouldn't be that stupid..." and then ten hours later a plane gets blown up or crashes into the Statue of Liberty. What are they going to say to the American people? "Oh, but they announced it on twitter. We didn't think terrorists would be that stupid, so we didn't bother. Very sorry."
I thought it was pretty clear what those tweets meant. If someone seriously thinks someone is a terrorist based on those tweets I'd be quite worried. You don't think they could have solved this without arresting someone?
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
What the fuck are you on? Why are you turning this into something it's not, go vent in the proper thread.
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
If they were actual terrorists, they wouldn't be tweeting about it, c'mon use your head lol
On January 31 2012 19:38 drumsetjunky wrote: Although I think that this is really crazy silly... Goes to show don't eff around with America we are serious(although a bit TOO serious) about safe guarding our country.
Lesson to be learned from this? Watch what you say.
Oh God I sound like everyone's mother now....
No, you shouldn't watch your language on social made u use to joke and dick around most of the times.
What should be the result of this ? Change the law ? Don't think it's possible .... What should be done is simple: spread the word about this event and hurt tourism in America. Simple as that. As long as people get their pocket empty, they will think twice about this type of pseudo-security ( who I believe, it's sole purpose is to teach citizen to stand in straight line and learn that they are machines with no purpose, but only to move mindlessly - you don't need a conspiracy for this, perhaps it has been burryied in human subcounsciouss in the last hundreds of years )
How do you hurt corporation who abuse their power ? Simple, spread the word, stop supporting their products, hurt them economically and let's see change. Same goes for a country ( where tourism I guess brings big revenue ), hurt them in their pockets.
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
What the fuck are you on? Why are you turning this into something it's not, go vent in the proper thread.
It's exactly on topic. U turned into a paranoid country, while failing badly at gestionating your own internal problems. U ban ppl for jokes without even investigating. Your "Freedom of Speach" is limited to what some want to hear? ) This news is just sad and ironic at the same time really.
If i were u, i wouldn't google the word "bomb". Someone might be knocking on your door after a few hours.
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
What the fuck are you on? Why are you turning this into something it's not, go vent in the proper thread.
It's exactly on topic. U turned into a paranoid country. U ban ppl for jokes without even investigating. Your "Freedom of Speach" is limited to what some want to hear? ) This news is just sad and ironic at the same time really.
If i were u, i wouldn't google the word "bomb". Someone might be knocking on your door after a few houres.
It wasn't on topic, you were just flaming the U.S. Yea, I did all of this stuff, choose your words better. I have little to fear, an incident like this against a citizen would raise some serious concerns. Foreigners are the ones who need to worry what they say if they want to come here.
On January 31 2012 19:23 Paulio wrote: I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
No one is checking twitter for posts. They have a computer algorithm (or something like that anyway) that searches and flags certain tweets. There is no one who is getting paid to search on twitter for "terrorist activity."
The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
And did you just call me a retard?
I figured they dont have people checking every single tweet, but once the tweet get flagged, who makes the decision that it is an actual 'dangerous' tweet. I suppose they don't arrest everyone that tweeted anything related to a possible danger-related word?
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
Totally uncool and off-topic man. What the hell is wrong with you?
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
What the fuck are you on? Why are you turning this into something it's not, go vent in the proper thread.
It's exactly on topic. U turned into a paranoid country. U ban ppl for jokes without even investigating. Your "Freedom of Speach" is limited to what some want to hear? ) This news is just sad and ironic at the same time really.
If i were u, i wouldn't google the word "bomb". Someone might be knocking on your door after a few houres.
It wasn't on topic, you were just flaming the U.S. Yea, I did all of this stuff. You're an idiot. Choose your words better. I have little to fear, an incident like this against a citizen would raise some serious concerns. Foreigners are the ones who need to worry what they say if they want to come here.
See how little it takes to incite xenophobia? Don't react to stupid people's hate with more hate pls.
So they were cleared of terrorism and still expelled? What happen to 1rst amendment and freedom of speech?
Let me sum this up. Hate speech (whether it's against pro choice doctors, minorities etc...) that might actually incite some unstable people to commit terrorist acts is protected, but goofy speech is forbidden under terror laws? Ookey
From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
On January 31 2012 19:38 ReboundEU wrote: Gotta love "Freedom of Speach" and the country that invented it..... it's priceless
1. There was no infringement of freedom of speech. Or speach. 2. If you write something inflammatory, you still might become a suspect (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). 3. Did America actually invent freedom of speech, or do we just have it here?
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
Yes all while joking about digging up dead presidents! HILARIOUS! What a clever joke! Digging up dead people HAHAHAHH
Never knew "Marilyn Monroe" was a president, thx for the info .....................................
I was saying thats what the highschoolers would be joking about. And more importantly, digging up dead people is not funny. Regardless of who it is. Since a bunch of people want to defend this guys idea of a "joke". Which happens to not be funnyy. Your welcome for the info. Would you like me to explain what sarcasm is? + Show Spoiler +
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
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.
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?
Yup, apparently we're supposed to be 100% accurate on our homeland security. Only detaining terrorists and never impeding normal travelers. And all of this has to be determined by one passing glance.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
And did you just call me a retard?
No i didnt call you a retard. -_-
Your telling me a terrorist would post on twitter "Im going to bomb america" then use the passport with the name on the twitter. Ok then, you win, your logic is correct.
Im saying terrorists arent THAT fucking retarded. Yeah, they've announced terrorist attacks before, but they didnt waltz into the country parading they were terrorists did they? They used other people, fake passports all the shit -.- the whole reason this couple were detained is because their twitter had the same name as their passport. If you think terrorists are really that stupid then your living a sheltered life.
First come up with a good sarcasm then u can explain it if i don't understand it. Till then u are just trying to be ironical not even close to sarcastic.
So... again the topic is kicking out ppl for joking (good or bad) from a country. Are u even aware of the magnitude of fail? Or u just hide behind the "oh but u hav eto watch out what u say" fake curtain? Good or Bad joke....as long as it's a joke, u shouldn't kick someone from a country for that. I think there are more serious problems + more bad ppl that u could kick at any time from your country....for very good reasons also.
It's a rediculous situation really..however protective u might be of your country....this incident took it to a new level of "WTF". Hope it doesn't happen again tho.. maybe it was an isolated case.
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"?
I don't think it is in any way relevant whether or not the joke was funny.
I am really interested if they could sue the USA for that, but they would probably need to go to the US to do so, and i doubt one of those two will ever go there again. I am quite sure that i wouldn't.
So, if you want to go to america, you need to be very careful what you say, always and everywhere, since apparently even making the wrong jokes can get you put in prison and/or get kicked out of the country easily if you get denounced by someone. Does not sound like a fun place for tourists.
On January 31 2012 20:18 don_kyuhote wrote: tweet "I'm going to bomb London during the Olympic" before you go to UK and find out what happens.
I bet u anything it FIRST gets investigated to see if it's a genuine terrorist action and not some bad joke....THEN take action if it turns out to be real...and potentionally dangerous + it's not even the same thing....i bet "real terrosists" all want to "bomb america" and then go dig up Marilyn Monroe....yea..it's standard for them right? It was a joke from miles away. Was it a bad joke? Ofc yea....was the reaction as bad as the joke? ATLEAST
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.
so people actually publish things on the internet under their real name for millions of people to read it and don't expect to be taken seriously? How can you be so stupid?
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.
Don't get why people are having a go at the guy for his tweet, there is no context or anything. Chances are everyone here has said something equally stupid on MSN, skype, twitter, facebook, random forums etc at some point.
The joke was funny (if you're cynical, have dark humor, ..) There was no justification in barring them from a country, no matter how distasteful a statement is. Also, I don't think terrorist or any questionable ativities will be held on public social media like twitter..
In Star Wars parlance: Osama has turned many in the USA to the 'dark side'. In the War on Terror many Americans have adopted the values of evil rather than using good to fight evil. I understand their anger, but they need to channel it into building a better nation - not letting it decay (a la Detroit city).
You dont need to torture or break your laws [established over centuries] to defeat terrorism. People will say anything under duress - ask the Norfolk Four.
Some in the USA are squandering the good will the world showed them post 9-11.
Lastly, friends of mine have told me LAX airport stuff are downright rude...but I wouldnt judge the whole country on the actions of a bitter few.
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?
If someone is stupid enough to tweet this without recognizing the consequences, I pretty much expect them to be checked out. Yeah.
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... it's not even like this was a random search that ended up detaining people who said nothing awkward. They became blips on the radar for a reason, however silly it may be to those of us who use "killing" words in colloquial speech.
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. They should have been treated and questioned in a more humane way, and then let go when nothing was found.
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.
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.
On January 31 2012 20:32 BioTech wrote: In Star Wars parlance: Osama has turned many in the USA to the 'dark side'. In the War on Terror many Americans have adopted the values of evil rather than using good to fight evil.
You dont need to torture or break your laws [established over centuries] to defeat terrorism.
Some in the USA are squandering the good will the world showed them post 9-11.
Lastly, friends of mine have told me LAX airport stuff are downright rude...but I would judge the whole country on the actions of a bitter few.
The point of terrorism (it's in the name) is to get people and the government afraid enough to lose their values. It worked, they won.
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.
On January 31 2012 20:21 kinglemon wrote: how did the sc2 player bomber made it through the airport ?
This !!!
Oh come on people, stop defending your authorities. Most of them are decent people, but legislation is messed up and must be changed in order for shit to start getting right. This is extreme paranoia, if you support this mentality, don't call out conspiracy theorists for being paranoid, it's the same level of paranoia in both groups.
One guy said that if they found a terrorist they wouldn't say... Oh really ? They used "terrorist" pretexts to detain more than 100k drug users/dealers and found about 20 possible terrorists ( by possible I mean they would commit violent acts, probably bomb some stuff ). They abuse the law nowadays without regard to human rights, and you should all see that giving such power to people only leads to suicide...suicide of the society. It's rather sad from some point of view to see that we have the potential to become something amazing but... well ego gets in the way.
I think there's enough blame for both sides. While in -this- case most people would conclude that it was a gross overreaction from DHS, imagine another scenario : A couple of Middle East descent / nationality announced a similar thing in another virtual public venue. Let's say a popular Iranian forum. Were the DHS to let go the couple in the first case and detain / question the second couple then it would amount to (airport) racial profiling which is illegal. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
This is an outrage. The remains of Marilyn Monroe is of the up most importance to national security. The fact that this attack was attempted right as the new Marilyn Monroe movie was released was probably no coincidence. Looks like we dodged another 9/11. I still think the remains should be moved to a more secure location for the time being. This is the last thing we needed. More fuel for the ever growing tension between the US and UK that will ultimately lead to a nuclear holocaust. When they read about WWIII in the history books, they will say it started here, gentlemen.
On January 31 2012 19:31 29 fps wrote: those british tourists will return to the UK unhappy, and then all their friends will know about how terrible the experience was. as a result, there will be fewer tourists from the UK，meaning there'll be less revenue... besides money, america's reputation will be negatively affected as well.
as silly as that sounds, its actually true. The number of stories about American Home Land Security is only on the increase and all of them are insane. I was listening to the GiantBomb cast a few weeks ago and Patric has a 'Jewfrow' and while he was traveling to and from family inside of the US, he had his hair searched... wtf?!
Stories like this help put me off going to America.
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.
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.
On January 31 2012 20:37 yzzdups wrote: This is an outrage. The remains of Marilyn Monroe is of the up most importance to national security. The fact that this attack was attempted right as the new Marilyn Monroe movie was released was probably no coincidence. Looks like we dodged another 9/11. I still think the remains should be moved to a more secure location for the time being. This is the last thing we needed. More fuel for the ever growing tension between the US and UK that will ultimately lead to a nuclear holocaust. When they read about WWIII in the history books, they will say it started here, gentlemen.
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?
If someone is stupid enough to tweet this without recognizing the consequences, I pretty much expect them to be checked out. Yeah.
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... it's not even like this was a random search that ended up detaining people who said nothing awkward. They became blips on the radar for a reason, however silly it may be to those of us who use "killing" words in colloquial speech.
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. They should have been treated and questioned in a more humane way, and then let go when nothing was found.
He didn't go at the airport and say they gonna bomb and dig out marilyn monroe. They tweeted to their friends that they gonna destroy america ( slang for party as explained ) and dig out marilyn monroe ( wtf is this supposed to mean anyways ).
Don't ever say, better be safe than sorry ... that quote is only available if you wanna bring a gun to a forrest filled with bears, in case for some retarded reason you want to camp, or never walk in a dangerous DC neighborhood alone at night.
I don't really know how this mentality is being perpetuated, the only way I see it is... repeat lie, repeat lie, repeat lie...ok now it's true. You know this is a basic strategy to perpetuate lies as truths in dictatorships.
After they explained their language, they still got kicked without a refund or a sorry or nothing.
On January 31 2012 20:18 don_kyuhote wrote: tweet "I'm going to bomb London during the Olympic" before you go to UK and find out what happens.
Because that's definitely the same thing.
It is...
Wrong. It's more specific, for a start. If someone specifically says they are going to bomb somewhere then officials have a right to be suspicious, at least suspicious enough to investigate. "We're going to destroy America" is so unspecific that it borders on the ridiculous as far as being a threat goes, and when coupled with the Monroe joke it becomes an obviously non-serious threat.
Context is important.
By definition, context allows interpretation and consequently misinterpretation. Leave room for interpretation and on a long enough timeline or for a significant number of repetitions, the system will fail.
In all likelihood it was the TSA that was responsible for this. They do work closely with FBI and NSA, but their roles are relatively limited compared to the TSA when dealing with airports. Chances are, the algorithm used by TSA picked something up, then they alerted some lower level officials inside the airport, and then they overreacted. See what recently happened with Senator Rand Paul, for example. The TSA changed security procedures recently, and it's not going over so well with most people. This article does reek of sensationalism though, and both parties are responsible for overreacting here. Chill out with the nation bashing.
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?
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.
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?
I agree they should gave been checked out, but banned and thrown out after being checked and allowing them to plead their side of the story and how it was a misunderstanding, is a joke. Surely they didn't think they would do it, unless they didn't believe them, which I find strange. How fucking stupid can you be though for writing that though?
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.
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 >.>
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.
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 20:15 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.
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
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
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!
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
I think he's an EU nationalist, he'll likely say something highly offensive about your country in response.
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?
GUYS I GET IT NOW!
It's the accent. The twitter was just an afterthought. You see, with their British twang, the conversation might have gone like this:
Airport Security: Hello. May I see your IDs please Man: Hello there mate. Doing fine I hope? Here ya go, where T'r'ists you see? Woman: That's right, we're T'r'ists... (smiling and all happy) Airport Security: The fuck you are! Guards! Arrest these terrorists!
Yeah, and next time when you are at the airport you can shout that you have a bomb in your shoe.
It's so funny.
I mean come on people. You know these guys are on edge, you know they have to take everything seriously because if they miss something, they get blamed.
Can't you keep your stupid jokes till after you pass security?
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?
GUYS I GET IT NOW!
It's the accent. The twitter was just an afterthought. You see, with their British twang, the conversation might have gone like this:
Airport Security: Hello. May I see your IDs please Man: Hello there mate. Doing fine I hope? Here ya go, where T'r'ists you see? Woman: That's right, we're T'r'ists... (smiling and all happy) Airport Security: The fuck you are! Guards! Arrest these terrorists!
Too bad no one replied to my post and debated my points because the more I think of it the more I am convinced that the DHS' hands are tied in this. In essence, federal agents are forbidden from using racial profiling by the Department of Justice. Therefore if they allow this guy though the airport then if an Irani guy did something similar ( i.e. posting in ummah.com that he'd go to the US to destroy America) then DHS cannot apprehend him unless they have additional proof that he is involved in terrorism i.e. (in which case they can and will arrest him with or without him posting his intent ). To do so means they are making an arrest based on race / religion / nationality i.e. profiling.
TL DR; I think the DHS are forced by the situation to detain the guy.
On January 31 2012 21:38 zalz wrote: Yeah, and next time when you are at the airport you can shout that you have a bomb in your shoe.
It's so funny.
I mean come on people. You know these guys are on edge, you know they have to take everything seriously because if they miss something, they get blamed.
Can't you keep your stupid jokes till after you pass security?
This is true actually. Is it confirmed, is "destroy" really a slang for "party" in UK?
They said they will destroy america, how the hell doesnt everyone expect USA not letting them enter, saying : doesnt matter hurrdurr slang is just stupid we all know the rules and how sensitive it is at the airport after all the catastrophes.
They even have brochures that ask if you are gonna assassinate the USA president on your visit on entering, and no terrorist would still type that in there but its still security precautions you need to respect.
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?
GUYS I GET IT NOW!
It's the accent. The twitter was just an afterthought. You see, with their British twang, the conversation might have gone like this:
Airport Security: Hello. May I see your IDs please Man: Hello there mate. Doing fine I hope? Here ya go, where T'r'ists you see? Woman: That's right, we're T'r'ists... (smiling and all happy) Airport Security: The fuck you are! Guards! Arrest these terrorists!
On January 31 2012 21:38 zalz wrote: Yeah, and next time when you are at the airport you can shout that you have a bomb in your shoe.
It's so funny.
I mean come on people. You know these guys are on edge, you know they have to take everything seriously because if they miss something, they get blamed.
Can't you keep your stupid jokes till after you pass security?
This is true actually. Is it confirmed, is "destroy" really a slang for "party" in UK?
On January 31 2012 19:38 ReboundEU wrote: Gotta love "Freedom of Speach" and the country that invented it..... it's priceless
1. There was no infringement of freedom of speech. Or speach. 2. If you write something inflammatory, you still might become a suspect (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). 3. Did America actually invent freedom of speech, or do we just have it here?
I think the whole point of this thread is that you dont have number 3.
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?
Yup, apparently we're supposed to be 100% accurate on our homeland security. Only detaining terrorists and never impeding normal travelers. And all of this has to be determined by one passing glance.
No but if theyre a terrorist I suppose you question them ? If these people had been questioned properly I think it would have been more than clear that theyre not terrorists. If this is an ok treatment of people in the US people shouldnt be surprised if americans get a bad treatment when being abroad. Personally I think its just stupid and it doesnt matter if a person is american, brittish or whatever. If this is an ok treatment people should be detained in the US for tweets of similar kind as well.
That Benjamin Franklin quote at the end of the post couldn't be more true. More and more it looks like US is tightening up, but they are doing it in a way that hurts all the parties!
On January 31 2012 21:38 zalz wrote: I mean come on people. You know these guys are on edge, you know they have to take everything seriously because if they miss something, they get blamed.
They're not on edge, they're bored out of their minds. All that manpower and training without a single terrorist to catch anywhere. Must be so depressing.
Sometimes at work when I have nothing to do I'll make it look like I'm working and being useful, kinda the same thing.
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
I think he's an EU nationalist, he'll likely say something highly offensive about your country in response.
Obviously they got in trouble for making dubious statements outside the realm of protection of freedom that only America can provide. Obviously the monarchy needs to be torn down and replaced with a budding democracy to ensure freedom and liberty for the British people. Maybe we'll get to you after we help Iran.
Nothing special or stupid about this, just some guys who used the wrong term for their tweet. Automated systems found the words "destroy" and "America" in the same sentence and red flagged it for analysis; its all procedural. Things have changed much since 9/11 and such, that a country like the US can never be too careful. After all, the best cure is prevention. They got what was coming. Instead of getting all worked up about it, they should've just admitted their mistake.
I think the whole point of this thread is that you dont have number 3.
American freedom of speech laws are actually the most entrenched out of any nation.
The difference is mainly in how fasts freedom of speech can be revoked.
In America it's impossible without violating the constitution.
In most of Europe it's simply a matter of once again reinforcing blashphemy laws.
Not everyone seems to realise that insulting the church is not legal in most of Europe. It's simply tolerated. Kind of like in Holland (where we also have blasphemy laws that are not enforced). Weed is not legal in Holland, but it's tolerated.
If the police wanted to shut down all the weed stores in Holland, they wouldn't have to change a single law.
If the government wanted to shut down free speech in Holland, it would not have to change any laws.
So in practice the USA isn't very different in freedom of speech. It's absolute in the US and it's absolute in most of Europe. But it's very different in theory.
On January 31 2012 21:54 lightson wrote: Nothing special or stupid about this, just some guys' who used the wrong term for their tweet. Automated systems found the words "destroy" and "America" in the same sentence and red flagged it for analysis; its all procedural. Things have changed much since 9/11 and such, that a country like the US can never be too careful. After all, the best cure is prevention. They got what was coming. Instead of getting all worked up about it, they should've just admitted their mistake.
Reminds me of those immigration forms you have to fill out when you're gonna enter the US. "Have you ever partaken in genocide", "Are you a remnant of Hitler's nazi regime" etc etc. If these people were really out to "destroy" anything, what are the odds they'd tell anyone about it?
At any rate, this is a pretty good example of skewed data. This doesn't mean that all of Homeland Security is retarded. There are probably hundreds of people joking about terrorism every day and getting away with it, but obviously nobody's reporting that.
meh. America is a crazy country anyway, awesome, but crazy.
Should just... not do stuff like that. I'm a very sarcastic/cocky person, and it's fine when I'm travelling within scandinavia or even europe, but America doesn't like that, so I just shut up when I go there (and I have to go there because their football is superior).
On January 31 2012 19:38 ReboundEU wrote: Gotta love "Freedom of Speach" and the country that invented it..... it's priceless
1. There was no infringement of freedom of speech. Or speach. 2. If you write something inflammatory, you still might become a suspect (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). 3. Did America actually invent freedom of speech, or do we just have it here?
Rofl ... so funny how some goverment succeds in marketing their paranoia and "angst" making laws. You really believe that checking twitter will help preventing a "3rd" 9/11? Why 3rd? There allready has been a major bombing of the WTC before. Did that change anything? No. Why? Because they just make pseudo-laws which should leave you, the little citizien, in the belief it will actually achieve something. Just hilarious how people refuse to learn from the past ... maybe read some good history book about France from 1400-1900 would help you alot in seeing the reality i guess.
on point 3. No they didn't invent it, BUT they were the pilot to test it
On January 31 2012 21:38 zalz wrote: Yeah, and next time when you are at the airport you can shout that you have a bomb in your shoe.
It's so funny.
I mean come on people. You know these guys are on edge, you know they have to take everything seriously because if they miss something, they get blamed.
Can't you keep your stupid jokes till after you pass security?
This is true actually. Is it confirmed, is "destroy" really a slang for "party" in UK?
Yeah it is, but to be honest in the UK we use pretty much anything as a word for getting drunk/ going out etc
One of our comedians sums it up pretty well with this.
On topic though, it is getting slightly worrying with how paranoid and introvert the US seem to be getting in recent years, I really do hope this trend starts dying out before it harms more people
On January 31 2012 21:58 Osmoses wrote: Reminds me of those immigration forms you have to fill out when you're gonna enter the US. "Have you ever partaken in genocide", "Are you a remnant of Hitler's nazi regime" etc etc. If these people were really out to "destroy" anything, what are the odds they'd tell anyone about it?
At any rate, this is a pretty good example of skewed data. This doesn't mean that all of Homeland Security is retarded. There are probably hundreds of people joking about terrorism every day and getting away with it, but obviously nobody's reporting that.
That's actually just clever law design.
If you admit that you took part in a genocide then they tell you to get out.
If you lie, then they can deport you for lying on your immigration forms.
Kind of how they forced gangsters to pay taxes on their (at that time illegal) sales of alcohol. If they didn't pay taxes on them, they arrested them for tax evasion. If they did, they got them for selling alcohol.
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
I think he's an EU nationalist, he'll likely say something highly offensive about your country in response.
I think the whole point of this thread is that you dont have number 3.
American freedom of speech laws are actually the most entrenched out of any nation.
The difference is mainly in how fasts freedom of speech can be revoked.
In America it's impossible without violating the constitution.
In most of Europe it's simply a matter of once again reinforcing blashphemy laws.
Not everyone seems to realise that insulting the church is not legal in most of Europe. It's simply tolerated. Kind of like in Holland (where we also have blasphemy laws that are not enforced). Weed is not legal in Holland, but it's tolerated.
If the police wanted to shut down all the weed stores in Holland, they wouldn't have to change a single law.
If the government wanted to shut down free speech in Holland, it would not have to change any laws.
So in practice the USA isn't very different in freedom of speech. It's absolute in the US and it's absolute in most of Europe. But it's very different in theory.
I realize that the US has freedom of speech. I just attacked what I thuoght was a dumb argument with an equally dumb one. The point I was trying to make was that they may have freedom of speech but its going ut the window fast. I never said that Europe is a model for anything
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 was my impression of the daily mail as well.
The Daily Mail = Super Conservative ("Britain's queue for jobs whilst more IMMIGRANTS come for dole money") The Guardian = Super Liberal ("We must accept people who hate our culture and seek to destroy us").
Both circulate equal bullshit to be honest. Take neither seriously and you will be fine.
What's more of an issues is surely couldn't real terrorists just spam twitter making insubstantial claims of attacks and while the authorities are wading through the BS the terrotists could just commit a real attack?
Obviously US security isn't vulnerable to such an abuse of their practice which idicates to me that there is something fishy with the story - that and the fact that it was reported in The Daily Mail....
On January 31 2012 22:06 Deleuze wrote: What's more of an issues is surely couldn't real terrorists just spam twitter making insubstantial claims of attacks and while the authorities are wading through the BS the terrotists could just commit a real attack?
Obviously US security isn't vulnerable to such an abuse of their practice which idicates to me that there is something fishy with the story - that and the fact that it was reported in The Daily Mail....
Anything to get a quick jab at the US, most of Europe will believe it no matter how ridiculous it is, as evidenced by this thread
On a similar note, can it please be a bannable offense to make threads linking to tabloid articles and posting them as truth? At least a warning or thread closure would be nice.
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 was my impression of the daily mail as well.
The Daily Mail = Super Conservative ("Britain's queue for jobs whilst more IMMIGRANTS come for dole money") The Guardian = Super Liberal ("We must accept people who hate our culture and seek to destroy us").
Both circulate equal bullshit to be honest. Take neither seriously and you will be fine.
The Daily Mail is a centre-left paper, just a tabloid centre-left paper.
Its a dilemma. If they where terrorists, and they hadn't been detained thinking it was just a joke. People would lose their jobs after media blows up "Knew about threat. Did nothing!".
On the other hand, holding them for 12 hours before sending them home is obviously retarded.
I think one thing everyone is neglecting is, how the hell did they know this British tourist tweeted that? Anyone else awestruck by that? How would they know that someone even joking made that tweet in the first place? The only thing I can thing of (without going all "omg the government is tracking everyone!) is that some dick read the tweet and promptly dialed up homeland Security. Either way, it's ridiculous.
Edit: seems like this tabloid doesn't have very good credentials so I'm not going to take it too seriously.
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote: But what if these had been actual terrorists?
You're right, British Citizens are on high watch for terrorist activity. Many potentially devastating terrorist attacks, including digging up Marilyn Monroe's body, have been averted and prevented thanks to the government averting crucial and necessary resources to monitoring twitter. Most terrorists, especially ones with British Citizenship, have been known to carefully plot out terrorist attacks in excruciating secrecy and detail, utilizing a 412-step process which is capped off with a twitter post that announces to the world their plans before they try to pass through airport security using legitimate international identification certificates.
These kinds of things happen everyday, I'm so glad terrorists take the time to announce their attacks on twitter before attempting to pass through airport security. Protect freedom at all costs.
It's funny this. We call it terrorism and we know that its sole purpose is to instill terror, fear. There is no war on terror and if there was we've already lost. We gave in to our fears and now we are at the point where we detain people because of a silly tweet...
On January 31 2012 22:00 PrideNeverDie wrote: if you're going to post on twitter that you are going to "destroy America" joking or not, you can stay in your country
social media has very real consequences
It's british slang for partying, unless I'm mistaken.
On January 31 2012 21:54 lightson wrote: Nothing special or stupid about this, just some guys who used the wrong term for their tweet. Automated systems found the words "destroy" and "America" in the same sentence and red flagged it for analysis; its all procedural. Things have changed much since 9/11 and such, that a country like the US can never be too careful. After all, the best cure is prevention. They got what was coming. Instead of getting all worked up about it, they should've just admitted their mistake.
Man, i really hope you're joking, because it's really sad to read things like that. I hope you'll figured it why someday... :/
On January 31 2012 21:39 kc wrote: Reading this topic makes me facepalm. its so fucked i cant even get my mind around it, the US is ran by a bunch of fuckign retards
Way to be constructive with your "fuckign retards" comment -.-'
On January 31 2012 19:38 ReboundEU wrote: Gotta love "Freedom of Speach" and the country that invented it..... it's priceless
1. There was no infringement of freedom of speech. Or speach. 2. If you write something inflammatory, you still might become a suspect (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). 3. Did America actually invent freedom of speech, or do we just have it here?
Rofl ... so funny how some goverment succeds in marketing their paranoia and "angst" making laws. You really believe that checking twitter will help preventing a "3rd" 9/11? Why 3rd? There allready has been a major bombing of the WTC before. Did that change anything? No. Why? Because they just make pseudo-laws which should leave you, the little citizien, in the belief it will actually achieve something. Just hilarious how people refuse to learn from the past ... maybe read some good history book about France from 1400-1900 would help you alot in seeing the reality i guess.
on point 3. No they didn't invent it, BUT they were the pilot to test it
Pseudo-laws? So don't even bother attempting to protect the country if it runs the risk of failing, because if it fails it'll be embarrassing?
I'm not condoning the fact that the two tourists were sent away after they were checked out and cleared. In fact, I think that was rather stupid. But I'm fairly certain that national security takes the language used (even in jest or used in other contexts) far more seriously than we do, because it's their job. Them missing something as obvious as this would have been ridiculously scandalous. Could you imagine if these two innocent people were actually criminals and they were actually explicitly bragging via Twitter- using the exact same words- the damage they'd be doing to America? It's a risk worth taking.
But again, the two tourists shouldn't have been denied entry after the investigation was over. That part was rather ridiculous.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
If you were a brit couple you probably wouldn't realize how much of a joke they actually are.
On January 31 2012 22:16 Azzur wrote: lol, a sad state the USA is in
Still, it's the USA's own country and it's citizens need to stand up or else things will keep going like this.
Things need to get worse before they'll get better. A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the gravity of what was done to these people, nor understand why it isn't okay.
On January 31 2012 21:39 kc wrote: Reading this topic makes me facepalm. its so fucked i cant even get my mind around it, the US is ran by a bunch of fuckign retards
Way to be constructive with your "fuckign retards" comment -.-'
Constructive for what? Any1 of any importance gonna read this? His post perfectly sums up what most ''normal'' people will think about this.
On January 31 2012 21:39 kc wrote: Reading this topic makes me facepalm. its so fucked i cant even get my mind around it, the US is ran by a bunch of fuckign retards
Way to be constructive with your "fuckign retards" comment -.-'
On January 31 2012 19:38 ReboundEU wrote: Gotta love "Freedom of Speach" and the country that invented it..... it's priceless
1. There was no infringement of freedom of speech. Or speach. 2. If you write something inflammatory, you still might become a suspect (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). 3. Did America actually invent freedom of speech, or do we just have it here?
Rofl ... so funny how some goverment succeds in marketing their paranoia and "angst" making laws. You really believe that checking twitter will help preventing a "3rd" 9/11? Why 3rd? There allready has been a major bombing of the WTC before. Did that change anything? No. Why? Because they just make pseudo-laws which should leave you, the little citizien, in the belief it will actually achieve something. Just hilarious how people refuse to learn from the past ... maybe read some good history book about France from 1400-1900 would help you alot in seeing the reality i guess.
on point 3. No they didn't invent it, BUT they were the pilot to test it
Pseudo-laws? So don't even bother attempting to protect the country if it runs the risk of failing, because if it fails it'll be embarrassing?
I'm not condoning the fact that the two tourists were sent away after they were checked out and cleared. In fact, I think that was rather stupid. But I'm fairly certain that national security takes the language used (even in jest or used in other contexts) far more seriously than we do, because it's their job. Them missing something as obvious as this would have been ridiculously scandalous. Could you imagine if these two innocent people were actually criminals and they were actually explicitly bragging via Twitter- using the exact same words- the damage they'd be doing to America? It's a risk worth taking.
But again, the two tourists shouldn't have been denied entry after the investigation was over. That part was rather ridiculous.
Well then I guess a lot of British tourists are going to be held up in customs and shipped to a life sentence of torture in Guantanamo, considering this is a fairly common phrase.
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 was my impression of the daily mail as well.
The Daily Mail = Super Conservative ("Britain's queue for jobs whilst more IMMIGRANTS come for dole money") The Guardian = Super Liberal ("We must accept people who hate our culture and seek to destroy us").
Both circulate equal bullshit to be honest. Take neither seriously and you will be fine.
The Daily Mail is a centre-left paper, just a tabloid centre-left paper.
I know Wikipedia isnt always right, but im pretty sure it is right wing
On January 31 2012 21:39 kc wrote: Reading this topic makes me facepalm. its so fucked i cant even get my mind around it, the US is ran by a bunch of fuckign retards
Way to be constructive with your "fuckign retards" comment -.-'
Constructive for what? Any1 of any importance gonna read this? His post perfectly sums up what most ''normal'' people will think about this.
Constructive for the TL forum obviously, pointless posting makes ellie cry.
This thread will bring no discussion other than more Anti-US Flame.. Like every other thread involving the US.
OT: This is ridiculous and the US should at least refund their tickets.. I would understand if they actually found something on either of the two that could serve for terrorism but if they didn't.. then they just fucked their day entirely.
On January 31 2012 22:16 Azzur wrote: lol, a sad state the USA is in
Still, it's the USA's own country and it's citizens need to stand up or else things will keep going like this.
Things need to get worse before they'll get better. A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the gravity of what was done to these people, nor understand why it isn't okay.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the stupidity required to get yourself in such trouble in the first place.
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Ah the good old guilty until proven innocent.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the stupidity required to get yourself in such trouble in the first place.
You mean using the colloqial slang for getting drunk, and quoting an American cartoon (Family Guy)? The stupidity is on the Americans part I'm afraid.
Not gonna lie, this is really dumb but what did they expect? To be fair, that couple is probably pretty retarded for thinking this would be a good idea to do, weren't they at least a little suspicious? We're not exactly the model for freedom anymore and I thought most people were aware of that.
Not really really a funny joke either though, it's like the asshole who screams fire in a crowded building and thinks he's being cute.
I can understand how tweeting "I'm going to destroy America" even if followed by the weird part about digging up marilyn monroe (lol) can be easily misinterpreted if you're not familiar with British slang. Sure its not that smart to say if you actually were going to "destroy America" before hypothetically doing so, but that shouldn't automatically mean that the person shouldn't be investigated.
I'm sure there are dumb terrorists, or terrorists who have so much confidence and bravado that they want to announce to the world what their intentions are before they do it. There must have been cases where people have sent death threats before trying to kill someone, as a way of making them feel worse before the act.
Maybe the extent to which they were detained should have been shortened, but I think the authorities overall did a good thing. This thread is kind of overreacting though (ironically) - just because the TSA can misinterpret a very specific phrase, doesn't mean that America is becoming a paranoid police state, or that you don't have freedom of speech. You wouldn't say that if you shout "I've got a bomb in my suitcase!" (when you really mean you've got the best laptop money can buy!), and you get detained, that its the end of free speech, right?
Edit: After reading the article it sounds really really hard to misinterpret "I'm going to destroy America" when its prefaced by "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?". Sigh, I should've read the article first
Reminds me of 'Do you have anything metallic sir ?' 'Yeah, a bomb in my pants'. It's funny but you still get arrested. But totally different. An overzealous security guard ?
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 was my impression of the daily mail as well.
The Daily Mail = Super Conservative ("Britain's queue for jobs whilst more IMMIGRANTS come for dole money") The Guardian = Super Liberal ("We must accept people who hate our culture and seek to destroy us").
Both circulate equal bullshit to be honest. Take neither seriously and you will be fine.
The Daily Mail is a centre-left paper, just a tabloid centre-left paper.
I know Wikipedia isnt always right, but im pretty sure it is right wing
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
Yes all while joking about digging up dead presidents! HILARIOUS! What a clever joke! Digging up dead people HAHAHAHH
Never knew "Marilyn Monroe" was a president, thx for the info .....................................
I was saying thats what the highschoolers would be joking about. And more importantly, digging up dead people is not funny. Regardless of who it is. Since a bunch of people want to defend this guys idea of a "joke". Which happens to not be funnyy. Your welcome for the info. Would you like me to explain what sarcasm is? + Show Spoiler +
On January 31 2012 20:04 Dagobert wrote: From now on, I'll expect huge platoons showing up rounding up everyone before midterms/finals, when thousands of teens announce they'll "bomb" the tests.
On January 31 2012 22:23 AcuWill wrote: United States is rightfully becoming the laughing stock of the world.
Unfortunately yes. You take real economic damage. Not only costs your security billions and billions of dollars, it also scares away tourists who would bring good money to your country as well as tradesmen who just don't want to deal with that crap and make their deals somewhere else. That actually happens quite a lot. As a funny and sad side note it means Qaida wins because harming the US was their goal.
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Ah the good old guilty until proven innocent.
Their Twitter messages were enough reasonable suspicion for them to be investigated and temporarily detained. It's not like they were immediately convicted of terrorism for crying out loud, or that they were just arbitrarily chosen from the airport line and assumed to be plotting against America.
They should have been allowed into the country after nothing else came up, but they weren't found guilty of anything, and they had already started off on the security's radar.
On the one hand, it's bullshit. On the other, this is the country that hosted 9/11, so you'll have to bear with us while we overreact to shit.
English couple probably just rubbed someone the wrong way with their flippancy and ultimately paid for it by not being allowed entry into the country. Shit happens.
On January 31 2012 22:23 AcuWill wrote: United States is rightfully becoming the laughing stock of the world.
Unfortunately yes. You take real economic damage. Not only costs your security billions and billions of dollars, it also scares away tourists who would bring good money to your country as well as tradesmen who just don't want to deal with that crap and make their deals somewhere else. That actually happens quite a lot. As a funny and sad side note it means Qaida wins because harming the US was their goal.
I understand the people criticizing the USA's overreaction to this, but how can you not at the same time criticize that couple for being plain stupid, in fact more stupid?
The joke itself isn't funny at all, the only funny thing is the situation to us observers. Probably not funny for them though because their vacation just got ruined, which could have easily been avoided if they weren't retarded.
You shouldn't be joking around with those kinds of comments. There are jokes and there are poorly conceived ones. I imagine there's more to this story though than we are being told.
Aw they changed the article. It read before 'We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweet. He would not hurt anyone. He is gay'.
Anyway pretty stupid by USA. Nice to see that they are watching every single move on twitter, fucking hell
Guys, I'd tone down the criticism against the American way of dealing with tourists here, unless you want to be flagged as an alqaida-supporting suicide bomber on some most wanted list. Apparently the truth is irrelevant, and random statements made on the internet is what counts.
On January 31 2012 22:23 AcuWill wrote: United States is rightfully becoming the laughing stock of the world.
Unfortunately yes. You take real economic damage. Not only costs your security billions and billions of dollars, it also scares away tourists who would bring good money to your country as well as tradesmen who just don't want to deal with that crap and make their deals somewhere else. That actually happens quite a lot. As a funny and sad side note it means Qaida wins because harming the US was their goal.
On January 31 2012 22:16 Azzur wrote: lol, a sad state the USA is in
Still, it's the USA's own country and it's citizens need to stand up or else things will keep going like this.
Things need to get worse before they'll get better. A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the gravity of what was done to these people, nor understand why it isn't okay.
A lot of people don't seem to appreciate the stupidity required to get yourself in such trouble in the first place.
On January 31 2012 23:06 Angra wrote: I can't believe how many Europeans are taking this article seriously. It's a tabloid article. Dailymail shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
And they say the US are the ignorant ones who believe anything, lol. EU, the epitome of thought and reason.
Are your post supposed to be better? You attack people that make generalized ignorant claims by making one yourself. Good job...
On January 31 2012 23:06 Angra wrote: I can't believe how many Europeans are taking this article seriously. It's a tabloid article. Dailymail shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
And they say the US are the ignorant ones who believe anything, lol. EU, the epitome of thought and reason.
Are your post supposed to be better? You attack people that make generalized ignorant claims by making one yourself. Good job...
Only way to get people's attention in threads like this, really. Otherwise it gets drowned in even more America-flaming posts.
In all seriousness this thread should be closed, though. It's just fueling unneeded anger and bashing when its only source of info is a tabloid site.
This doesn't surprise me very much and I don't think my country can really talk since they tried to send that guy to jail for making a joke on twitter about blowing up an airport.
I can see why they would be kicked out. When I go to the airport I closely watch everything I say even with close friends and family. The people who work there don't know you and don't know whether you are serious or not. How could they? It's the first time they've ever met you in most cases. So going into a place that they no doubt know is pretty jumpy when it comes to security and making a "joking" threat while there is pretty stupid. They had to know it was a bad idea before they did it.
On January 31 2012 21:42 malignant wrote: Too bad no one replied to my post and debated my points because the more I think of it the more I am convinced that the DHS' hands are tied in this. In essence, federal agents are forbidden from using racial profiling by the Department of Justice. Therefore if they allow this guy though the airport then if an Irani guy did something similar ( i.e. posting in ummah.com that he'd go to the US to destroy America) then DHS cannot apprehend him unless they have additional proof that he is involved in terrorism i.e. (in which case they can and will arrest him with or without him posting his intent ). To do so means they are making an arrest based on race / religion / nationality i.e. profiling.
TL DR; I think the DHS are forced by the situation to detain the guy.
This is a very good point that has been kinda ignored. I agree.
They did not, however, need to kick them out of the country when they realised that they were speaking different slang and cracking a (rather bad) joke. Sure, detain them, put the willies up them so the authorities aren't forced, as you say, to deal with this nonsense. Kicking them out of the country is just pants on head retarded, however.
So security agents know that every terrorist will be Arabian and come from Iraq, Iran, etc.? I'd say that his visit went exactly as it should have considering that the only thing that the HS agents knew was that this guy had said he was going to destroy America. I'm pretty sure that the guy who did the shootings in Tucson last year that injured Gabby Giffords made youtube videos in which he said violent anti-America things, so it makes sense that we are taking it seriously.
On January 31 2012 23:13 jello_biafra wrote: This doesn't surprise me very much and I don't think my country can really talk since they tried to send that guy to jail for making a joke on twitter about blowing up an airport.
Yeah, reminds me of a story from a few years ago...
On January 31 2012 23:06 Angra wrote: I can't believe how many Europeans are taking this article seriously. It's a tabloid article. Dailymail shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
And they say the US are the ignorant ones who believe anything, lol. EU, the epitome of thought and reason.
Are your post supposed to be better? You attack people that make generalized ignorant claims by making one yourself. Good job...
Only way to get people's attention in threads like this, really. Otherwise it gets drowned in even more America-flaming posts.
In all seriousness this thread should be closed, though. It's just fueling unneeded anger and bashing when its only source of info is a tabloid site.
Bashing Europe for no reason and demanding the thread closed because you are scared of a little flaming of your country, really?
On January 31 2012 23:16 vol_ wrote: Because before a terrorist bombs a country they announce it to the world on twitter right?
Terrorists have announced plots through videos and other media outlets, but the internet is out of the question? Despite the fact that chaos and mass hysteria would be a primary goal on their part?
.....really? I don't even... okay fine, if you can't take a joke then search them, but at least have the decency to apologize and compensate them for the pointless trouble you've caused and then let them enjoy their holiday
On January 31 2012 23:13 jello_biafra wrote: This doesn't surprise me very much and I don't think my country can really talk since they tried to send that guy to jail for making a joke on twitter about blowing up an airport.
Yeah, reminds me of a story from a few years ago...
On January 31 2012 23:06 Angra wrote: I can't believe how many Europeans are taking this article seriously. It's a tabloid article. Dailymail shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
And they say the US are the ignorant ones who believe anything, lol. EU, the epitome of thought and reason.
Are your post supposed to be better? You attack people that make generalized ignorant claims by making one yourself. Good job...
Only way to get people's attention in threads like this, really. Otherwise it gets drowned in even more America-flaming posts.
In all seriousness this thread should be closed, though. It's just fueling unneeded anger and bashing when its only source of info is a tabloid site.
Bashing Europe for no reason and demanding the thread closed because you are scared of a little flaming of your country, really?
No, I'm saying the thread should be closed because it's creating a discussion about a tabloid article from a website that has a terrible history of reporting accurate news - essentially a joke site. I don't really think it's thread-worthy, in fact I don't think ANY thread using Dailymail as its only source should be a thread, no matter what country, person, etc. they are talking about. And people are taking the article to be 100% factual when a majority of articles from this site are not.
And as for the country flaming, it's not just "a little". It happens all the time on TL. But as soon as someone says 1 negative thing about Europe people get all defensive, it seems..
perfectly reasoned. America doesn't fuck around when it comes to anti terror operations in airports and stuff like that. If anything they where flagged on the internet (terror websites stay up for this reason) and then where red flagged for coming into america. When I go to the UK I'm not going to tweet about killing the queen and defacing the graves of kings before I go there its just stupid and the same thing will happen to me.
Probably because "Europe" is not a country and the things you bring up vary from each of it's member countries... But you declaring Europe a country allready shows the problem "Europeans" have discussing with you...
perfectly reasoned. America doesn't fuck around when it comes to anti terror operations in airports and stuff like that. If anything they where flagged on the internet (terror websites stay up for this reason) and then where red flagged for coming into america. When I go to the UK I'm not going to tweet about killing the queen and defacing the graves of kings before I go there its just stupid and the same thing will happen to me.
As long as people actually support bullshit like this, all the US-Ridicule is more than deserved.
You arrested two guys for basically saying: "We gonna party in the US + a Family Guy quote".
If you don't see something wrong with that, you have severe issues.
On January 31 2012 23:33 Velr wrote: Probably because "Europe" is not a country and the things you bring up vary from each of it's member countries... But you declaring Europe a country allready shows the problem "Europeans" have discussing with you...
I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that Europe is a country. Thanks for the misquote.
I can quote inflammatory posts about the US from posters from a large amount of European countries in the past month in threads here on TL, if you'd like.
On January 31 2012 23:33 Velr wrote: Probably because "Europe" is not a country and the things you bring up vary from each of it's member countries... But you declaring Europe a country allready shows the problem "Europeans" have discussing with you...
I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that Europe is a country. Thanks for the misquote.
I can quote inflammatory posts about the US from posters from a large amount of European countries in the past month in threads here on TL, if you'd like.
You can add New Zealand to the list:
On January 31 2012 23:39 RogerX wrote: Sometimes, its shit like this why some people call America dumb.
On January 31 2012 23:39 RogerX wrote: Sometimes, its shit like this why some people call America dumb.
In the past, people have said violent anti-American things on the internet before trying to kill a bunch of people. Please think a little before posting.
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 was my impression of the daily mail as well.
The Daily Mail = Super Conservative ("Britain's queue for jobs whilst more IMMIGRANTS come for dole money") The Guardian = Super Liberal ("We must accept people who hate our culture and seek to destroy us").
Both circulate equal bullshit to be honest. Take neither seriously and you will be fine.
The Daily Mail is a centre-left paper, just a tabloid centre-left paper.
I know Wikipedia isnt always right, but im pretty sure it is right wing
On January 31 2012 23:13 jello_biafra wrote: This doesn't surprise me very much and I don't think my country can really talk since they tried to send that guy to jail for making a joke on twitter about blowing up an airport.
Yeah, reminds me of a story from a few years ago...
On January 31 2012 23:06 Angra wrote: I can't believe how many Europeans are taking this article seriously. It's a tabloid article. Dailymail shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
And they say the US are the ignorant ones who believe anything, lol. EU, the epitome of thought and reason.
Are your post supposed to be better? You attack people that make generalized ignorant claims by making one yourself. Good job...
Only way to get people's attention in threads like this, really. Otherwise it gets drowned in even more America-flaming posts.
In all seriousness this thread should be closed, though. It's just fueling unneeded anger and bashing when its only source of info is a tabloid site.
Bashing Europe for no reason and demanding the thread closed because you are scared of a little flaming of your country, really?
No, I'm saying the thread should be closed because it's creating a discussion about a tabloid article from a website that has a terrible history of reporting accurate news - essentially a joke site. I don't really think it's thread-worthy, in fact I don't think ANY thread using Dailymail as its only source should be a thread, no matter what country, person, etc. they are talking about. And people are taking the article to be 100% factual when a majority of articles from this site are not.
And as for the country flaming, it's not just "a little". It happens all the time on TL. But as soon as someone says 1 negative thing about Europe people get all defensive, it seems..
Just because the source the OP uses is a 'tabloid' doesn't mean it hasn't been reported elsewhere. A quick search of Google will find a load of different sites reporting it, some more reputable than the one given.
Also Europe is not a country, that's partly the issue when people start to bash 'Europeans'. There are so many languages and cultural differences across 'Europe' that when it is generalised as all being the same, people get a little angry of course. I think your 'Everyone is flaming us, so I will flame someone else' is counter productive and detracts from the point you are trying to make.
Bewildering existence of big brother. Failure is secondary. What a fucking pile of bullshit. Who's the dipshit that thought that scouring peoples public personal tweets where their full names are is a good way to catch people with covert intentions. Maybe they'll just admit to stuff flat out because they think that twitter is a secret place! Oh god, the compounded idiocy involved in this story is too much.
On January 31 2012 23:13 jello_biafra wrote: This doesn't surprise me very much and I don't think my country can really talk since they tried to send that guy to jail for making a joke on twitter about blowing up an airport.
Yeah, reminds me of a story from a few years ago...
On January 31 2012 23:06 Angra wrote: I can't believe how many Europeans are taking this article seriously. It's a tabloid article. Dailymail shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
And they say the US are the ignorant ones who believe anything, lol. EU, the epitome of thought and reason.
Are your post supposed to be better? You attack people that make generalized ignorant claims by making one yourself. Good job...
Only way to get people's attention in threads like this, really. Otherwise it gets drowned in even more America-flaming posts.
In all seriousness this thread should be closed, though. It's just fueling unneeded anger and bashing when its only source of info is a tabloid site.
Bashing Europe for no reason and demanding the thread closed because you are scared of a little flaming of your country, really?
No, I'm saying the thread should be closed because it's creating a discussion about a tabloid article from a website that has a terrible history of reporting accurate news - essentially a joke site. I don't really think it's thread-worthy, in fact I don't think ANY thread using Dailymail as its only source should be a thread, no matter what country, person, etc. they are talking about. And people are taking the article to be 100% factual when a majority of articles from this site are not.
And as for the country flaming, it's not just "a little". It happens all the time on TL. But as soon as someone says 1 negative thing about Europe people get all defensive, it seems..
Just because the source the OP uses is a 'tabloid' doesn't mean it hasn't been reported elsewhere. A quick search of Google will find a load of different sites reporting it, some more reputable than the one given.
Also Europe is not a country, that's partly the issue when people start to bash 'Europeans'. There are so many languages and cultural differences across 'Europe' that when it is generalised as all being the same, people get a little angry of course. I think your 'Everyone is flaming us, so I will flame someone else' is counter productive and detracts from the point you are trying to make.
You could say the same thing about America's diversity too considering 300 million people live here (although it's only 1 country compared to Europe's many), yet still so many posts still just hate all over the US in general anyway without anyone jumping all over them like people are doing to 1 post of mine. :/ Just saying it's a bit hypocritical, and I'm getting pretty tired of seeing it tolerated here on TL. People I have nothing to do with and have no control over do something stupid, and just because they're American too I'm the one who has to hear about how dumb I am for it/how stupid the country I live in is. It's not very pleasant at times.
Obviously there's absolutely no way to generalize any group of people at all in the world, though at times it feels like a lot of people on TL do it for the US. Just gets annoying and I wish it wasn't so tolerated here in the General section.
On January 31 2012 23:32 sermokala wrote: perfectly reasoned. America doesn't fuck around when it comes to anti terror operations in airports and stuff like that. If anything they where flagged on the internet (terror websites stay up for this reason) and then where red flagged for coming into america. When I go to the UK I'm not going to tweet about killing the queen and defacing the graves of kings before I go there its just stupid and the same thing will happen to me.
Well no, neither did they. They said they were going to "destroy America" which, if you went to the U.K, they would take as getting shitfaced. And the reason they said they would dig up Marilyn Monroe was because it's a quote from Family Guy, yaknow, an American comedy show.
Even so, I seriously doubt it would happen in the U.K. even though they had terrorist attacks as well. The saying "only in America" is there for a reason, you seriously underestimate countries outside the U.S if you think they're the same.
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.
I don't really see why everyone complains so much about it. I kinda feel like while the airport security might have overreacted, those tourists definitely should have thought a little bit more about posting stuff like that on Twitter. Security takes shit seriously. They have very strict regulations to follow. It's their job. Don't blame them for taking their jobs seriously. If anything, its kind of the tourists' fault for making light of the situation. Like, I remember reading an article about my local airport being closed down because of a mysterious package left in the bathroom. Turned out it was a roast turkey or something. Pretty sure something like that happened in a movie too.
Generally if you refrain from posting or saying anything stupid airport security is pretty good. I had to go through Hartsfield Jackson (busiest airport in the US/ world) to go home over Winter break, and I got through pretty fast and easy-- unload the laptop, empty pockets into a bin, everything goes through x-ray, done. Another time I did get stopped for brining a bunch of booze back from Austria (it was a gift from the people I was staying with to my parents) but that got cleared up efficiently.
If anyone wants to post something really stupid on the internet and then try going through airport security and see if they get stopped, please, tell us your story too.
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.
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.
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.
This story is hilarious. Remember the girl from Lie To Me who worked at airport? Well some people there are the full opposite, cant tell the truth even if its plain evident.
The idea you can stop terrorism by monitoring twitter is just retarded -.-. If they were terrorists, why the hell would they make it so bloody obvious.
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 (<- important word here) 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
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.
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
i'm not a fan of the safety measures the US put in place, but they're like this for about 10 years and if some tourists still didnt get the message, shame on them.
Mind you, on my 1 flight into the US some years ago, i also really had a hard time to refrain from trolling as i was handed the checklist asking me if i was carrying any radioactive materials etc etc... like, yo. Also i'm hitlers brother and shared a room with stalin when we were developing nuclear missiles in north korea.
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.
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.
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
On February 01 2012 00:24 Scarecrow wrote: The idea you can stop terrorism by monitoring twitter is just retarded -.-. If they were terrorists, why the hell would they make it so bloody obvious.
Because school shootings, terrorist plots, and other huge crimes have been advertised ahead of time via the internet, video, and other media feeds in the past, so checking out public forums for certain alerts is perfectly understandable.
I don't understand how that is the part that so many people are caught up on. I can see the "still not letting them in to the country after the tourists were cleared" part being ridiculous... but people being caught up with monitoring the media for security purposes? No idea why that's the crazy part.
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.
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.
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.
well as far as I know you can get sued for those things. Maybe you can get sued for bad jokes but cant you tell the difference?
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.
Please tell me you think it was right to deny these two entry to the US. I want to laugh even harder. :D
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.
Please tell me you think it was right to deny these two entry to the US. I want to laugh even harder. :D
I don't know about that, but I don't have a problem with them being stopped and questioned at customs over it.
Please tell me you think it's acceptable to police and censor opinions about the holocaust, I want to laugh even harder too.
This guy in the comments section puts it perfectly: [quote]
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.
Please tell me you think it was right to deny these two entry to the US. I want to laugh even harder. :D
I don't know about that, but I don't have a problem with them being stopped and questioned at customs over it.
If just that would have happened we would not have this discussion.
On February 01 2012 00:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
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.
Please tell me you think it was right to deny these two entry to the US. I want to laugh even harder. :D
I don't know about that, but I don't have a problem with them being stopped and questioned at customs over it.
If just that would have happened we would not have this discussion.
We have no idea what was said or what happened in the questioning. We just have the daily fail giving a sensationalist account and the bare facts.
Honestly these people were just stupid. Ever since 9-11 our airport security has been extremely touchy about such things. If you are so lacking in intelligence as to be posting something like that right before travelling or actually saying it in the airport.....
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.
ROFL, you just dont get it, do you? You can speak freely, nobody will deny that, but you will face the punishement for that. You will be taken to court for denying the holocaust, you also will be taken to court for telling lies about your boss. Maybe you get it now =)
Dunno about australia, but here right of free speech doesnt mean, every idiot can state lies all over the place and think he can hide behind the rights of free speech
And I thought it was ridiculous when my friend got thrown out of the airport and banned from BMI for saying "no bomb here mate" when going through security.
On February 01 2012 00:40 RDaneelOlivaw wrote: Honestly these people were just stupid. Ever since 9-11 our airport security has been extremely touchy about such things. If you are so lacking in intelligence as to be posting something like that right before travelling or actually saying it in the airport.....
They posted it on their twitter buddy, I had no idea that airport security even checked twitter. I mean what do they expect to see which is actually useful, that some terrorist announcing their plans?
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.
What does the country he comes from have to do with anything? Because of his nationality he is not allowed to criticsize a certain procedure in the US? Wat?
And why the fuck would you drag the holocaust into this discussion?
But for the record, yes, germany has free speech. Restrictions to free speech exist in every country, including the US.
On February 01 2012 00:36 Euronyme wrote: You don't see a difference at all between making an inside joke with your friends on a social media,.
You are never making a joke with just your friends on social media. Expect nothing less than everything you say on there being "overheard." Assuming anything else would be foolish and could lead to problems down the road for you
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.
ROFL, you just dont get it, do you? You can speak freely, nobody will deny that, but you will face the punishement for that. You will be taken to court for denying the holocaust, you also will be taken to court for telling lies about your boss. Maybe you get it now =)
Dunno about australia, but here right of free speech doesnt mean, every idiot can state lies all over the place and think he can hide behind the rights of free speech
thats not "speaking freely" tho ; but i agree with german law in this case - certain restrictions are necessary,as for example you are not allowed to insult any1 as well (§185,194 StGB).
but thats a difference in system that has nothing to do with the case at hand.
Germany doesn't even have free speech and you're criticizing America, lol.
ROFL, you just dont get it, do you? You can speak freely, nobody will deny that, but you will face the punishement for that. You will be taken to court for denying the holocaust, you also will be taken to court for telling lies about your boss. Maybe you get it now =)
thats not "speaking freely" tho ; but i agree with german law in this case ;
you are not allowed to insult any1 as well (§185,194 StGB).
but thats a difference in system that has nothing to do with the case at hand.
edit : wow i fucked up that quote -.-
Sure it has nothing to do with that case, but I gotta educate the foreigners a bit, not that they keep spreading false stuff out of pure non knowledge
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.
ROFL, you just dont get it, do you? You can speak freely, nobody will deny that, but you will face the punishement for that. You will be taken to court for denying the holocaust, you also will be taken to court for telling lies about your boss. Maybe you get it now =)
Dunno about australia, but here right of free speech doesnt mean, every idiot can state lies all over the place and think he can hide behind the rights of free speech
Actually it generally does mean you can state lies/vile things all over the place.
Unless ..its under oath (perjury) ..it is directly causing harm to someone (fraud/slander/libel... and those are very restricted) ,,it is used as evidence for an actual crime that you planned to commit*
*This is important, they were not in trouble For what they said, they were in trouble For something else because of what they said. (that being said they probably have a good case that they shouldn't have been denied entry completely..and that they should Not have been detained long)
You don't have free Anything if you can be arrested for it afterwards. (otherwise you could say the under the Nazis you were free to be a Jew. You would just be executed afterwards. since Godwin has already been invoked)
As a side note, the "Human to animal", is probably considering disease transmission
I woudnt be surprised if they were coming from arabic countries, because seems like everyone that looks like arab(or w/e they are) gets alot of atention at american airports,but a random young dude from UK? didnt expect that :O
On February 01 2012 00:49 Timurid wrote: the people who starts these dumb threads are just finding ways to bash americans.
How is it bashing Americans? Maybe it is bashing Homeland Security, but that is done by many Americans as well on a regular basis. I dont think they are bashing themelves eveytime they critisize that institution.
On February 01 2012 00:40 RDaneelOlivaw wrote: Honestly these people were just stupid. Ever since 9-11 our airport security has been extremely touchy about such things. If you are so lacking in intelligence as to be posting something like that right before travelling or actually saying it in the airport.....
Shouldn't have to be careful about something so clearly a joke. As was mentioned earlier, "destroy" means party. What passes for "security" in the US has reached unreasonable levels, and been that way for the last couple of years. Shouldn't be letting fear be our main motivator here or anywhere.
well now that i know the twitter gets checked and making bad jokes about US can get you in trouble but searching for spades ment to be used in digging up Marilyn Monroe?
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.
No country has pure freedom of speech. Australia doesn't and neither does the U.S. Libel, defamation and forgery are examples of laws restricting "freedom".
Well I get held up in Immigration everytime I enter the US. Not for just 1-2 hours, but 7-9 hours at a time. Real retarded.
"You were randomly selected for a detailed interview" Orly? I look around in the waiting area - I see 2 other Pakistanis, and thats it. Still have to wait 7 hours.
On February 01 2012 00:44 Ziktomini wrote: And I thought it was ridiculous when my friend got thrown out of the airport and banned from BMI for saying "no bomb here mate" when going through security.
On February 01 2012 00:40 RDaneelOlivaw wrote: Honestly these people were just stupid. Ever since 9-11 our airport security has been extremely touchy about such things. If you are so lacking in intelligence as to be posting something like that right before travelling or actually saying it in the airport.....
They posted it on their twitter buddy, I had no idea that airport security even checked twitter. I mean what do they expect to see which is actually useful, that some terrorist announcing their plans?
As I made clear, I understood where they posted it buddy. And has been brought up repeatedly in this thread, social media has been used to announce things like school attacks in the past. Its not unreasonable to be sifting through it. Posting unthinkingly on social media sites is a mistake. Everything you post is available to the public, so don't post things that will be misconstrued. It isn't hard
Honestly, they were both being stupid. On the one hand, they know the USA is strict about these things and posting something like this on twitter is an idiotic thing to do. On the other hand, the way the USA handled this is just ridiculous. Arresting and deporting them for making a joke on twitter is about as stupid as arresting everyone that owns a gun because you "suspect them of murder". Even more so considering the absolutely abysmal amount of terrorist attacks compared to gun-related crime, the only difference is that when a terrorist attack happens that kills 20 people, it's national news, when a gun-crazed idiot shoots up a couple of people on the street, it'll barely make the local news in a small town, if at all.
On February 01 2012 00:40 RDaneelOlivaw wrote: Honestly these people were just stupid. Ever since 9-11 our airport security has been extremely touchy about such things. If you are so lacking in intelligence as to be posting something like that right before travelling or actually saying it in the airport.....
Shouldn't have to be careful about something so clearly a joke. As was mentioned earlier, "destroy" means party. What passes for "security" in the US has reached unreasonable levels, and been that way for the last couple of years. Shouldn't be letting fear be our main motivator here or anywhere.
Fucking Patriot Act....
I agreee. Security is probably overreaching a bit here, but ultimately the fault lies with the travellers. Posting something like that before travelling to a country that is known to be paranoid about airline security is STUPID. Exercise self-censorship and this problem doesnt occur
On January 31 2012 19:15 bOneSeven wrote:For example in comic slang you use words like "bomb" "killed" "destroyed" .... are they gonna put them under terrorist suspicion for using such words ?
If you say any of them in an airport you get put on the no-fly list that's for sure.
On January 31 2012 19:15 bOneSeven wrote:For example in comic slang you use words like "bomb" "killed" "destroyed" .... are they gonna put them under terrorist suspicion for using such words ?
If you say any of them in an airport you get put on the no-fly list that's for sure.
anyone whose stupid enough to say they're going to destroy the U.S on twitter before coming, isn't smart enough to put a proper plan in action. thats just the hard facts. gotta skate
On January 31 2012 19:15 bOneSeven wrote:For example in comic slang you use words like "bomb" "killed" "destroyed" .... are they gonna put them under terrorist suspicion for using such words ?
If you say any of them in an airport you get put on the no-fly list that's for sure.
Luckily this couple made none of their comments in an airport...
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
Yeah I can't believe anyone would want to travel to a country that takes security seriously. Unbelievable, the nerve some people have.
Maybe you should just be a little more tactful in the language you use. You don't say Fire in a movie theater; you don't say Bomb on a plane; you don't talk about Destroying the country you're going to visit.
Yeah, they may have multiple definitions, but the fact that terrorists and other criminals have displayed intentions and plots through media feeds in the past (internet, video, etc.) shows that it's certainly possible for a Twitter status to mean something more than an innocent joke. It's certainly worth checking into, at the very least. There's no harm in that. The ridiculous part was sending the tourists home after the investigation found nothing.
But the existence of relatively tight security checks- especially after national terrorist attacks- is nothing to roll your eyes at.
My hope is that people don't mistake these actions performed by US officials to influence their opinions of educated Americans equally disappointed at such a waste of resouces.
It was good of the US to check out the people that made those tweets, but the way they handled it is just wrong. I mean, at some point they figured out they werent actual terrorists but they were send back to the UK anyway :/
Wups...I more than once stated I would go to England and dig a hole so the island sinks...just to annoy my UK buddies...but before ppl start whining I'll quote my earlier post again
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 especially 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
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
Yeah I can't believe anyone would want to travel to a country that takes security seriously. Unbelievable, the nerve some people have.
Maybe you should just be a little more tactful in the language you use. You don't say Fire in a movie theater; you don't say Bomb on a plane; you don't talk about Destroying the country you're going to visit.
Yeah, they may have multiple definitions, but the fact that terrorists and other criminals have displayed intentions and plots through media feeds in the past (internet, video, etc.) shows that it's certainly possible for a Twitter status to mean something more than an innocent joke. It's certainly worth checking into, at the very least. There's no harm in that. The ridiculous part was sending the tourists home after the investigation found nothing.
But the existence of relatively tight security checks- especially after national terrorist attacks- is nothing to roll your eyes at.
No, I would not want to travel to US not because they treat their security seriously. But because they take it to the extreme nonsensical heights. Like a Canadian that I know went on holidays to US with his 8-10 year old son and because his son shared a name of someone on the list they had to go through a lot of problems. Imagine if it would be someone adult who shared such a name. When I am flying somewhere in the world, first thing I make sure is that I do not have to change planes in US.
Also you having ridiculous laws and indefinite detentions does not help.
Problem in this and similar cases is at least partially in the fact that the security guys either have no discretion in handling those cases or are too afraid to use their own head and common sense.
EDIT: plus of course the security guys often love to feel in power and important, even though often stupid as a spade.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
Yeah I can't believe anyone would want to travel to a country that takes security seriously. Unbelievable, the nerve some people have.
Maybe you should just be a little more tactful in the language you use. You don't say Fire in a movie theater; you don't say Bomb on a plane; you don't talk about Destroying the country you're going to visit.
Yeah, they may have multiple definitions, but the fact that terrorists and other criminals have displayed intentions and plots through media feeds in the past (internet, video, etc.) shows that it's certainly possible for a Twitter status to mean something more than an innocent joke. It's certainly worth checking into, at the very least. There's no harm in that. The ridiculous part was sending the tourists home after the investigation found nothing.
But the existence of relatively tight security checks- especially after national terrorist attacks- is nothing to roll your eyes at.
I was not rolling my eyes at anything. I just said this is a serious problem for many, that is a simple fact. Personally I heard quite often from people I know that US customs / security / police is the reason they dont want to travel there.
Oh and please stop talking as if the US was somehow exceptional in having suffered terrorist attacks.
I don’t really get it. It takes one person reading the twitter account for tone and general content (and obviously they’re already screening it), ten minutes at most, to be able to evaluate that these people are not a threat. Even if they have a shred of doubt left at that point, all it takes is googling “destroy” in some British contexts, and googling the Monroe phrase—I’d have done it in 2 minutes. The interviewing and the amount of manpower they put into it instead was probably worth some serious money and probably at least an hour of time from five or six different people, plus all the inconvenience and costs for the tourists themselves.
The mistake is scary. What is more scary is that the security seems to work like a mindless machine.
The couple was careless, but they were very obviously being stupid and careless, and if security couldn't catch that, then what else might they not catch?
He was questioned under oath about his postings to Twitter, according to images of a document said to be from the agency. The document, posted by The Daily Mail and quoted by The Sun, appeared to demonstrate a less-than-full understanding of social media by agents explaining the reason for the questioning:
Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter Web site account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also on his tweeter account Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. It was photographed by Small World News Service, an independent British news agency that frequently pays its sources for stories. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Bunting posed together for portraits by the SWNS news agency that appeared in tabloids on Monday, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.
A call to Donald Triner, acting director of the agency office overseeing an initiative on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness,” was directed to the press office.
Eh most people in the US know that the security people have zero sense of humor. My grandfather once joked that his chess clock was a bomb and basically had to take the train. Just don't joke around that kind of thing. I think it's obviously strong that they had to go back after coming here though.
There is very good reasons why I don't wanna visit the USA. The big problem is that even a airplane stop (even just for refuel!!!) sucks the exact same way as a visit.
I had no problem visiting china and at one point they didnt even take my swiss army knife i forgot in my carry on baggage. china rocks usa sucks.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
It is a serious problem, because it's their job to make sure no one ever repeats what happened on 9/11. You think they don't realize they're being a bit paranoid? But what do you think is worse. Sending home a few people who OPENLY stated they were going to 'destroy' regardless of slang, and then nothing catastrophic happens, or b) they say, oh it's just a joke, hahahahaha, and then a bomb blows up an airplane, and the media goes CRAZY about how Homeland security, KNEW of a public announcement on twitter, and they did nothing to stop it.
I'm all for freedom, and i agree, being paranoid sucks, but I can't really fault them for being cautious. 9/11 was a terrible disaster, and there HAS been subsequent attacks that have been stopped due to the added security, you just don't hear about them all the time because it would create mass hysteria.
Basically it's simple, don't go to a sensitive country about terrorism, shouting things that can be misinterpreted publicly, and you'll have no 'travel problems' in the US. No one is allowed to even mutter the word 'bomb' in an airport or airplane because it's such a dangerous possibility, but you don't see a thread 'US citizens removed from plane because he used the word Bomb'.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
Yeah I can't believe anyone would want to travel to a country that takes security seriously. Unbelievable, the nerve some people have.
Maybe you should just be a little more tactful in the language you use. You don't say Fire in a movie theater; you don't say Bomb on a plane; you don't talk about Destroying the country you're going to visit.
Yeah, they may have multiple definitions, but the fact that terrorists and other criminals have displayed intentions and plots through media feeds in the past (internet, video, etc.) shows that it's certainly possible for a Twitter status to mean something more than an innocent joke. It's certainly worth checking into, at the very least. There's no harm in that. The ridiculous part was sending the tourists home after the investigation found nothing.
But the existence of relatively tight security checks- especially after national terrorist attacks- is nothing to roll your eyes at.
I was not rolling my eyes at anything. I just said this is a serious problem for many, that is a simple fact. Personally I heard quite often from people I know that US customs / security / police is the reason they dont want to travel there.
Oh and please stop talking as if the US was somehow exceptional in having suffered terrorist attacks.
I never said that or acted that way, and I wouldn't blame any other country for stopping and questioning people who had posted a Facebook or Twitter message about destroying the country they were visiting- whether it's slang or not.
i love how there's actually people that actually justify this sort of bullshit extremist "need for security"
you're the reason shit like this is able to fly. have we become so fucking stupid of a nation that we SERIOUSLY cannot determine when someone is very obviously not a threat? that we have to go to such extremes just to feel "safe." how can some people not see the abuse of power? how can some people not see how dangerous it is to go down this sort of path where the line gets crossed and suddenly regular people are being classified as threats because of something they said on the internet with absolutely no bad intent. we're at a point where we are actually SCARED to say things because were scared of what might happen to us. This is not how the United States was built. Stop justifying these type of laws and actions by dhs. Its NOT okay and it goes against everything this country was built for. Funny how we had a terrorist attack in 9/11, and, in the name of fighting said terrorists, we willingly give up civil liberties. We willingly let our government pass laws that are borderline unconstitutional. Where do you draw the line? It just keeps getting eroded away more and more little by little and its like no one fucking notices or doesnt give a fuck. We're "fighting terrorists" by becoming more oppressive. Thats ridiculous.
I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
You don't see me posting to facebook "flying home today, I think I'm going to destroy america."
I'm also allowed to fly.
Interesting coincidence no?
In short: yes, it sucks that America falls on the side of security over convenience when you are the one being inconvenienced. That being said, you probably shouldn't joke about destroying any country.
EDIT: Also, how many times do you seem DHS get harpooned for failing to spot a security risk? How many times do you see them congratulated for preventing an attack? That's why they are so cautious, nobody ever gives you credit for preventing something terrible because they'll never know about it if you are doing it right, but as soon as one thing goes wrong everyone knows you screwed up.
a slightly similar case happened in my neighbor village in germany a few years ago.
someone at the age of around 70 shouted something like "i will blow up those fucking manually operated railway crossing gates" and was later investigated by the police.obviously it was a joke, but some people thought he was for real.
you just have to choose your words carefully.
nevertheless,sending them back is an overreaction.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
It is a serious problem, because it's their job to make sure no one ever repeats what happened on 9/11. You think they don't realize they're being a bit paranoid? But what do you think is worse. Sending home a few people who OPENLY stated they were going to 'destroy' regardless of slang, and then nothing catastrophic happens, or b) they say, oh it's just a joke, hahahahaha, and then a bomb blows up an airplane, and the media goes CRAZY about how Homeland security, KNEW of a public announcement on twitter, and they did nothing to stop it.
I'm all for freedom, and i agree, being paranoid sucks, but I can't really fault them for being cautious. 9/11 was a terrible disaster, and there HAS been subsequent attacks that have been stopped due to the added security, you just don't hear about them all the time because it would create mass hysteria.
Basically it's simple, don't go to a sensitive country about terrorism, shouting things that can be misinterpreted publicly, and you'll have no 'travel problems' in the US. No one is allowed to even mutter the word 'bomb' in an airport or airplane because it's such a dangerous possibility, but you don't see a thread 'US citizens removed from plane because he used the word Bomb'.
To you and everyone else who is like OHMYGAWDTHISCOULDHAVEBEENREAL!!!!11
Let's assume you're a terrorist. Would you use words like "bomb", "destroy", "twin-towers", or "airplane crash"?
No, you would fucking call it "pie", "hiking", "bielefeld" and "nuclear meltdown". Erhm, I mean "picknick".
In fact, a tweet saying: "We're going to hike to washington tomorrow and bring pie along. Let's hope it will be better than the Bielefeld picknick!" ...
is MUCH scarier than: "We're going to destroy washington tomorrow and bring a bomb along. Let's hope it will be more fun than the airplane crash into the twintowers!"
Anyone assuming a person who would actually DEDICATE THEIR LIVES to blowing shit up somewhere will behave like a total amateur (completely keeping aside that using twitter to organize is probably a bad idea) should be strapped to a balcony and be whipped until he admits being stupid.
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
this is what im talking about right here. we cant even make a joke about it without being worried that we'll be "flagged" or whatever. Its bullshit.
On February 01 2012 01:53 Djzapz wrote: I'm going to destroy America too, BRT!
Yea, u can make that joke cuz ur in canada. I wouldn't have typed that and i wouldn't even make that joke. Yeah it probably won't lead to anything if i did make the joke, but its still the fact that i don't feel confident in being able to make it at all. Thats not okay, i shouldn't have to worry about stupid trivial shit like this in the United States of America.
Teach you fucking Brits to have a sense of humor! Wait, shit, that's something you're supposed to have.
On February 01 2012 01:43 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: There is very good reasons why I don't wanna visit the USA. The big problem is that even a airplane stop (even just for refuel!!!) sucks the exact same way as a visit.
I had no problem visiting china and at one point they didnt even take my swiss army knife i forgot in my carry on baggage. china rocks usa sucks.
Lesotho? The third world is allowed to talk shit now? I'll agree, the American airport security protocols are a bit much, but that doesn't mean we suck. That just means some guy from a third world country doesn't get to take out his Swiss army knife and cut the pilot's throat.
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
this is what im talking about right here. we cant even make a joke about it without being worried that we'll be "flagged" or whatever. Its bullshit.
On February 01 2012 01:53 Djzapz wrote: I'm going to destroy America too, BRT!
Yea, u can make that joke cuz ur in canada. I wouldn't have typed that and i wouldn't even make that joke. Yeah it probably won't lead to anything if i did make the joke, but its still the fact that i don't feel confident in being able to make it at all. Thats not okay, i shouldn't have to worry about stupid trivial shit like this in the United States of America.
Well one day when you become Director of National Intelligence you can reform the government on how to feasibly track millions of people per day to counter terrorist efforts on the American internet superhighway. I'm sure they're looking forward to your advice.
wow really? how did they even find out he tweeted like
seems pretty ridiculous if he doesnt have a terrorist backround
EDIT: wow read this on that page
The Department of Homeland Security was recently criticised over false accounts it set up on Twitter.
These are then used to scan networks for 'sensitive' words and then for tracking the people who use them.
Online privacy group, the Electronic Privacy Information Centre requested information on the DHS's scans, which it says the agency announced in February last year.
The group claims that a request under the Freedom of Information Act to access the documentation has gone unanswered.
The words deemed as being sensitive by the DHS include: Illegal immigrant Outbreak Drill Strain Virus Recovery Deaths Collapse Human to animal Trojan
Human to animal? Really?
Sounds like people need to start switching to Durex if they want into the US.
On February 01 2012 01:43 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: There is very good reasons why I don't wanna visit the USA. The big problem is that even a airplane stop (even just for refuel!!!) sucks the exact same way as a visit.
I had no problem visiting china and at one point they didnt even take my swiss army knife i forgot in my carry on baggage. china rocks usa sucks.
Well, China is absolutely not the rule when it comes to customs, they are super casual there. You can take as much duty-free stuff as you want, they don't care about pocket knives, etc. It's actually kind of odd coming from the US.
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
this is what im talking about right here. we cant even make a joke about it without being worried that we'll be "flagged" or whatever. Its bullshit.
On February 01 2012 01:53 Djzapz wrote: I'm going to destroy America too, BRT!
Yea, u can make that joke cuz ur in canada. I wouldn't have typed that and i wouldn't even make that joke. Yeah it probably won't lead to anything if i did make the joke, but its still the fact that i don't feel confident in being able to make it at all. Thats not okay, i shouldn't have to worry about stupid trivial shit like this in the United States of America.
Well one day when you become Director of National Intelligence you can reform the government on how to feasibly track millions of people per day to counter terrorist efforts on the American internet superhighway. I'm sure they're looking forward to your advice.
It is not in the interest of any intelligence service in the world to prevent the threat of terrorism. Events like the one in the OP keep your people in line. The plain fact that a LOT of people in this thread seem to shrug it off with "Yeah, if you know we're sensitive about it you don't joke about it!" shows that it works pretty brilliantly.
Any person that condones "I'm gonna destroy america tomorrow" or "I'm gonna destroy Las Vegas starting tomorrow" (in fact I posted the latter quote on facebook myself once) as a "serious threat to the security of our country!" has been brainwashed to hell and back.
Tomorrow in the news: College student ended up in jail for saying "I'm gonna fuck the entire college dorm!"
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
do you seriously propose that we stop laughing because of government watch? Dude that's aweful.
Country bashing is "normal" and pretty much all in good fun. These guys didn't even say something bad about the US.
It is ridiculous that I have to watch my mouth to not write something which marks me as a "terrorist".
This once more shows, that SOPA would have been abused. Give them power, they'll use it and find reasons to justify it. Makes me said. Watched V yesterday, "it is not the people that should be afraid of the government, the government should be afraid of the people", so freaking true.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
It is a serious problem, because it's their job to make sure no one ever repeats what happened on 9/11. You think they don't realize they're being a bit paranoid? But what do you think is worse. Sending home a few people who OPENLY stated they were going to 'destroy' regardless of slang, and then nothing catastrophic happens, or b) they say, oh it's just a joke, hahahahaha, and then a bomb blows up an airplane, and the media goes CRAZY about how Homeland security, KNEW of a public announcement on twitter, and they did nothing to stop it.
I'm all for freedom, and i agree, being paranoid sucks, but I can't really fault them for being cautious. 9/11 was a terrible disaster, and there HAS been subsequent attacks that have been stopped due to the added security, you just don't hear about them all the time because it would create mass hysteria.
Basically it's simple, don't go to a sensitive country about terrorism, shouting things that can be misinterpreted publicly, and you'll have no 'travel problems' in the US. No one is allowed to even mutter the word 'bomb' in an airport or airplane because it's such a dangerous possibility, but you don't see a thread 'US citizens removed from plane because he used the word Bomb'.
To you and everyone else who is like OHMYGAWDTHISCOULDHAVEBEENREAL!!!!11
Let's assume you're a terrorist. Would you use words like "bomb", "destroy", "twin-towers", or "airplane crash"?
No, you would fucking call it "pie", "hiking", "bielefeld" and "nuclear meltdown". Erhm, I mean "picknick".
In fact, a tweet saying: "We're going to hike to washington tomorrow and bring pie along. Let's hope it will be better than the Bielefeld picknick!" ...
is MUCH scarier than: "We're going to destroy washington tomorrow and bring a bomb along. Let's hope it will be more fun than the airplane crash into the twintowers!"
Anyone assuming a person who would actually DEDICATE THEIR LIVES to blowing shit up somewhere will behave like a total amateur (completely keeping aside that using twitter to organize is probably a bad idea) should be strapped to a balcony and be whipped until he admits being stupid.
That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. In fact, that's so obscenely backwards, that you're claiming that literally anything any person says can be a justified terrorist threat, since you can replace any word with any other word.
Just imagine if our national security and systems that look out for terrorist threats scanned for "any noun or verb" instead of known keywords. How ridiculous can you possibly be?
We've seen terrorists, school shooters, and other big criminals make videos, internet messages, and use other media forums to explicitly send their message without being utterly nonsensical. The least we can do is take actual threats and threatening words seriously when they're presented to us on a silver platter, regardless of whether or not they end up being a hoax or a joke.
When national security spending increases exponentially, you have a surplus of bonehead government lapdogs just looking to justify their own jobs.
*1910 industrial factory floor supervisor voice*
"Look bawss look bawss! Look who I founded bawss! Two of them brits tryin tah' dig up marilyn monroe bawss! Can I get promoted bawss oh please oh please oh please!?"
The words deemed as being sensitive by the DHS include: Illegal immigrant Outbreak Drill Strain Virus Recovery Deaths Collapse Human to animal Trojan
Human to animal? Really?
Holy crap, an illegal immigrant outbreak occurred while they were drilling up a virus recovery strain to prevent the deaths that would happen should the horse collapse on the Trojans while they were doing it human to animal.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
It is a serious problem, because it's their job to make sure no one ever repeats what happened on 9/11. You think they don't realize they're being a bit paranoid? But what do you think is worse. Sending home a few people who OPENLY stated they were going to 'destroy' regardless of slang, and then nothing catastrophic happens, or b) they say, oh it's just a joke, hahahahaha, and then a bomb blows up an airplane, and the media goes CRAZY about how Homeland security, KNEW of a public announcement on twitter, and they did nothing to stop it.
I'm all for freedom, and i agree, being paranoid sucks, but I can't really fault them for being cautious. 9/11 was a terrible disaster, and there HAS been subsequent attacks that have been stopped due to the added security, you just don't hear about them all the time because it would create mass hysteria.
Basically it's simple, don't go to a sensitive country about terrorism, shouting things that can be misinterpreted publicly, and you'll have no 'travel problems' in the US. No one is allowed to even mutter the word 'bomb' in an airport or airplane because it's such a dangerous possibility, but you don't see a thread 'US citizens removed from plane because he used the word Bomb'.
To you and everyone else who is like OHMYGAWDTHISCOULDHAVEBEENREAL!!!!11
Let's assume you're a terrorist. Would you use words like "bomb", "destroy", "twin-towers", or "airplane crash"?
No, you would fucking call it "pie", "hiking", "bielefeld" and "nuclear meltdown". Erhm, I mean "picknick".
In fact, a tweet saying: "We're going to hike to washington tomorrow and bring pie along. Let's hope it will be better than the Bielefeld picknick!" ...
is MUCH scarier than: "We're going to destroy washington tomorrow and bring a bomb along. Let's hope it will be more fun than the airplane crash into the twintowers!"
Anyone assuming a person who would actually DEDICATE THEIR LIVES to blowing shit up somewhere will behave like a total amateur (completely keeping aside that using twitter to organize is probably a bad idea) should be strapped to a balcony and be whipped until he admits being stupid.
That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. In fact, that's so obscenely backwards, that you're claiming that literally anything any person says can be a justified terrorist threat, since you can replace any word with any other word.
Just imagine if our national security and systems that look out for terrorist threats scanned for "any noun or verb" instead of known keywords. How ridiculous can you possibly be?
We've seen terrorists, school shooters, and other big criminals make videos, internet messages, and use other media forums to explicitly send their message without being utterly nonsensical. The least we can do is take actual threats and threatening words seriously when they're presented to us on a silver platter, regardless of whether or not they end up being a hoax or a joke.
Exactly that is what I'm claiming.
ANYTHING that ANY person says can be a justified terrorist threat.
In fact, I'm going to make it even worse: ANY person that WANTS to take terrorist ACTION will communicate in ways that are NOT easily traced. If they don't do that they're not terrorists, they're attention whores.
A "terrorist" wants to spread terror. That word implements people not knowing about it beforehand.
Now, a school shooting where someone spreads the message that he's going to do it... maybe, just maybe the person didn't do it to "terror" people but to gain attention in a very twisted way.
PS:
Just imagine if our national security and systems that look out for terrorist threats scanned for "any noun or verb" instead of known keywords. How ridiculous can you possibly be?
Simply because exactly this would be the appropriate behaviour to spot real terrorist threats spread via twitter or facebook (lol.) scanning for keywords is ridiculous as well.
On February 01 2012 02:26 GatorGar wrote: When national security spending increases exponentially, you have a surplus of bonehead government lapdogs just looking to justify their own jobs.
*1910 industrial factory floor supervisor voice*
"Look bawss look bawss! Look who I founded bawss! Two of them brits tryin tah' dig up marilyn monroe bawss! Can I get promoted bawss oh please oh please oh please!?"
Lol. But in all seriousness I feel the same. And this whole thing is like police apprehending someone just because his T-Shirt has the words "Gangsta" on it. Who knows even that might be happening one day. And to all the "what if that was an actual terrorist" posts ... what if that guy is an actual Gangsta!
Wow, i cant believe there are people justifying this. Its just ridiculous. Saying your gonna get drunk and quoting family guy = Terrorist? Might as well cavity search every kid for playing bomber man. Getting "destroyed" isnt even slang limited to the Uk.
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
this is what im talking about right here. we cant even make a joke about it without being worried that we'll be "flagged" or whatever. Its bullshit.
On February 01 2012 01:53 Djzapz wrote: I'm going to destroy America too, BRT!
Yea, u can make that joke cuz ur in canada. I wouldn't have typed that and i wouldn't even make that joke. Yeah it probably won't lead to anything if i did make the joke, but its still the fact that i don't feel confident in being able to make it at all. Thats not okay, i shouldn't have to worry about stupid trivial shit like this in the United States of America.
Well one day when you become Director of National Intelligence you can reform the government on how to feasibly track millions of people per day to counter terrorist efforts on the American internet superhighway. I'm sure they're looking forward to your advice.
lol yea because tracking everyone everyday every second of their lives is the right way to prevent terrorism lmao. you my friend are a GENIUS! you should've been a founding father! I'm sure this country would be super SAFE today!
i much rather stick to our principles as a nation instead of just sitting and being a big vagina about this whole thing like some people
Love how everyone is talking about bombing and terrorists. You've slightly missed the point that they were worried about "digging up Marilyn Monroe". They were searched for shovels. Shovels! (cos it's not like you can buy them in the US)
On February 01 2012 02:34 Zrana wrote: Love how everyone is talking about bombing and terrorists. You've slightly missed the point that they were worried about "digging up Marilyn Monroe". They were searched for shovels. Shovels! (cos it's not like you can buy them in the US)
Bryan also said he was asked about a tweet that he says is a quote from the television show 'Family Guy' that read, "3 weeks today, we're totally in LA p***** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin' Marilyn Monroe up!"
"I almost burst out laughing when they asked me if I was going to be Leigh's lookout while he dug up Marilyn Monroe," Bunting told the Daily Mail. "It got even more ridiculous because the officials searched our suitcases and said they were looking for spades and shovels."
But things quickly became less humorous to Bryan and Bunting.
Speaking with the Daily Mail, Bryan said officials told him, "You really f***** up with that tweet, boy," before handcuffing and putting him in what Bryan described as a "cage" inside of a van. He said he was then transported to a prison with other border offenders.
"Dude, let's dig up Marilyn Monroe!" "k, you bring the shovels!" "but they're extra weight..." "fuck that, buying them in the US would look pretty damn suspicious" "k, ima hide them in my underpants!"
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
this is what im talking about right here. we cant even make a joke about it without being worried that we'll be "flagged" or whatever. Its bullshit.
On February 01 2012 01:53 Djzapz wrote: I'm going to destroy America too, BRT!
Yea, u can make that joke cuz ur in canada. I wouldn't have typed that and i wouldn't even make that joke. Yeah it probably won't lead to anything if i did make the joke, but its still the fact that i don't feel confident in being able to make it at all. Thats not okay, i shouldn't have to worry about stupid trivial shit like this in the United States of America.
Well one day when you become Director of National Intelligence you can reform the government on how to feasibly track millions of people per day to counter terrorist efforts on the American internet superhighway. I'm sure they're looking forward to your advice.
It is not in the interest of any intelligence service in the world to prevent the threat of terrorism. Events like the one in the OP keep your people in line. The plain fact that a LOT of people in this thread seem to shrug it off with "Yeah, if you know we're sensitive about it you don't joke about it!" shows that it works pretty brilliantly.
Any person that condones "I'm gonna destroy america tomorrow" or "I'm gonna destroy Las Vegas starting tomorrow" (in fact I posted the latter quote on facebook myself once) as a "serious threat to the security of our country!" has been brainwashed to hell and back.
Tomorrow in the news: College student ended up in jail for saying "I'm gonna fuck the entire college dorm!"
Right, because that is also a potential threat to national security. Nice comparison.
On February 01 2012 02:50 Nightmarjoo wrote: How'd they see the tweets and know they belonged to this British couple?
The articles sound like that is what homeland security does on a daily basis. Finding out that stuff is their job.
Sounds to me like watching twitter and facebook accounts for keywords seems to be a well established and approved method of keeping a country safe from terrorism.
On February 01 2012 01:59 Kazeyonoma wrote: I hope people realize that the government does track things, and if you're posting stupid 'jokes' in this very thread about doing terrorist type things you're probably being flagged by whatever search system they have. but keep joking guys, really.
this is what im talking about right here. we cant even make a joke about it without being worried that we'll be "flagged" or whatever. Its bullshit.
Well, generally when you make any stupid/bad joke about anything you should - in this order-
*first, be worried that you were stupid enough to think about it
*second, be worried that your common sense did not filter it, given the context and you ended up sharing it
*and last, case it falls under the 0,01% of jokes about bombing/killing, be worried about government indiscriminately filtering huge amounts of public data for sensitive words
This is absolutely foolish and this goes down the line of censorship anyways, because me and my friend were talking about this how we have to censor ourselves when speaking with people or plainly just about anything and anywhere in general. However then I came to the conclusion that if we censored and I emphasize every fucking thing would we have ever come of with a great song like America? I mean imagine the American song sung censored it would be America **** yeah. Now just sing that in your head a couple times constantly it wouldn't sound the same it loses it's flavor we gotta stop censoring things! Maybe some things should be censored but don't be ridiculous your ears will bleed from an ear infection not a curse word!
On February 01 2012 01:39 DoubleReed wrote: Eh most people in the US know that the security people have zero sense of humor. My grandfather once joked that his chess clock was a bomb and basically had to take the train. Just don't joke around that kind of thing. I think it's obviously strong that they had to go back after coming here though.
Problem is everyone knows that you should not joke around in the airport, but writing things on a twitter before you leave (possibly even very long before your trip) and then being penalized for it borders on unnecessary self-censorship.
On February 01 2012 03:01 Golem72 wrote: This is absolutely foolish and this goes down the line of censorship anyways, because me and my friend were talking about this how we have to censor ourselves when speaking with people or plainly just about anything and anywhere in general. However then I came to the conclusion that if we censored and I emphasize every fucking thing would we have ever come of with a great song like America? I mean imagine the American song sung censored it would be America **** yeah. Now just sing that in your head a couple times constantly it wouldn't sound the same it loses it's flavor we gotta stop censoring things! Maybe some things should be censored but don't be ridiculous your ears will bleed from an ear infection not a curse word!
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.
Edit: the link for the story with the AZ couple can be found here.
He was questioned under oath about his postings to Twitter, according to images of a document said to be from the agency. The document, posted by The Daily Mail and quoted by The Sun, appeared to demonstrate a less-than-full understanding of social media by agents explaining the reason for the questioning:
Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter Web site account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also on his tweeter account Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. It was photographed by Small World News Service, an independent British news agency that frequently pays its sources for stories. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Bunting posed together for portraits by the SWNS news agency that appeared in tabloids on Monday, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.
A call to Donald Triner, acting director of the agency office overseeing an initiative on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness,” was directed to the press office.
It should work like a machine up to a point. At some point you need to include human common sense since you are dealing with written word. They should have been checked if your country is really paranoid, but they should not have been denied entry.
Something tells me that these two weren't automatically banned from entering the U.S., but a decision was made based on the investigation at the airport. Had these two been apologetic and shown remorse for the response their 'innocent' tweets had resulted in, I'm guessing they would have been let in. However, given their stupidity and their comments about the incident, they were probably argumentative the entire time, annoying the agents that the agents were wrong for making this such a big deal. The agents did not have to let them in, but they could have, based on their discretion. More bees with honey than vinegar, I guess.
IMO, the serious investigation was entirely justified. If our country wants security from further terrorist attacks, we can't allow any potential risks, even if that risk is ridiculously trivial in everyone else's point of view. I mean, the couple are entering a country where a serious terrorist-related crime happened just a decade ago..and people are surprised they can't make jokes about bombs/destruction? Is 9/11 really that forgettable? As for the denial of entry after finding out that it wasn't an actual threat..that seems a bit over the top.
On February 01 2012 00:56 liberal wrote: "Hahahahahaha look at the paranoid US! LOL! Only in America."
Am I doing this thread right guys?
This topic is not a joke, but a serious problem for many that like to travel.
For some the extreme security measures are a reason to not travel to the US.
It is a serious problem, because it's their job to make sure no one ever repeats what happened on 9/11. You think they don't realize they're being a bit paranoid? But what do you think is worse. Sending home a few people who OPENLY stated they were going to 'destroy' regardless of slang, and then nothing catastrophic happens, or b) they say, oh it's just a joke, hahahahaha, and then a bomb blows up an airplane, and the media goes CRAZY about how Homeland security, KNEW of a public announcement on twitter, and they did nothing to stop it.
I'm all for freedom, and i agree, being paranoid sucks, but I can't really fault them for being cautious. 9/11 was a terrible disaster, and there HAS been subsequent attacks that have been stopped due to the added security, you just don't hear about them all the time because it would create mass hysteria.
Basically it's simple, don't go to a sensitive country about terrorism, shouting things that can be misinterpreted publicly, and you'll have no 'travel problems' in the US. No one is allowed to even mutter the word 'bomb' in an airport or airplane because it's such a dangerous possibility, but you don't see a thread 'US citizens removed from plane because he used the word Bomb'.
Why not just check they do not have a bomb or anything of the sorts, use a common sense to determine if they are a threat and just let them in. You can always let CIA or someone follow them.
On February 01 2012 02:34 Zrana wrote: Love how everyone is talking about bombing and terrorists. You've slightly missed the point that they were worried about "digging up Marilyn Monroe". They were searched for shovels. Shovels! (cos it's not like you can buy them in the US)
i just imagined the couple with backpacks on and the handles of two shovels sticking out of each one. I mean seriously, no person in their right mind would pack a shovel with them. Also, why the hell would you want to dig up Marilyn Monroe. I can understand them being questioned about the "destroy america" bit, but national security actually believing that they would go ahead and dig up Monroe.... I mean, even if they dug her up, what would that achieve?
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.
On February 01 2012 01:43 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: There is very good reasons why I don't wanna visit the USA. The big problem is that even a airplane stop (even just for refuel!!!) sucks the exact same way as a visit.
I had no problem visiting china and at one point they didnt even take my swiss army knife i forgot in my carry on baggage. china rocks usa sucks.
Lesotho? The third world is allowed to talk shit now? I'll agree, the American airport security protocols are a bit much, but that doesn't mean we suck. That just means some guy from a third world country doesn't get to take out his Swiss army knife and cut the pilot's throat.
Well you could also detain me in Guantanamo indefinitely because of some coincidence in names or whatever. It is better to stay clear of countries where rule of law is so compromised and where government does not respond to international pressure due to "America fuck yeah"-syndrome and paranoia. I feel much safer in China , even in Mexico than in US. Because by being reasonable you can avoid being a victim of criminals, it is hard to avoid being a victim of paranoid state. I am not saying I would actually objectively be safer in Mexico than in US, but I definitely feel safer.
On January 31 2012 19:28 SolHeiM wrote: The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
This looks stupid because you can antedecently be sure they don't have any malicious intentions. Basically a random person would have a higher chance of being a terrorist than these people if you only knew what the homeland security guys knew. It's not just that the result is they're not terrorists, it's that that's a blindingly obvious result.
This is really laughably bad. Looking for the shovels they're going to use to literally dig up Marilyn Monroe? Come on. This reeks of incompetence. The only point they have is some crap from Twitter? Where's any other research into their backgrounds? Into what the fuck words mean in British English? These agents are as pathetic as the McCarthyists from Indiana Jones, except they happen to be real.
On February 01 2012 03:07 Proof. wrote: IMO, the serious investigation was entirely justified. If our country wants security from further terrorist attacks, we can't allow any potential risks, even if that risk is ridiculously trivial in everyone else's point of view. I mean, the couple are entering a country where a serious terrorist-related crime happened just a decade ago..and people are surprised they can't make jokes about bombs/destruction? Is 9/11 really that forgettable? As for the denial of entry after finding out that it wasn't an actual threat..that seems a bit over the top.
You know that serious terrorist attacks happened in other countries more recently and yet you do not hear them doing such strange stuff.
He was questioned under oath about his postings to Twitter, according to images of a document said to be from the agency. The document, posted by The Daily Mail and quoted by The Sun, appeared to demonstrate a less-than-full understanding of social media by agents explaining the reason for the questioning:
Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter Web site account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also on his tweeter account Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. It was photographed by Small World News Service, an independent British news agency that frequently pays its sources for stories. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Bunting posed together for portraits by the SWNS news agency that appeared in tabloids on Monday, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.
A call to Donald Triner, acting director of the agency office overseeing an initiative on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness,” was directed to the press office.
It should work like a machine up to a point. At some point you need to include human common sense since you are dealing with written word. They should have been checked if your country is really paranoid, but they should not have been denied entry.
Human error, that's why.
Out of 100 million people transiting, let's say 1000 deliver jokes similar to this one through any kind of medium. A reasonable officer filters each one reaching the conclusion each joke was harmless, not intended and so on lets them pass. 999 out of 10 million people (0.000001% of total) get to enjoy a nice vacation in the US. 1 out of 10 million kills people with a bomb. How many? You can't tell. Maybe none but some get mutilated, maybe one, maybe be 10 or 50
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?
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.
On January 31 2012 19:23 Paulio wrote: I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
No one is checking twitter for posts. They have a computer algorithm (or something like that anyway) that searches and flags certain tweets. There is no one who is getting paid to search on twitter for "terrorist activity."
The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
And did you just call me a retard?
*Sigh* There's always one idiot like you in every single thread. How exactly were they 'just idiots', for posting on twitter using a slang word which is apparently offensive. 'Destroy' - Holy shit.
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.
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?
I think you need to calm down sir. A few deep breaths, you weren't harmed in any way by what happened to these two tourists...
I don't think you read about the Oklahoma City Bombings. In that case, the guy who killed (hundreds of) people did so as a way to get revenge for how the government handled a group of cultists. He was as sane as anyone who can in cold blood kill hundreds of people to show up a nameless entity. Which is exactly what most assumed foreign terrorists would be aiming to do. Unless they hate America for no reason, and then they fall into the insane example of the Arizona Couple and Jared Laughner.
On January 31 2012 19:23 Paulio wrote: I'm wondering who made the decision to deny them entry. I'm pretty sure a simple aiport security guy isn't checking twitter for such posts. This means the order had to come up from someone higher in the chain of command. This brings me to the real question: who surveys twitter for such posts, and maybe more importantly, how high on the chain of command is the dumbf*ck that makes these decisions...
No one is checking twitter for posts. They have a computer algorithm (or something like that anyway) that searches and flags certain tweets. There is no one who is getting paid to search on twitter for "terrorist activity."
The only reason this looks ridiculous is because they weren't terrorists, they were just idiots. If they had been terrorists (albeit two very stupid ones, but terrorists) you'd have been praising the U.S. for their excellent counter-terrorism.
On January 31 2012 19:27 Capped wrote: Lol Solhelm haha :D you make me laugh man.
Terrorist organisation with moles, links, firepower all the rest and ways into the US.
British tourists.
Now forgive me if im wrong, but theres a SLIGHT difference in what they could accomplish and a SLIGHT difference in the way they "declare" their terrorism? -_-
Only a retarded terrorist would fuckin' post on twitter he's off to do his terrorist work in america, then use the same name on the passport, are you serious?
BTW, retards dont have the mental capacity to be a terrorist, only to play video games on the internetz (apparently )
Do you seriously think that you can tell the difference between a terrorist and any average human being? Most terrorists aren't a bearded Muslim in a dynamite vest.
And did you just call me a retard?
*Sigh* There's always one idiot like you in every single thread. How exactly were they 'just idiots', for posting on twitter using a slang word which is apparently offensive. 'Destroy' - Holy shit.
They were idiots because they did not follow this simple algorithm:
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.
When I was younger me and my friends used to go to Reading Festival every year (It's a big rock festival, in a city called Reading, pronounced "Redding", nothing to do with the act of reading). Every sunday night at the end of the festival people used to get a bit crazy, and set their tents on fire (so they don't have to take it down and bring it home), make big fires, group up in big groups and dance, stuff like that. Of course, in these scenarios you always have a minority who don't share the same good will sentiments. Some people try to set other peoples tents alight, or get in fights.
So year on year they got stricter and a myth arose of sunday night "riots", when in fact they were not riots in my experience, except for a few isolated instances of violence (coke heads). Some people on the Reading Festival facebook page were talking about the "riots" and how they're cracking down on them, and my friend then comes in and says "Oh yeah the riots are my favourite part they're the only reason I go, I'm definitely going to knife someone". Totally in jest as a joke.
Then the next thing he knows the police come around his house and search his house for knives, and find none. Then tell him he has had his festival ticket removed and is not allowed to purchase another. After a day on the phone he managed to contact a sympathetic festival employee who managed to get him in, under the condition that he was a volunteer at a charity tent. So whilst we were all watching music he was spending half the day giving out charity pamphlets to people.
To me, it's pretty ridiculous. If someone was a terrorist do you think they would tweet about it?
Also, on an SC2 related note, I know a lot of players etc have had trouble getting into the USA. I seem to recall TotalBiscuit also got stopped at an airport when he went to cast Blizzcon and they wouldn't release him.
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.
'I kept saying to them they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet but they just told me "you've really f***** up with that tweet boy". 'When I was in the van I was handcuffed and put in a cage. I had a panic attack but the worse was yet to come. 'When we arrived at the prison I was shoved in a cell on my own but after an hour two huge Mexican men covered in tattoos came in and started asking me who I was. 'They told me they'd been arrested for taking cocaine over the border. 'When the food arrived on the tray they took it all and just left me with a carton of apple juice.'
Sounds like our 'brothers' in america treat them well.
On February 01 2012 03:35 Deadeight wrote: Also, on an SC2 related note, I know a lot of players etc have had trouble getting into the USA. I seem to recall TotalBiscuit also got stopped at an airport when he went to cast Blizzcon and they wouldn't release him.
But... I mean... just look at Total Biscuit. Guy looks like Total Terrorist to me... haha
Most Americans don't get British humor. At all. You can show them a Monty Python marathon and it would be considered worse than waterboarding. Just completely over their heads, the point is missed, nothing gets through, they can't get over the accent, its all a big babbling mess to them. So when an American mistakes a British joke on Twitter, its not that surprising. In fact we should be glad they didn't interpret this as an act of war, and nuke Great Britain.
Why is anyone surprised at all? We get a story like this every other day, although the primaries are giving 24 hour news stations most of the necessary content to stay afloat in America right now. I could read this thread an post some argument, but I'd rather watch some Proleague, so lets end this rant.
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..)
The funny thing is, the muslim people aren't as bad as you think they are. You just think that you could assume that they're terrorists just because the media has given that bias off. And if you believe the Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, you need to be pistol whipped. Im not going to go into all of that though, im just going to say the I, as an american citizen, find this to be ridiculous. Almost ridiculous as the C.I.A (whoops. did I say that?)
What, because they are British it's okay to ignore a threat? If they were Saudi Arabian, would it be justified then? Maybe we'd have screamed racist if that was the case, and this thread would have even worse condemnation of America.
Good god, imagine if they did blow something up. Can you imagine a report after the attack "US Homeland security detected the threat, but declines to act because they were white and British"?
It's a bit ridiculous, but so is posting 'destroy' followed by ANY country and then immediately going to THAT country. You needed to explain British slang to the Americans? Did you know destroy, in all English speaking countries, still also means the literal "destroy"?
It's fine. They eventually determined they were no threat, but you gotta be careful. I don't want my country ignoring threats because they come from white people.
On February 01 2012 03:40 AeroEffect wrote: The funny thing is, the muslim people aren't as bad as you think they are. You just think that you could assume that they're terrorists just because the media has given that bias off. And if you believe the Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11, you need to be pistol whipped. Im not going to go into all of that though, im just going to say the I, as an american citizen, find this to be ridiculous. Almost ridiculous as the C.I.A (whoops. did I say that?)
Be careful what you say about your government, wouldn't be suprised if they were monitoring this site too, if a van comes to collect you within a few days don't worry it's just your government!
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.\
On February 01 2012 03:39 AeroGear wrote: Way too many derails in this thread (and every other lately..)
I have to ironically ask whether you know what derailing is. Every post I've read here has been about the topic of the thread. Some are diplomatic, like yours, and others have interesting opinions.
On February 01 2012 03:41 Crisium wrote: I'm fine with it. Really.
What, because they are British it's okay to ignore a threat? If they were Saudi Arabian, would it be justified then? Maybe we'd have screamed racist if that was the case, and this thread would have even worse condemnation of America.
Good god, imagine if they did blow something up. Can you imagine a report after the attack "US Homeland security detected the threat, but declines to act because they were white and British"?
It's a bit ridiculous, but so is posting 'destroy' followed by ANY country and then immediately going to THAT country. You needed to explain British slang to the Americans? Did you know destroy, in all English speaking countries, still also means the literal "destroy"?
It's fine. They eventually determined they were no threat, but you gotta be careful. I don't want my country ignoring threats because they come from white people.
Well since they were as drastic to detain them, send them to jail, and then kick them out of the country, maybe, just maybe they would have checked up on British slang? Or would that make too much sense to them? Probably.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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...
But they didn't' say "I'm gonna go get destroyed in America" they said "destroy America". It just seems off. I know they meant the slang, obviously, but why phrase it that way?
A comment in the news article said it best:
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 03:46 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.
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.
This is stupid all the European communities are getting up in arms because its a Brit couple. There have been many cases where American born Muslims/Middle Eastern descent people are asked to get off the airplane because of 9/11. I dont see why we don't talk about that if we want to talk about absurd airport security.
Edit: You British have got some crazy slang lol, destroy=Party?
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.
Holy FUCK. Where do you live where a plane hits a building everyday? That is amazing! Sounds like Cameron needs to retrain the pilots or increase their wages to stop their insanity.
You are all missing the point. Security is an industry. You would probably be sick if you knew how much these ignoramus agents made. Same with the criminal justice system.. 3 strikes law, guy gets 30 years for stealing his third twinkie? "Who cares hurp derp hes a criminal send him to jail?" 30 year sentence is a 30 year contract, someone's out there lol'ing at the voters while getting paid absurd money to warehouse twinkie offenders. Cost of college education up 40% in a decade for state universities? Oh look, cost of incarceration up 40%, guess who's paying for it? College kids with their loans, while we leverage our future to pay for today's defense and security industry today.
On January 31 2012 19:15 bOneSeven wrote: Now.. seriously guys, paranoia much ?
Well, we all talked it over, and voted on it, and decided to kick them out, as a people.
I think one of the best things about living here is giggling about insane generalizations made about us, as though we have meaningful individual power.
Should they have been kicked out? No.
Clearly not, but on some level if you're going to make jokes about doing stuff like that, you need to realize that we, as a country, (get it, because we're all the same person.) have a bad sense of humor, particularly about stuff like this. So, why not skip it? I mean, isn't that on the most basic 'so I'm travelling internationally, what do I need to do/not do' lists?
On January 31 2012 19:15 bOneSeven wrote:I for one believe that is better to, well firstly change foreign policy on US, because most of it are causes to hate towards America ( as detailed by the CIA , and 3 more US Generals as well ), then after a while when water cools, loose all the ridiculuos laws of paranoia and let the people live free and without fear of not saying the "wrong" words or whatever. What would happen ? Without this hate for America, terrorist acts would only be commited by seriously sick people ( clinicly proven ), and most of them are spotted before they might do any damage...
This is very presumptuous the way I read it, but would love some clarification. What exactly about our foreign policy would you change that would result in 'water cooling' with... people who hate us?
I would never defend our foreign policy as a block of legislation/regulation/policy, but sweeping idealistic 'take it easy man' isn't actually very useful, and as much as many of our citizens (myself included) would love a 'chillax man, don't worry about it.' stance, it just isn't going to happen in the near future.
Also - your final paragraph (again the way I read it - please correct me if I'm wrong) sounded like you think a person wouldn't have to be a 'clinically proven' sick person to commit a serious terrorist act. Wh... Like... really? Are you suggesting that our current foreign policy is legitimate justification for terrorist attacks? (Although again, getting fairly off-topic.)
TLDR - No, they shouldn't have been kicked out. No, not every person in the United States was involved in removing them. This has been fairly standard 'hey, America does stupid shit regarding _____' for over a decade. It really shouldn't be surprising.
On February 01 2012 04:29 DreamChaser wrote: 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?
In my opinion, this and many other "why did they post it" and "what if" arguments are as useless as nipples on a breastplate(see what i did there!) . It is besides the point.
The point is the absurdism, paranoia and utter arrogance of the US customs in this case(and many, many others like this) What is even more absurd, etc.. are the americans here defending or minimizing the issue, just because they feel personally attacked by all the negative criticisms. Just think about this: How would you react to such news if you weren't from USA but say, an EU country? How would you perceive this news?
On February 01 2012 04:29 DreamChaser wrote: 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?
In my opinion, this and many other "why did they post it" and "what if" arguments are as useless as nipples on a breastplate(see what i did there!) . It is besides the point.
The point is the absurdism, paranoia and utter arrogance of the US customs in this case(and many, many others like this) What is even more absurd, etc.. are the americans here defending or minimizing the issue, just because they feel personally attacked by all the negative criticisms. Just think about this: How would you react to such news if you weren't from USA but say, an EU country? How would you perceive this news?
I did change my quote to this after
On February 01 2012 04:36 DreamChaser wrote: This is stupid all the European communities are getting up in arms because its a Brit couple. There have been many cases where American born Muslims/Middle Eastern descent people are asked to get off the airplane because of 9/11. I dont see why we don't talk about that if we want to talk about absurd airport security.
Edit: You British have got some crazy slang lol, destroy=Party?
But it doesn't just happen to foreigners it happens to American's at home. Its not the first and its surly not the last time we will hear this type of news. I won't say im proud of this but airport security is crazy and i acknowledged it, i always tense up whenever i'm leaving JFK (Airport near NYC) i always feel like someone is going to pull me off the line and interrogate me.
But that doesn't keep me from flying as long as i know i didn't do anything stupid i wont get pulled off for anything.
I believe the phrase "Better safe then sorry" comes to mind here. Sure, sending them back may have sucked, and no one wants to have their vacation cut short like that, but lets be honest here, isn't it better to stay constantly vigilant and to approach every case as though it were a serious threat? I, for one, am happy that my government goes to such extreme lengths to keep its citizens safe. And if it means I have to sacrifice posting half-moronic things on twitter, so be it.
Oh, and to those of you claiming it was a violation of the tourists first amendment rights, the Bill of Rights applies to United States citizens. If you are visiting a county, treat it with respect. Do not expect the same rights as those who were born there or went through the process to gain citizenship. If the two tourists were dual citizens then I apologize, but from my understanding they were not.
So let me get this right, you made a tweet comment in a manner that made it look like you want to "attack" U.S. instead of get wasted and fucked up and then are surprised when they deported you back to your place of origin, knowing full well how scorned American's feel about the whole 9/11 ordeal, they should of been more careful with their phrasing.
This is a case of the security people covering their asses just in case that was not a joke, but a real threat. There have been many organizations that declare that they are going to attack a place before they do it, you just don't know when. White knighting their sense of humor and that they were quoting a show does not matter. The security people won't look at it as a joke because of the manner it was phrased in.
Was it extreme? Yes....Did it suck for the couple to be deported? Yes....Was it the couples fault that they got deported? Yes...Was it the security guys fault for being protective? No, they were just doing their job.
On February 01 2012 04:50 LuckyCharms45 wrote: I believe the phrase "Better safe then sorry" comes to mind here. Sure, sending them back may have sucked, and no one wants to have their vacation cut short like that, but lets be honest here, isn't it better to stay constantly vigilant and to approach every case as though it were a serious threat? I, for one, am happy that my government goes to such extreme lengths to keep its citizens safe. And if it means I have to sacrifice posting half-moronic things on twitter, so be it.
Oh, and to those of you claiming it was a violation of the tourists first amendment rights, the Bill of Rights applies to United States citizens. If you are visiting a county, treat it with respect. Do not expect the same rights as those who were born there or went through the process to gain citizenship. If the two tourists were dual citizens then I apologize, but from my understanding they were not.
The Constitution applies almost entirely to everyone. The prerequisites for federal offices require that anyone who seeks to vote, be president, a US congressman, or US federal judge must be a citizen. There are some Privileges and Immunities that apply to only citizens + Show Spoiler +
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
, but every other portion of the constitution gave protection to the "people", and this has always been interpreted as anyone inside the borders of the USA. The tweet would not be covered under the first amendment though because the first amendment has traditionally not applied to threats, which the tweet was interpreted as.
On February 01 2012 04:44 Demidyne wrote: You are all missing the point. Security is an industry. You would probably be sick if you knew how much these ignoramus agents made. Same with the criminal justice system.. 3 strikes law, guy gets 30 years for stealing his third twinkie? "Who cares hurp derp hes a criminal send him to jail?" 30 year sentence is a 30 year contract, someone's out there lol'ing at the voters while getting paid absurd money to warehouse twinkie offenders. Cost of college education up 40% in a decade for state universities? Oh look, cost of incarceration up 40%, guess who's paying for it? College kids with their loans, while we leverage our future to pay for today's defense and security industry today.
Well, this ads to the so many other reasons why there is not point to visit America if Europe is closer. Its silly and the guys at homeland sec who did it should loss there jobs tbh... not for it being offensive to the couple or w.e but rather for having the intelligence level of a rock give or take a few percents
Didn't day9 tell a story where he was meeting with player 'X' who yell'd something about 'WHERED YOU HIDE THE BOMB'? =D Oh god, D9 could've been in trouble I guess if it was overheard.
On February 01 2012 05:13 KimJongChill wrote: Welp, guess we can't joke about anything now.
But at least we can still make sweeping generalizations.
Acceptable: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
Not acceptable: Why did the chicken cross the road? To go and destroy America, which is what I'm on my way to do right now!
Learn the difference.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
The other side meaning, the other side of life thus to die. He crossed the road to die, but how did he die? He went on a murdering spree on US soil only to be gunned down by SWAT, his point of attack was just on the other side of the road.
On February 01 2012 05:13 KimJongChill wrote: Welp, guess we can't joke about anything now.
But at least we can still make sweeping generalizations.
Acceptable: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
Not acceptable: Why did the chicken cross the road? To go and destroy America, which is what I'm on my way to do right now!
Learn the difference.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
The other side meaning, the other side of life thus to die. He crossed the road to die, but how did he die? He went on a murdering spree on US soil only to be gunned down by SWAT, his point of attack was just on the other side of the road.
I almost thought you were serious, but then I saw your name and realized you just like to play games
AFAIK it is the TSA/Homeland Security party to blame in this case.
And Brits aren't alone in their belief about how unnecessary those two departments are. Most Americans detest the TSA and would also like to see them gone.
The story is about how incompetent the TSA is, but it fails to say how we Americans also hate the TSA.
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...
But they didn't' say "I'm gonna go get destroyed in America" they said "destroy America". It just seems off. I know they meant the slang, obviously, but why phrase it that way?
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.
The thing is they in most likelihood would not be subjected to delights of British prisons and with high probability would not even be sent back. Of all the encounters with different immigration and security agents everyone has the worst experience in US. It is not a coincidence. US agents just have no common sense whatsoever. Following up on a possible threat is nothing wrong and ok, interrogation is ok. Not realizing what is actually going on is a sign of terminal stupidity and being drunk on power that the petty beaurocrats love so much.
This is just how governments in general operate. Besides, you can't hear inflection on the internet. Anyways, we've been on a tear as of late, busting bomb plots and such left and right. If this is part of their (profoundly successful) tactic, then so be it.
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.
Then note that we are not criticizing them for following up on a possible threat, but on their reaction to the uncovered facts. Looking for shovels that will be used to dig up a corpse, really ?
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.
You have very skewed view of European mindset and of the facts also.
On February 01 2012 04:29 DreamChaser wrote: 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?
In my opinion, this and many other "why did they post it" and "what if" arguments are as useless as nipples on a breastplate(see what i did there!) . It is besides the point.
The point is the absurdism, paranoia and utter arrogance of the US customs in this case(and many, many others like this) What is even more absurd, etc.. are the americans here defending or minimizing the issue, just because they feel personally attacked by all the negative criticisms. Just think about this: How would you react to such news if you weren't from USA but say, an EU country? How would you perceive this news?
I'm from EU and the only thing i feel is constantly under attack here is common sense.
They knew the context. They could have known -sorry- should have deducted the consequences. A serious risk management system leaves no unnecessary room for error, so all this cheap talk about context interpretation with the perspective of the system is irrelevant.
What US did was not only normal, but right and i wish my country (and the ones i'm travelling to) would follow the same procedures.
Funny thing is we're most likely arguing over nothing here, it's an article in daily freaking mail with the original us papers lacking a reliable source.
He was questioned under oath about his postings to Twitter, according to images of a document said to be from the agency. The document, posted by The Daily Mail and quoted by The Sun, appeared to demonstrate a less-than-full understanding of social media by agents explaining the reason for the questioning:
Mr. Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter Web site account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. Also on his tweeter account Mr. Bryan posted that he was coming to destroy America. The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. It was photographed by Small World News Service, an independent British news agency that frequently pays its sources for stories. Mr. Bryan and Ms. Bunting posed together for portraits by the SWNS news agency that appeared in tabloids on Monday, including the Daily Mail and the Sun.
A call to Donald Triner, acting director of the agency office overseeing an initiative on “Publicly Available Social Media Monitoring and Situational Awareness,” was directed to the press office.
On February 01 2012 05:13 KimJongChill wrote: Welp, guess we can't joke about anything now.
But at least we can still make sweeping generalizations.
Acceptable: Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
Not acceptable: Why did the chicken cross the road? To go and destroy America, which is what I'm on my way to do right now!
Learn the difference.
Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.
The other side meaning, the other side of life thus to die. He crossed the road to die, but how did he die? He went on a murdering spree on US soil only to be gunned down by SWAT, his point of attack was just on the other side of the road.
I almost thought you were serious, but then I saw your name and realized you just like to play games
Nothing reveals humanity so well as the games it plays —Hartley
I could think of a lot of jokes that would insure my inability to travel in a transcontinental flight.
That's why I don't make those jokes.
I don't publicly post I'm going to destroy France before travelling there. And thus, I don't have problems.
Kind of silly in how you look at it, but really, what is a country supposed to do? We need to monitor for terrorists on our planes -- for very obvious reasons. It isn't up to our "agents'" personal discretion on whether someone is joking or using slang. If you raise the red-flag, you get a cavity search. Don't raise the red flag, don't "troll" a country, and you won't have problems.
On February 01 2012 05:53 Bosko wrote: Imagine this thread if those people actually killed someone while in the US after that tweet. "WTF gov. had this information and did nothing."
That isn't "information." I'm just disappointed at the poor search/flag methods employed by the government when much more powerful and selective data mining technology exists.
Couldnt they just have checked out the rest of his twitter page of facebook'ed the guy or something first. I obviously cant say for sure but intuitively you would think that the information available from those sources would make clear the context of his statement and its true meaning.
Im all for people being careful about who they let into the country given whats happened in the past, but sometimes you just have to not go full retard mode.
Yeah! I wouldn't joke about destroying America if you are coming to the U.S. People hate us so much they run planes into our buildings. Next time use your damn common sense.
I've seen some statistics on how tourism declined all over the world after 9/11. But the industry recovered worldwide and now twice as many people spend their holidays abroad than in 2000. But in the US the increase was only about 10%.
Fact is for most of us travelling to the US isn't unavoidable. It would be very nice but probably not worth the hassle, when there are so many interesting alternatives.
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.
You have very skewed view of European mindset and of the facts also.
Point fingers more brah. Your posts so far in this thread hint at a blanket anti-American swing, without analyzing facts or allowing exceptions.
I have a better question: Who gives a shit? The news lately has been scraping up the bucket. They are getting whatever story they can get their hands on and blowing it out of proportion. It's just TWO people that were fucked, how does this even remotely trigger an effect to give a shit in regular, everyday people? If the couple has a problem with what happened then who even gives a crap. They are CITIZENS of the united states, the government can do w/e they want to them because this is, after all, not a free country.
On February 01 2012 06:14 Torte de Lini wrote: Digging so far, my God. Would a terrorist even tweet his ideas on Twitter?
Earlier in the thread I pointed out Jared Loughner, who made a Youtube video in which he burned a flag and said something along the lines of "Gabrielle Giffords has been warned", and he killed 6 and injured several more. There was also another case in Arizona where a couple made videos they released somewhere on the internet in which they outlined there plans to lure a SWAT team into their home and then blow everyone up, but I can't find the source for that (if anyone has the AZ Repbublic from a Sunday 2 weeks ago or a little more, it was in the Valley and State section...)
Also Anders Behring Breivik, the guy who killed people on the island in Norway, tweeted a vaguely ominous semi-threat: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests."
On January 31 2012 23:39 RogerX wrote: Sometimes, its shit like this why some people call America dumb.
In the past, people have said violent anti-American things on the internet before trying to kill a bunch of people. Please think a little before posting.
Do you think I'm trying to slaughter a bunch of people? No, I'm just saying this is a factor to the ultimate stereotype. And why such a offensive thing exists. I'm just trying to put out a point about whats furthering this stereotype and this is one of them. Hell, i'm stereotypical to my own country about the amount of "sheep and lamb" we have here, am I gonna go on a mass slaughter in my own country, no thats ridiculous unless you have a major mental condition lol.
*Thinks a little*
You still don't make any sense, I have no grudge against Americans at all. Why would I? They're the reason pretty much why I'm on the internet. I fucking love America for the stuff they've given.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my point somehow.
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.
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.
On February 01 2012 06:13 hypercube wrote: I've seen some statistics on how tourism declined all over the world after 9/11. But the industry recovered worldwide and now twice as many people spend their holidays abroad than in 2000. But in the US the increase was only about 10%.
Fact is for most of us travelling to the US isn't unavoidable. It would be very nice but probably not worth the hassle, when there are so many interesting alternatives.
Tourism in America has grown by far more than 10%. Perhaps you are misinterpreting statistics, because like you said, thanks the hassle of international travel to the US many enter Canada or Mexico first.
I finally found the source for the story about the AZ couple wanting to blow up a SWAT Team. Here is what I really wanted to stress "In one of the videos released to the Yuma Sun, the couple are seen sitting on their balcony, calmly discussing what was about to happen while waiting for deputies to respond.
In another, Jesse Firestone, 65, shows a .357 magnum rifle he planned to use and the hole in the front door of the home he was going to fire through. He even mentions some sheriff deputies by name, saying "it's nothing personal. Anyway — adios."
On January 31 2012 19:31 29 fps wrote: those british tourists will return to the UK unhappy, and then all their friends will know about how terrible the experience was. as a result, there will be fewer tourists from the UK，meaning there'll be less revenue... besides money, america's reputation will be negatively affected as well.
/facepalm If people actually want to visit the US, they will visit the US, except if they hear this story they won't? More like, if they hear this story they will be even more cautious when traveling because the US gives no fucks and will use any excuse to send you out or to arrest you.
Getting the chance to visit a place you've never been isn't like buying food. If you heard some company does something terrible you can choose to not use their products, but if you want to visit a country, there's literally no where you can go to get the same experience lmao.
But on topic, I'm surprised people are surprised. I guess living in the US I know and understand how serious airports take security and I'm fine with it. God forbid I have to go a whole day without saying the word "bomb." And seriously "I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe" - who the fuck says that? I can't really comprehend how "destroy" being the equivalent to "party" would even make sense, "I'm going to party America" ? "I'm going to get destroyed in America" would be alright, but nope it was "I'm going to destroy America" ... /facepalm
Holy crap that sucks for the tourists but I would actually be quite pleased to know that the people in charge of security in my country took their job that seriously. T'would be oddly reassuring.
On January 31 2012 19:31 29 fps wrote: those british tourists will return to the UK unhappy, and then all their friends will know about how terrible the experience was. as a result, there will be fewer tourists from the UK，meaning there'll be less revenue... besides money, america's reputation will be negatively affected as well.
/facepalm If people actually want to visit the US, they will visit the US, except if they hear this story they won't? More like, if they hear this story they will be even more cautious when traveling because the US gives no fucks and will use any excuse to send you out or to arrest you.
Getting the chance to visit a place you've never been isn't like buying food. If you heard some company does something terrible you can choose to not use their products, but if you want to visit a country, there's literally no where you can go to get the same experience lmao.
But on topic, I'm surprised people are surprised. I guess living in the US I know and understand how serious airports take security and I'm fine with it. God forbid I have to go a whole day without saying the word "bomb." And seriously "I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe" - who the fuck says that? I can't really comprehend how "destroy" being the equivalent to "party" would even make sense, "I'm going to party America" ? "I'm going to get destroyed in America" would be alright, but nope it was "I'm going to destroy America" ... /facepalm
You would be surprised how many stupid things mean "I am going to get wasted" in the UK. Honestly if they where so desperate to party, they wouldn't go all the way to the US, they could go to their local bar or Amsterdam or Majorca, where most other British tourists go want to party so much. I guess they wanted to see where stars lived, such as Marilyn Munroe, so much to say "I want to dig her up". I have literally zero sympathy for these tourists. Everything they tweeted was downright brainless.
On February 01 2012 06:49 Demicore wrote: Holy crap that sucks for the tourists but I would actually be quite pleased to know that the people in charge of security in my country took their job that seriously. T'would be oddly reassuring.
It's reassuring that the TSA can't properly identify a threat?
It's one thing to stop them and do a search for due diligence then let them go on their way; it's another to do the same and then come to the insane conclusion that these people are actually legitimate threats.
If that happened to me, I'd probably alternate between laughing hysterically and crying.
I don't know what all this 23 pages of discussion is about - clearly it's all very funny and somewhat stupid from both sides. Those were some fairly silly tweets, but HAHAHHAHAHA American security...
On February 01 2012 05:25 Ryndika wrote: Didn't day9 tell a story where he was meeting with player 'X' who yell'd something about 'WHERED YOU HIDE THE BOMB'? =D Oh god, D9 could've been in trouble I guess if it was overheard.
Haha yes. It was none other than WhiteRa.
I do however not remember in which city or airport
stupid by both parties. stupid by the brits for making such stupid twitter posts and not considering the consequences, and stupid by the authorities for overreacting (they should have just questioned them, and once determining they are just dip-shits, let them in the country).
sad to see that this thread turned out to be about bashing America ( from most non-americans ) and patriotism ( what a horrible concept, from americans ). People shouldn't generalize, and it's not the TSA's responsibility to act in a rational way, they have protocol they need to follow ( a rather horrible one ), at the end of the way, if they don't respect it, they wont have money for basic living needs. There are tons of cool TSA people as i've heard ( one guy was found with weed in his bag, but it was left there + the TSA guys left a note with "get your shit together son!", made me laugh and smile a bit ), but again some of them are dumb and a very very small percent of them are with ill intent. So it's not their fault, it's the people who make the laws fault, and the people who won't say ( american ) : jeesus, you just passed 30k bills last year ? wtf ? what do we need this for ? Why do we need to be so strict in security ? Isn't this a slippery slope ?
And for the patriots I say, chill out, stop defending your country in this manner. You easily flame back after someone says anything bad about America ( I would never travel to america simply because the way to get a passport for it is downright humiliating and dumb ). You are turning by the day in a rather paranoid country with way to much security. Perhaps the british couple wasn't very smart, but to support the airport guys decision to throw them out is rather bad. Again, comic language "bomb" "destroy" "killed" . It's easy to understand.
On February 01 2012 07:26 bOneSeven wrote: sad to see that this thread turned out to be about bashing America ( from most non-americans ) and patriotism ( what a horrible concept, from americans ). People shouldn't generalize, and it's not the TSA's responsibility to act in a rational way, they have protocol they need to follow ( a rather horrible one ), at the end of the way, if they don't respect it, they wont have money for basic living needs. There are tons of cool TSA people as i've heard ( one guy was found with weed in his bag, but it was left there + the TSA guys left a note with "get your shit together son!", made me laugh and smile a bit ), but again some of them are dumb and a very very small percent of them are with ill intent. So it's not their fault, it's the people who make the laws fault, and the people who won't say ( american ) : jeesus, you just passed 30k bills last year ? wtf ? what do we need this for ? Why do we need to be so strict in security ? Isn't this a slippery slope ?
And for the patriots I say, chill out, stop defending your country in this manner. You easily flame back after someone says anything bad about America ( I would never travel to america simply because the way to get a passport for it is downright humiliating and dumb ). You are turning by the day in a rather paranoid country with way to much security. Perhaps the british couple wasn't very smart, but to support the airport guys decision to throw them out is rather bad. Again, comic language "bomb" "destroy" "killed" . It's easy to understand.
how much security is appropriate is subjective though. i, for one, don't really bother the security at U.S. airports, and dont mind all the extra precautions. sure, a lot of the security measures are just bat shit insane, but whatever... i would rather they go two steps too far to protect security than one step less than necessary.
i do agree with you that americans shouldn't just rely on blind patriotism. as my post above states, i think the TSA overreacted in this situation; they should have questioned and determined an actual threat before sending them back to the UK. oh, and I am american, fyi.
You guys need to chill! Government can always deny people's entry to their country for whatever reasons. The only difference in this case is, they already had whatever visa approved before hand, but Government can still take it away. If they were already knew about this information before hand, the couple would've get denied when applying entry in the first place, it's pretty much the same case.
It's no different blabbing about bullshit when you're taking green card, visa interviews. You would just get denied, it doesn't matter if it was a joke, and it was the same before 911 happened.
This is indeed a sensational news, because everyday, there is hundred more cases where people denied entry to a country where a reason is lamer than this.
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
yeah? and what if there was an actual attack and during that they were instead detaining innocent tourists? It goes both ways, you can't target innocent people who like to talk shit and ignore the people who don't say anything with an actual intention to attack.
This wouldn't just happen in america either, I'm pretty sure there are other countries out there that would deny you access into their country for something stupid you've done.
On February 01 2012 07:26 bOneSeven wrote: sad to see that this thread turned out to be about bashing America ( from most non-americans ) and patriotism ( what a horrible concept, from americans ). People shouldn't generalize, and it's not the TSA's responsibility to act in a rational way, they have protocol they need to follow ( a rather horrible one ), at the end of the way, if they don't respect it, they wont have money for basic living needs. There are tons of cool TSA people as i've heard ( one guy was found with weed in his bag, but it was left there + the TSA guys left a note with "get your shit together son!", made me laugh and smile a bit ), but again some of them are dumb and a very very small percent of them are with ill intent. So it's not their fault, it's the people who make the laws fault, and the people who won't say ( american ) : jeesus, you just passed 30k bills last year ? wtf ? what do we need this for ? Why do we need to be so strict in security ? Isn't this a slippery slope ?
And for the patriots I say, chill out, stop defending your country in this manner. You easily flame back after someone says anything bad about America ( I would never travel to america simply because the way to get a passport for it is downright humiliating and dumb ). You are turning by the day in a rather paranoid country with way to much security. Perhaps the british couple wasn't very smart, but to support the airport guys decision to throw them out is rather bad. Again, comic language "bomb" "destroy" "killed" . It's easy to understand.
"Sad to see" lol. This is how all these threads turnout, it should be expected by now. Only the rare poster goes somewhere in-between in this process, the way you phrased your post was decidedly on one side.
Also "why do we need to be so strict?" (this in reference to everyone else in the thread asking). I don't know, it could be besides 9/11 we had the shoebomber plot, the NYC bomber plot, the NYC subway plot, the Minnesota Somalia terrorist plot, the Fort Hood plot that actually went through, Jared Loughner ect....
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
yeah? and what if there was an actual attack and during that they were instead detaining innocent tourists? It goes both ways, you can't target innocent people who like to talk shit and ignore the people who don't say anything with an actual intention to attack.
This wouldn't just happen in america either, I'm pretty sure there are other countries out there that would deny you access into their country for something stupid you've done.
they have more than one TSA agent. they will detain all people they consider threats, and they would certainly detain any known terrorists coming into the country that they are aware of.
Once I had to get a patdown because I had a gum wrapper stuck in my pocket lining... that sets off the metal detector apparently.
Point is, minimize your chances of having to go through extra screening. Don't say stupid shit, don't post stupid shit and don't bring stupid shit. And most of all, don't act like a stupid shit.
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.
Oh man, what a blog. Thanks for linking; going to read this right now for the fun of it.
"It is also hard to imagine that you are unaware of the abundance of cutlery lying around in your room when there are 10-15 pieces of them so close together that their container can be shaken to make metal scramble on metal, in pizza cartons, which are hard to be oblivious of in this number unless you have spread them around a gigantic room."
Airport security can be an absolute joke. I may not be American, but the policies have spread worldwide.
One example that I was informed of when my parents returned from their holiday, was the fact that half of their clothing had been confiscated at the airport. This was clothing bought in our very own country, that they had taken WITH them TO their holiday. It wasn't even new clothing, either. The Airport Security took everything that looked expensive, and assumed it was imported, and as such, my parents lost all of it.
It gets worse. My mother, tired from an incredibly long journey(train, taxi, airport, flight, and landing), was put in a room with two bulky men. They basically tried to talk her into confessing she was importing illegal clothing. She kept denying it but they kept talking her down and insulting her, putting as much pressure as possible on getting her to confess, which resulted her bursting out in tears, at which point my father had started banging on the door, demanding them to let him near my mother, at which point an officer threw him on the ground, and four of them jumped on top, all the while kicking. He came back home with bruises.
All the while, my parents were completely helpful. They showed their identification when they were asked for it, and would've opened their suitcases as well if they had been asked. Instead, security caused this entire mess.
When they returned and told me of what happened, I strongly recommended they sought out a lawyer to reclaim their lost possessions and potentially sue the security agency. But they didn't want to. It'd turn into a fiscal nightmare. If you win, all costs are forgiven on your side. But if you lost, you'd end up paying for the lawsuit as well. And what evidence did my parents have? Recordings? That wasn't under their control. The only two witnesses that were not part of the security present that night, were they themselves, and that'd probably not cut it.
They just wanted to move on and forget about what happened as soon as possible. The entire ordeal has left a poor impression of airport security on me. I believe that the men and women working at the airport security perform some incredible work at times, and often enough they've been able to catch people with ill intent crossing the border. But I cannot for a single moment think back of the situation that was described to me by my parents and think well of what happened. There was cooperation from the beginning, so why force the situation? There was ID on both, why not check the IDs for legitimacy instead of threatening them? And why, oh why, do you take a tired as hell woman, who repeats over and over that she's not done something, and completely humiliate her to force an explanation out?
I wished to share this story to make sure people understand. It's not always the white knights in shining armour padding you down. Unfortunately, there are goons out there who have no idea on how to handle security other than using violence and threats. I just hope you have better luck when they come and decide you seem suspicious.
OT: Overreaction, for sure. Questioning at the most would've been fine, provided they would've properly conducted it. Expelling them from the country for a tweet? Of which 9/10 people here could've told you they were being moronic in public? Questioning is one thing, but this whole thing is another. It saddens me that the entire fear for terrorism has ended up in the very people being placed under suspicion for no good reason.
I remember every year the TSA releases a huge list of "dangerous items" they've confiscated. Most of the objects on that list are amusing, but what's even more laughable is that they never list any people that have been charged with crimes...and anyone who's gone through security will tell you that items can be taken away, and they'll still let you on the plane. I'd love to see the terrorist that gives up because you took his vegetable peeler.
Airport security has been trained to look for bottles of liquid and cutlery, not to look for dangerous suspects.
On January 31 2012 19:15 bOneSeven wrote: Well, I'm not a really good title writer, so hope people won't see as "sensationalist" or whatever...
The basic idea is that two british tourists were barred from entering America after joking on Twitter that they were going to 'destroy America' and 'dig up Marilyn Monroe'.
After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last Monday afternoon the pair were detained by armed guards.
Despite telling officials the term 'destroy' was British slang for 'party', they were held on suspicion of planning to 'commit crimes' and had their passports confiscated.
'It got even more ridiculous because the officials searched our suitcases and said they were looking for spades and shovels. They did a full body search on me too.
'We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweet. He would not hurt anyone.'
Leigh posted the tweet on January 16 before the pair flew to LA last Monday.
Leigh said: 'It's just so ridiculous it's almost funny but at the time it was really scary. The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of terrorist.
I saw this on twitter, was retweeted by Joe Rogan a few hours ago.
For example in comic slang you use words like "bomb" "killed" "destroyed" .... are they gonna put them under terrorist suspicion for using such words ?
It seems to me that this false sense of security won't help anyone, and since it escalated, if we won't move off the track....more abuse will come
I for one believe that is better to, well firstly change foreign policy on US, because most of it are causes to hate towards America ( as detailed by the CIA , and 3 more US Generals as well ), then after a while when water cools, loose all the ridiculuos laws of paranoia and let the people live free and without fear of not saying the "wrong" words or whatever. What would happen ? Without this hate for America, terrorist acts would only be commited by seriously sick people ( clinicly proven ), and most of them are spotted before they might do any damage...
I believe Benjamin Franklin had it right .... "he who chooses security over liberty deserves neither"
Some people suggested I should add some links to this starting post so :
I think they were 100% justified. People shouldn't make jokes about destroying America if they are going to be going on Airplanes... the stigma of 9/11 is still very real to a lot of people and it isn't a light topic. I mean how dumb do you have to be to post that you are going to "destroy america" on twitter. Oh wait. they are British.. so its okay right
On February 01 2012 07:47 ticklishmusic wrote: Once I had to get a patdown because I had a gum wrapper stuck in my pocket lining... that sets off the metal detector apparently.
Point is, minimize your chances of having to go through extra screening. Don't say stupid shit, don't post stupid shit and don't bring stupid shit. And most of all, don't act like a stupid shit.
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
What the fuck are you on? Why are you turning this into something it's not, go vent in the proper thread.
It's exactly on topic. U turned into a paranoid country, while failing badly at gestionating your own internal problems. U ban ppl for jokes without even investigating. Your "Freedom of Speach" is limited to what some want to hear? ) This news is just sad and ironic at the same time really.
If i were u, i wouldn't google the word "bomb". Someone might be knocking on your door after a few hours.
please, if you insist on inventing your own words for things, kindly provide the rest of us with the definitions
On February 01 2012 08:03 WolfintheSheep wrote: I remember every year the TSA releases a huge list of "dangerous items" they've confiscated. Most of the objects on that list are amusing, but what's even more laughable is that they never list any people that have been charged with crimes...and anyone who's gone through security will tell you that items can be taken away, and they'll still let you on the plane. I'd love to see the terrorist that gives up because you took his vegetable peeler.
Airport security has been trained to look for bottles of liquid and cutlery, not to look for dangerous suspects.
there are privacy issues with releasing names of people who have committed crimes, which is likely why they dont release names. as for confiscating but allowing them on planes, it all has to do with what they confiscate. if they confiscate a bomb, you arent going ton the plane, you are going to jail. if they confiscate a key-chain knife, they probably arent going to care too much, but wont allow the knife to go through. i have been caught with a key-chain knife before going into a courthouse. they told me to put it in my car and come back.
The pervasive ignorance that fills international news threads seems to be spiraling out of control.
Bureaucracies carrying out absurd rules is nothing new or uncommon in today's world. It is just the result of a system. We should, of course, try to improve this system and remove foolish practices, but the idea of extrapolating some sort of large negative pattern against an entire nation based on the actions of a few people, and the rules of a single agency is embarrassing to read. And then the audacity to think that the problems of governments are so simple, that your ignorant mind was able to sum them up and solve them in a single paragraph... It's just ridiculous.
We should look to educate ourselves more on these issues, and not be so quick to jump towards judgments and unthought-out solutions. Why don't we try to make these threads more of a place to learn? This is a very international community and I think we all have a lot we could learn from each other on the world.
On February 01 2012 06:44 Sprungjeezy wrote:/facepalm If people actually want to visit the US, they will visit the US, except if they hear this story they won't? More like, if they hear this story they will be even more cautious when traveling because the US gives no fucks and will use any excuse to send you out or to arrest you.
Getting the chance to visit a place you've never been isn't like buying food. If you heard some company does something terrible you can choose to not use their products, but if you want to visit a country, there's literally no where you can go to get the same experience lmao.
But on topic, I'm surprised people are surprised. I guess living in the US I know and understand how serious airports take security and I'm fine with it. God forbid I have to go a whole day without saying the word "bomb." And seriously "I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe" - who the fuck says that? I can't really comprehend how "destroy" being the equivalent to "party" would even make sense, "I'm going to party America" ? "I'm going to get destroyed in America" would be alright, but nope it was "I'm going to destroy America" ... /facepalm
/facepalm on you perhaps? choise of not buying stuff from a brand and not visiting a place on earth is down to the same thing: desire to do something
There are a few things that interest me in USA, I would like to see some bands that doesn't travel outside (much), see and NHL and NBA game, perhaps some sightseeing too (but I can't think of anything interesting right now). And believe me or not, my desire to do this stuff is not bigger than letting out my dignity to do it. Right now I can travel inside European Union without giving up any of my freedom or believs, no dignity, self-respect. And if I'm reading that I have to be cautious because someone is paranoid (it's of course personal opinion) I can easily disagree on that if my desire to travel isn't big enough. USA itself is no wonder of the world and some people are actually happy that they don't have to live there. To me this (USA) attitude is obsessive and I think it's crazy to think that way. To you my attitude may seem too loose and careless and if your desire to travel to EU is smaller than your fear of spending time in too high danger of getting killed in terrorist attack you should't decide on traveling too. And I'm not trying to say I won't travel to USA ever because of what happend. But if I were this UK citizen, I would turn back and never try to return thinking "giving them a credit for being reasonable was a mistake"...
On February 01 2012 01:43 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: There is very good reasons why I don't wanna visit the USA. The big problem is that even a airplane stop (even just for refuel!!!) sucks the exact same way as a visit.
I had no problem visiting china and at one point they didnt even take my swiss army knife i forgot in my carry on baggage. china rocks usa sucks.
Lesotho? The third world is allowed to talk shit now? I'll agree, the American airport security protocols are a bit much, but that doesn't mean we suck. That just means some guy from a third world country doesn't get to take out his Swiss army knife and cut the pilot's throat.
Hahahaha, no it doesn't JUST mean I can't get out my swiss army knife (not beeing from a third world country), thats what it means in almost all other countries (not china as I can get on the plane there, awesome country). Looks like it was a good decision by the lovely chinese woman who let me board the plane anyway as everyone made a happy journey to their destination without unnecessary troubles.
I use my swiss army knife as a tool not as a weapon.
This is very unfortunate for the couple and I couldn't believe the guy had to go to prison, and he got all his food taken from two big mexican guys, what a nightmare! Man...I wish the best for them and I hope this didn't get them too down, and I hope the guy didn't get assaulted in prison, that is really some sick stuff. God bless!
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.
It's not my example, it's from all the articles. He really was in a cell with cocaine smugglers. And he didn't say or do anything at the airport.
My guess is homeland security went something like this: There's a guy who posted something on Twitter about destroying America and he has a plane ticket. Let's call up the limeys and see what they know about him. "Hello Limeys, this is homeland security. What do you know about Leigh Van Bryan?" "Who is this?" "Homeland security." "Do you have any legal reason for wanting to know about his background?" "He posted about destroying America on Twitter." That's probably when the call ended. They really didn't have anything to go on except a tweet, and rational people would have noticed they were grasping at straws and it was a misunderstanding. But these couple of DHS guys just had to be right.
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.
Your entire post is wrong. Digging up Marilyn Monroe wouldn't be terrorism. The Family guy bit isn't ad hoc, all the DHS people had to do was Google it. You can basically tell they didn't know shit about him besides what he posted on Twitter, or have any reason to be suspicious at all. They searched for spades he would use for the digging? They told him "you really fucked up with that tweet, boy"? They called him "boy"? I am not the least bit proud of this circus. They would have you believe tourists are terrorists.
The problem here is not people doing stupid things. The problem is having apeshit organizations. Monitoring twitter, okay, that's harmless enough. Grabbing the guy for an interview to see what's up with his weird twitter message, okay. No harm there. Acting like thugs, not accepting the obvious evidence, and not letting these people into the country is reprehensible.
They shouldn't have said something like that even if they were joking or if it was slang. We are sensitive to these types of things because we never want something like 9/11 to happen again. Think before you speak...or type in this situation.
On February 01 2012 10:09 phodacbiet wrote: Twitter is how terrorists coordinate their attacks, good thing we caught these guys early before our liberty and freedom got hurt!
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.
It's not my example, it's from all the articles. He really was in a cell with cocaine smugglers. And he didn't say or do anything at the airport.
My guess is homeland security went something like this: There's a guy who posted something on Twitter about destroying America and he has a plane ticket. Let's call up the limeys and see what they know about him. "Hello Limeys, this is homeland security. What do you know about Leigh Van Bryan?" "Who is this?" "Homeland security." "Do you have any legal reason for wanting to know about his background?" "He posted about destroying America on Twitter." That's probably when the call ended. They really didn't have anything to go on except a tweet, and rational people would have noticed they were grasping at straws and it was a misunderstanding. But these couple of DHS guys just had to be right.
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. Your entire post is wrong. Digging up Marilyn Monroe wouldn't be terrorism. The Family guy bit isn't ad hoc, all the DHS people had to do was Google it. You can basically tell they didn't know shit about him besides what he posted on Twitter, or have any reason to be suspicious at all. They searched for spades he would use for the digging? They told him "you really fucked up with that tweet, boy"? They called him "boy"? I am not the least bit proud of this circus. They would have you believe tourists are terrorists.
The problem here is not people doing stupid things. The problem is having apeshit organizations. Monitoring twitter, okay, that's harmless enough. Grabbing the guy for an interview to see what's up with his weird twitter message, okay. No harm there. Acting like thugs, not accepting the obvious evidence, and not letting these people into the country is reprehensible.
I think you missed the point of my post, just because a saying derives from a popular TV show, movie or book doesn't mean it becomes an automatic excuse for officials to dismiss the threat. If I should say shortly before departing to China,"I believe humans are a virus and need to be eradicated" and then say to officials "It's just a Matrix quote, let me go". Security officials aren't trained to deal with contextual excuses for why someone said something that would be innately illegal in a given country. If they are to investigate the reasons behind what "Destroy America" means and "Dig up Marilyn Monroe", it needs to be thoroughly investigated, what if they did actually intend on digging her bones up and had graveyard map plans and shovel?
Furthermore to your bolded point, do you know if the detained persons in this controversy fully co-operated with the TSA agents? How do you know they didn't obstruct questioning or refuse to answer questions which would lead toward discretionary actions of expulsion? Maybe they did co-operate and the officials abused their power, maybe they didn't. We will never know what fully occurred in the questioning.
On February 01 2012 10:09 phodacbiet wrote: Twitter is how terrorists coordinate their attacks, good thing we caught these guys early before our liberty and freedom got hurt!
Algorithmic governmental data mining traverses far more then twitter, many domestic terror or racial militants have been flagged and caught in the United States because of idiotic posts stated on a website or even youtube.
On February 01 2012 06:44 Sprungjeezy wrote:/facepalm If people actually want to visit the US, they will visit the US, except if they hear this story they won't? More like, if they hear this story they will be even more cautious when traveling because the US gives no fucks and will use any excuse to send you out or to arrest you.
Getting the chance to visit a place you've never been isn't like buying food. If you heard some company does something terrible you can choose to not use their products, but if you want to visit a country, there's literally no where you can go to get the same experience lmao.
But on topic, I'm surprised people are surprised. I guess living in the US I know and understand how serious airports take security and I'm fine with it. God forbid I have to go a whole day without saying the word "bomb." And seriously "I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe" - who the fuck says that? I can't really comprehend how "destroy" being the equivalent to "party" would even make sense, "I'm going to party America" ? "I'm going to get destroyed in America" would be alright, but nope it was "I'm going to destroy America" ... /facepalm
/facepalm on you perhaps? choise of not buying stuff from a brand and not visiting a place on earth is down to the same thing: desire to do something
There are a few things that interest me in USA, I would like to see some bands that doesn't travel outside (much), see and NHL and NBA game, perhaps some sightseeing too (but I can't think of anything interesting right now). And believe me or not, my desire to do this stuff is not bigger than letting out my dignity to do it. Right now I can travel inside European Union without giving up any of my freedom or believs, no dignity, self-respect. And if I'm reading that I have to be cautious because someone is paranoid (it's of course personal opinion) I can easily disagree on that if my desire to travel isn't big enough. USA itself is no wonder of the world and some people are actually happy that they don't have to live there. To me this (USA) attitude is obsessive and I think it's crazy to think that way. To you my attitude may seem too loose and careless and if your desire to travel to EU is smaller than your fear of spending time in too high danger of getting killed in terrorist attack you should't decide on traveling too. And I'm not trying to say I won't travel to USA ever because of what happend. But if I were this UK citizen, I would turn back and never try to return thinking "giving them a credit for being reasonable was a mistake"...
So to you, wanting to travel (a huge investment of time and money) to a specific place, but opting to go to a completely different country is the same as buying a different brand of clothing. Hmm.
"letting out my dignity to do it" I assume you meant something like "sacrificing my dignity," but I don't understand this. Taking your fucking shoes off and revealing your socks is so demeaning you would choose not to travel to the US? Unless you intend to say "sup guys, I heard you guys don't like BOMBS on planes in the US" or walk around with a knife in your pocket no one will look twice at you.
"giving up any of my freedom... self-respect" umm, are you sure you're not being overly dramatic?
"USA itself is no wonder of the world" I'm aware people don't visit the US for the sake of saying they've been there. There's a lot of stuff in the US that people want to see, but I'm not sure how this is relevant?
But yea after the bolded parts, I don't really understand what you're trying to say, 'is my desire to travel to the EU smaller than my fear of spending time in too high danger of getting killed in terrorist attack'. I can't interpret this into a clear idea. I'm not afraid of getting killed in a terrorist attack, and I enjoy air travel.
"So to you, wanting to travel (a huge investment of time and money) to a specific place, but opting to go to a completely different country is the same as buying a different brand of clothing. Hmm." i wrote that the decision is made (or can be made, for me it is, for you it doesn't have to) on the same thought process: considering pros and cons do i want to do it/ not to do it (desire to do something). i never said it's same thing.
i obviously agree to various security checks, even in Europe and taking of shoes is fine. being examined more closely if being suspicious is understandable. attitude of "i can't be myself because of their paranoia. i have to get out of anyones way" is something that puts me in question, do i want to sacrifice my dignity or not?
yes i'm overly dramatic, not really serious, bit extreme to bold out other point of view.
""USA itself is no wonder of the world" I'm aware people don't visit the US for the sake of saying they've been there. There's a lot of stuff in the US that people want to see, but I'm not sure how this is relevant?" yes i agree with you. that's what i meant, and to follow up: so now when i want to travel to see a certain thing i ask myself question, do i want it so much or i can satisfy myself with something outside of USA? the point is (someone in this thread suggested otherwise) that often when approaching visa/security problems people tend to give up thoughts of visiting USA. not saying it's majority, not saying it's minority, but opposite to someones belief it does happen.
last paragraph i tried to put you in position of visitor who asks question similar to Europeans, but if for us USA security is high then perhaps for American European security is low? Trying to ask a question "if you think USA security is just right, perhaps there is something wrong with European? and if it's too low you got the same dilemma: agree on traveling or refuse to travel (depending on your desire to travel). i realised that this example was a bit too abstract... sorry
This reminds me of a brazillian guy who, when asked if he had a bomb, jokingly said yes (bomb in portuguese is a sinonym of bycicle pump, of which he had one).
Maybe this will teach people to not be smartasses and show respect when going to visit a country that isn't their own.
On February 01 2012 11:37 Sbrubbles wrote: This reminds me of a brazillian guy who, when asked if he had a bomb, jokingly said yes (bomb in portuguese is a sinonym of bycicle pump, of which he had one).
Maybe this will teach people to not be smartasses and show respect when going to visit a country that isn't their own.
No! It's because America sucks! This doesn't happen anywhere else! It's just the stupid bullshit American government that's the problem with the world!!!!!
I love the amount of foreigners commenting on this stuff. I guess it is relevant with it being a visit to the US and all but still it feels like every time the US has a minor gaff, the Ant-USA brigade comes crawling out of the woodwork for a couple of one-liners and jabs. Subsequently, everyone quickly forgets about US until the next media triviality.
The number one way to stop this (if you believe it should be stopped) is if everyone (or at least a vast amount of people) are deliberately suspicious. Someone could organise a suspicious flash mob of like 1000+ people all acting suspicious and see how DHS handle it.
Personally I don't think any liberty is sacrificed in avoiding terms that are terrorism related. I don't think that stuff ever comes up in my vernacular anyway, at least not regularly and certainly not in an airport.
On February 01 2012 11:46 prOxi.swAMi wrote: The number one way to stop this is if everyone (or at least a vast amount of people) are deliberately suspicious. Someone needs to organise a suspicious flash mob of like 1000+ people all acting suspicious and see how DHS handle it.
On February 01 2012 11:45 Kraidio wrote: I love the amount of foreigners commenting on this stuff. I guess it is relevant with it being a visit to the US and all but still it feels like every time the US has a minor gaff, the Ant-USA brigade comes crawling out of the woodwork for a couple of one-liners and jabs. Subsequently, everyone quickly forgets about US until the next media triviality.
Don't be so sensitive. It's a funny story, people like poking fun at the whole country when something like that happens. It's the same with every country, you just notice it more for the US because you're American.
Wasn't it the United States that hated communism because of a lack of free speech? Honestly China has more free speech than the United States these days.
On February 01 2012 12:08 Zerksys wrote: Wasn't it the United States that hated communism because of a lack of free speech? Honestly China has more free speech than the United States these days.
You probably wouldn't want to go test that assertion.
We need a sarcasm tag, some of these recent posts don't make any sense.
On February 01 2012 12:08 Zerksys wrote: Wasn't it the United States that hated communism because of a lack of free speech? Honestly China has more free speech than the United States these days.
On February 01 2012 12:10 Alethios wrote: Yeah well. Americans don't really get humour.
Apparently you're right, 'cause I can't tell if either of these are jokes or idiotic ravings.
On February 01 2012 12:08 Zerksys wrote: Wasn't it the United States that hated communism because of a lack of free speech? Honestly China has more free speech than the United States these days.
What.
On February 01 2012 12:10 Alethios wrote: Yeah well. Americans don't really get humour.
What.
I'm a USesian, and I get humor plenty well, thank you and your mindless generalizations.
I hate it when people misquote Benjamin Franklin. Fuck you for misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
Also, one has the responsibility to know United States Airport Protocol. We are thin skinned when it comes to it, and everyone in a relatively well off country can and SHOULD know this when coming into/leaving the United States. To you it is over the top. To us, it's a small, thin, and relatively unobtrusive safety net. A safety net we find NECESSARY, though perhaps not particularly effective. It gives us a little more peace of mind in simply knowing it's there. If they had shown some goddamn respect and you don't have to go through meaningless bullshit.
Also, stating that the United States has to give respect before getting it or other simple America hate comments will be seen as pure trolls. WHY? Because EVEN IF we are as stupid and evil as some make us out to be, even the most idiotic of despots deserve basic human respect.
On February 01 2012 11:45 Kraidio wrote: I love the amount of foreigners commenting on this stuff. I guess it is relevant with it being a visit to the US and all but still it feels like every time the US has a minor gaff, the Ant-USA brigade comes crawling out of the woodwork for a couple of one-liners and jabs. Subsequently, everyone quickly forgets about US until the next media triviality.
Welcome to world internet community get used to it, it happens quite often in the TL general section.
On February 01 2012 12:20 ShatterZer0 wrote: I hate it when people misquote Benjamin Franklin. Fuck you for misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
Also, one has the responsibility to know United States Airport Protocol. We are thin skinned when it comes to it, and everyone in a relatively well off country can and SHOULD know this when coming into/leaving the United States. To you it is over the top. To us, it's a small, thin, and relatively unobtrusive safety net. A safety net we find NECESSARY, though perhaps not particularly effective. It gives us a little more peace of mind in simply knowing it's there. If they had shown some goddamn respect and you don't have to go through meaningless bullshit.
Also, stating that the United States has to give respect before getting it or other simple America hate comments will be seen as pure trolls. WHY? Because EVEN IF we are as stupid and evil as some make us out to be, even the most idiotic of despots deserve basic human respect.
I don't understand how you can defend a clear and complete lack of common sense and intelligence. It's not even about the US, most Americans on this forum agree that it's ridiculous. But seeing people actually trying to act like it's normal is starting to scare me...
If someone has holding a sign in an airport reading "I am going to destroy America." Is that as "stupid" as tweeting it? Should it be taken any more/less seriously?
Obviously, tweeting it is not exposing it to the public as openly, but why NOT investigate it as a TSA officer? As stupid as it sounds, it would be worth the time of the officer to investigate it, rather than pass it off as a joke.
bottom line, dont be stupid, you can't troll the government. just think about how security is going to be for the 2012 olympics in london; do you think they would let this shit pass?
On February 01 2012 12:20 ShatterZer0 wrote: I hate it when people misquote Benjamin Franklin. Fuck you for misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
Also, one has the responsibility to know United States Airport Protocol. We are thin skinned when it comes to it, and everyone in a relatively well off country can and SHOULD know this when coming into/leaving the United States. To you it is over the top. To us, it's a small, thin, and relatively unobtrusive safety net. A safety net we find NECESSARY, though perhaps not particularly effective. It gives us a little more peace of mind in simply knowing it's there. If they had shown some goddamn respect and you don't have to go through meaningless bullshit.
Also, stating that the United States has to give respect before getting it or other simple America hate comments will be seen as pure trolls. WHY? Because EVEN IF we are as stupid and evil as some make us out to be, even the most idiotic of despots deserve basic human respect.
I don't understand how you can defend a clear and complete lack of common sense and intelligence. It's not even about the US, most Americans on this forum agree that it's ridiculous. But seeing people actually trying to act like it's normal is starting to scare me...
I don't understand how you are incapable of seeing the viewpoint of security-when I visited France, everyone there was rude to me b/c of my English.
Of course, I could then say that French people are snobs and then attack anyone w/o said viewpoint.
I like feeling secure. Period. I've been searched many, many times in airports. I have been detained for accidently carrying explosives before. I don't care, because I like my country, thank you very much.
On February 01 2012 12:10 Alethios wrote: Yeah well. Americans don't really get humour.
How is this about humor, when you're agency is in charge of making sure (not pretty sure, not "I doubt anything bad will happen" but abso-fucking-lutely sure 0.0000% chance sure) the person you are talking with is not a terrorist or planning anything illegal, you don't fuck around. Is there anything about airport security that makes a person think, "Oh I bet I can get this guy to laugh" ?? And then do you think these guys care about your vacation? No, they do not. They are looking for anyone doing ANYTHING wrong. Do you know why? Because if they let someone by and shit goes wrong, ANYTHING can happen, whether a plane gets highjacked, some drugs or bombs are smuggled in, etc. They aren't doing this to be assholes, they're doing it because that's their job. These people aren't just anyone who needed job, they went through background checks and jumped through hoops to get this job because the job matters. And if you think all that happened was "we said something silly over Twitter and then we were on our best behavior and gave them absolutely no reason to doubt or mistrust us" then I think you're naive.
On February 01 2012 12:20 ShatterZer0 wrote: I hate it when people misquote Benjamin Franklin. Fuck you for misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
Also, one has the responsibility to know United States Airport Protocol. We are thin skinned when it comes to it, and everyone in a relatively well off country can and SHOULD know this when coming into/leaving the United States. To you it is over the top. To us, it's a small, thin, and relatively unobtrusive safety net. A safety net we find NECESSARY, though perhaps not particularly effective. It gives us a little more peace of mind in simply knowing it's there. If they had shown some goddamn respect and you don't have to go through meaningless bullshit.
Also, stating that the United States has to give respect before getting it or other simple America hate comments will be seen as pure trolls. WHY? Because EVEN IF we are as stupid and evil as some make us out to be, even the most idiotic of despots deserve basic human respect.
I don't understand how you can defend a clear and complete lack of common sense and intelligence. It's not even about the US, most Americans on this forum agree that it's ridiculous. But seeing people actually trying to act like it's normal is starting to scare me...
Obviously you don't have any family members who threw themselves off the towers. Or friends that had themselves burned to death to try to save just one more person.
Maybe I'm a "too soon" kind of guy, but "a clear lack of common sense and intelligence" is bullshit in my opinion. Even if this British couple is just an overblown example, let them be an overblown example that forewarns others not to make the same mistake in the future. Government is not your friend. Bureaucracy should not have leeway.
On February 01 2012 12:20 ShatterZer0 wrote: I hate it when people misquote Benjamin Franklin. Fuck you for misquoting Benjamin Franklin.
Also, one has the responsibility to know United States Airport Protocol. We are thin skinned when it comes to it, and everyone in a relatively well off country can and SHOULD know this when coming into/leaving the United States. To you it is over the top. To us, it's a small, thin, and relatively unobtrusive safety net. A safety net we find NECESSARY, though perhaps not particularly effective. It gives us a little more peace of mind in simply knowing it's there. If they had shown some goddamn respect and you don't have to go through meaningless bullshit.
Also, stating that the United States has to give respect before getting it or other simple America hate comments will be seen as pure trolls. WHY? Because EVEN IF we are as stupid and evil as some make us out to be, even the most idiotic of despots deserve basic human respect.
I don't understand how you can defend a clear and complete lack of common sense and intelligence. It's not even about the US, most Americans on this forum agree that it's ridiculous. But seeing people actually trying to act like it's normal is starting to scare me...
I don't understand how you are incapable of seeing the viewpoint of security-when I visited France, everyone there was rude to me b/c of my English.
Of course, I could then say that French people are snobs and then attack anyone w/o said viewpoint.
I like feeling secure. Period. I've been searched many, many times in airports. I have been detained for accidently carrying explosives before. I don't care, because I like my country, thank you very much.
I don't really understand what this has to do with the French being rude to foreigners (which really is true unfortunately...). You have to realise that the whole situation is ridiculous. 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.
Also, why the hell were you accidentally carrying explosives? Next time you take a plane, can you let me know in advance so that I'm not anywhere near you?
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.
It's horrifying to see that some people are so incredible biased to agree with authority that they actually defend it even when something preposterous like this happens. I guess that's what fear does to you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"If it wasn't America..."
Yeah see, the problem is it's almost always in America. It's pretty rare that this happens elsewhere.
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.
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. And dont tell me that the london train bombings are what you are fucking referring to.
Terrorists are going to read these forums and then try to metagame and post tweets about their attacks.
If they took anything lightly, they wouldn't be doing their job. I just hope that the careless folks in this thread will never hold a position that can threaten national security.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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 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.
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.
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''.
On February 01 2012 14:04 NIJ wrote: 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
mostly the "security" is there because certain people make a whole lot of money from having it there
Yes the internet, especially social networks, is being monitored. It is very unlikely that a terrorist will tweet "I am going to bomb America" before actually trying to do it. But do not think that they are so stupid there. Breivik, for example, has demonstrated in internet that something wrong is going on in his mind on many occasions. They collect "suspects" and form a database, then watch these people closer. Initially the key word search is used. Gmail, maybe some other e-mail services, is scanned too. It is better to know in advance. It may be illegal, but who is going to complain and how do you prove it?
I just can't imagine the uproar if the couple was allowed through and then it turned out they did have malicious plans. People would forever rage about how stupid the agents were that let them through because the couple even tweeted about their plans!!!
Now I highly doubt they had any such plans but yeah..you get my point.
Many of you guys won believe it but the military protocol as well as the legal safeguards pertaining to homeland security is very rigid. I am a trial lawyer, particular in humar rights and children welfare. I had some cases which are totally dumbfounding. The HLS does not even excempt children. anyone, literally anyone from those who were just born can be flagged as terrorist threats. That is an explicit provision of the law. If a 2 year old was able to write "bomb" and "us" on twitter or even on a piece of paper that the HLS officers manage to find, that 2 year old will certainly flagged as terror threat. The worst Ive experienced are children who were playing guns in OHare Chicago. They are brothers, 1 8yo, the other 5yo. The parents had to be detained 5 hours for questioning and clearance. They had to miss their flight. Eventually they were released after cleared, with some discount on their next flight. They were not even honored a rebook free of charge.
Security is a serious issue in America. No one should get that wrong. I personally am in the middle of the issue. I am a naturalized American but with strong Asian heritage. If you ask me, I'd say the country is overdoing it a bit. But having experienced 911, I would rather be safe than sorry again. People should use their brains. Why would you even give HLS any reason to flag you. Doing even nothing can get you suspected, what else having openly declared, joke or not, something that is definitely sensitive to America. As to the guards, I am sure they were just following protocol. These things are black and white in American laws and security protocols.
Makes me wonder what would happen if someone got #DestroyAmerica trending. Would some poor soul reading these "suspicious" tweets have to sift through them all?
Also, I hope the warm welcome didn't turn the British couple off the U.S. for good or harm them in any severe way.
On February 01 2012 20:07 Poltergeist- wrote: I just can't imagine the uproar if the couple was allowed through and then it turned out they did have malicious plans. People would forever rage about how stupid the agents were that let them through because the couple even tweeted about their plans!!!
Now I highly doubt they had any such plans but yeah..you get my point.
Ahm.. dude.
1: The couple was questioned ---> Ok, if your paranoid and as far as i can see from this tread, a lot of americans are paranoid. 2: The couple had to spend the night in Jail --> Not ok. 3: The couple was denied entrance and sent back --> Not ok.
"Why are you even giving HLS a chance to flag you?"
Ahm, because most parts of the world are not totally paranoid and watch their language whenever they expect more than 1 person to hear/read it.
Kinda remind me of Bioware banning a The Old Republic subscriber that used the "what is this im only 12" meme for admitting that he is younger than 13 years...
On February 01 2012 20:13 OniGami wrote: Why would you even give HLS any reason to flag you. Doing even nothing can get you suspected, what else having openly declared, joke or not, something that is definitely sensitive to America. As to the guards, I am sure they were just following protocol. These things are black and white in American laws and security protocols.
That's what the uproar is about, noone is denying the US's right or ability to uphold those laws. But the thing is those two DIDN'T give the HLS any reason to flag them. They used a pretty innocent turn of phrase that they probably didn't even think about. Are they also going to flag everyone who uses the phrases 'da bomb' or 'they won't know what hit them' or any other phrases that could be interpreted the wrong way? if so it could well become unrealistic to use twitter and plan to travel to the US at all, I mean if you try hard enough anything could be interpreted the wrong way.
This is further confounded by the fact that after detaining them, they were not eventually allowed to enter US at all, surely after making sure they didn't have shovels, and getting it explained to you, if somewhat sarcastically you would eventually get it. This just shows how out of touch those people were. It is not a matter of the law being wrong, the law allows for human judgement from those agents, otherwise they could just refuse the 2 without arresting them, but clearly those agents that did the questioning were either out of touch with reality to the point of incompetence, or they were being intentionally obstructive, due to, I don't know, offence at having sarcasm thrown at them or something? I mean seriously, I find it hard to swallow that they could actually believe those 2 wanted to dig up Marylin Munroe....
For example in comic slang you use words like "bomb" "killed" "destroyed" .... are they gonna put them under terrorist suspicion for using such words ?
It seems to me that this false sense of security won't help anyone, and since it escalated, if we won't move off the track....more abuse will come
I for one believe that is better to, well firstly change foreign policy on US, because most of it are causes to hate towards America ( as detailed by the CIA , and 3 more US Generals as well ), then after a while when water cools, loose all the ridiculuos laws of paranoia and let the people live free and without fear of not saying the "wrong" words or whatever. What would happen ? Without this hate for America, terrorist acts would only be commited by seriously sick people ( clinicly proven ), and most of them are spotted before they might do any damage...
I believe Benjamin Franklin had it right .... "he who chooses security over liberty deserves neither"
something to set straight about americans and american government: they are two ENTIRELY different things.
US government seeks to protect itself and employs these nutjobs in the first place. the rest of us americans are pissed off at the ridiculous nature of it all but can't do anything about it.
elect better politicians into government? if only. the only people who get far enough through the system to get recognition are the same crazy people willing to play the games all these other politicians do. elections have become about "who is the least damaging for our future".
so yeah. it's obnoxious. we all want it to stop. just like every other country.
"Entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. "
It doesn't has to be a terrorist threat for them to deny your entry. It's exactly the same when you're applying visa for any country, even if you don't have to sit through interview to apply tourist visa from a US friendly countries, that doesn't exempt you to be like that, I dare you to say the exactly same thing during those interview, you'll not get your visa approved.
On February 01 2012 20:35 furymonkey wrote: "Entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. "
It doesn't has to be a terrorist threat for them to deny your entry. It's exactly the same when you're applying visa for any country, even if you don't have to sit through interview to apply tourist visa from a US friendly countries, that doesn't exempt you to be like that, I dare you to say the exactly same thing during those interview, you'll not get your visa approved.
This could be said for every single country. A lot of the world gets lost in the day to day. We don't think about the finest details because we would become inundated by them.
Spot fucking on. There's no universal free transit right. For Americans we can travel anywhere in or even out of our country for free without restriction as long as we aren't criminals. ~_~ that puts us pretty damn high up on the list.
On February 01 2012 20:35 furymonkey wrote: "Entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. "
It doesn't has to be a terrorist threat for them to deny your entry. It's exactly the same when you're applying visa for any country, even if you don't have to sit through interview to apply tourist visa from a US friendly countries, that doesn't exempt you to be like that, I dare you to say the exactly same thing during those interview, you'll not get your visa approved.
To be fair, not getting your visa approved is a heck of alot better than getting there then being sent back.
At least that way you might be able to cancel your plane ticket/have time to restructure you plans.
On February 01 2012 20:35 furymonkey wrote: "Entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. "
It doesn't has to be a terrorist threat for them to deny your entry. It's exactly the same when you're applying visa for any country, even if you don't have to sit through interview to apply tourist visa from a US friendly countries, that doesn't exempt you to be like that, I dare you to say the exactly same thing during those interview, you'll not get your visa approved.
To be fair, not getting your visa approved is a heck of alot better than getting there then being sent back.
At least that way you might be able to cancel your plane ticket/have time to restructure you plans.
idd, for people they thought were going to "blow up america" its funny that they still let them on the plane, because no ones ever hijacked a plane before right...
On February 01 2012 20:35 furymonkey wrote: "Entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. "
It doesn't has to be a terrorist threat for them to deny your entry. It's exactly the same when you're applying visa for any country, even if you don't have to sit through interview to apply tourist visa from a US friendly countries, that doesn't exempt you to be like that, I dare you to say the exactly same thing during those interview, you'll not get your visa approved.
This could be said for every single country. A lot of the world gets lost in the day to day. We don't think about the finest details because we would become inundated by them.
Spot fucking on. There's no universal free transit right. For Americans we can travel anywhere in or even out of our country for free without restriction as long as we aren't criminals. ~_~ that puts us pretty damn high up on the list.
its this kind of xenophobic atmosphere that isolates america from the rest of the world
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.[/QUOTE] Did pulling out random statistics out of your ass work out for you so far?[/QUOTE]
0 people have been caught after posting about it on twitter 0 people walking through one of those full body scanners has ever had a bomb on them
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.
i made it clear i understood that it was just a machine picking them out in my post above. but its equally clear that no one actually looked at the result, no background checks no request for the british police to stop them getting on the plane, no anything. high risk enough to not allow in the the country, but let them on a plane with 400 other people np.
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.
Maybe most europeans dont "hate" the US but are concerned about the slowly but steadily remove of human rights and warmongering AFTER 9/11? The laws made after 9/11 create an atmosphere of fear which could not have been done better by terrorists.
On February 01 2012 20:35 furymonkey wrote: "Entering the United States is a privilege, not a right. "
It doesn't has to be a terrorist threat for them to deny your entry. It's exactly the same when you're applying visa for any country, even if you don't have to sit through interview to apply tourist visa from a US friendly countries, that doesn't exempt you to be like that, I dare you to say the exactly same thing during those interview, you'll not get your visa approved.
This could be said for every single country. A lot of the world gets lost in the day to day. We don't think about the finest details because we would become inundated by them.
Spot fucking on. There's no universal free transit right. For Americans we can travel anywhere in or even out of our country for free without restriction as long as we aren't criminals. ~_~ that puts us pretty damn high up on the list.
its this kind of xenophobic atmosphere that isolates america from the rest of the world [/QUOTE]
I've been through both Heathrow and Manchester International. At neither time did I get the impression that they wanted to hear a joke about the Queen or going to Hyde Park and wrecking the memorials. It has zero to do with isolationism- which, by the way, is ridiculous, and everything to do with this nonsensical internet mentality that what we say here means nothing and no one is accountable.
If you don't like the real world then go petition. If you're successful in the election of a Minister of Silly Walks then I'll damn well do the same here and we can live in a world of peace and humor.
Wow, you are in fact paranoid and on top really don't see the diffrence between shouting "BOOOMB" at an airport and twittering something stupid among your friends.
You really need me to hold your hand through a bomb shouting game between friends in the airport and desecrate a corpse on twitter analogy or are you good without it.
I've spent some time strictly off line lately and it's reminded me how absurd so many people on this website are.
If you are about to try to enter a country that is overly sensitive about its security, perhaps posting you are going to destroy said country isn't the best idea, even in jest.
After doing a complete check on the two brits they probably could have been allowed in, but at the same time if they had said it while applying for their visas I would have denied them to them.
For the people complaining about free speech, no one said they couldn't say what they said, but at the same time you have to realize that choices have consequences, at all times in your life, whether it is at the work place, in your home, or even if it is something said on twitter.
Pure fearmongering honestly. "The deadly world that we live in?", yeaah alright kinda sad to see it still works on some people?
Naturally death is a thing but worrying about any of it is pointless. There are like what, 20000 homicides a year, and 100000 people or so die because of alcohol? A lot of people die because of doctors/surgery/medicine screwing up, others have food allergies or heart attacks because of stress. How many people actually died from "terrorist attacks"? Fewer than 100 a year?
Ok to demonstrate how ridiculous this is I took a quick scroll through your post history so i could take something equally out of context.
Now imagine, you've left the country, and are returning, you are then arrested, questioned, have your bags searched for a soul sucking machine, then not allowed to enter the country because:
On February 01 2012 17:50 Probe1 wrote: No but I usually tell people to when they're dragging things out and died 9 minutes ago when their all in failed. You can't just beat people. You have to crush their soul.
Holy shit you plan on not just beating someone up but crushing their entire soul.
On February 01 2012 02:54 Probe1 wrote: This is the first I've heard about this. What in the holy fuck got into those people. "slaughter anyone against Islam'' lol. There's an easy solution to this problem. Flog more men.
And are apparently an islamic fundamentalist in the country to flog lots of men. You need to totally be held accountable for what you say online!
Thats how ridiculously, and literally those tweets were being seen...
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Terrorist won't anounce on a public social media device that they gonna attack. How are they gonna succed? .......
And yes, the bigger question is how much they monitor twitter....Or all social medias, for "hot" words or whatever...
But they can't do that though. They can't say "oh, they're probably not terrorists. Terrorists wouldn't be that stupid..." and then ten hours later a plane gets blown up or crashes into the Statue of Liberty. What are they going to say to the American people? "Oh, but they announced it on twitter. We didn't think terrorists would be that stupid, so we didn't bother. Very sorry."
You're right, we should arrest anyone and everyone that MIGHT me a terrorist. Anyone who has given the minutest inkling that they might have a deep seated hatred of the US.
Better safe than sorry, right?
Seriously though I can't believe you're defending this. They said they were going to dig up Marilyn Monroe, a fucking Family Guy quote, on twitter and the guys searched their bags for spades and shovels.
The offending tweet; 'Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?'
I'm sorry but come ON. Any country that puts people in fucking holding cells on suspicion of terrorism for that is not one I even want to visit. If you support this, where the fuck do you draw the line at preventing terrorism? Hack the phones of everyone who buys a plane ticket to America a week beforehand? I mean then you'd be much more likely to catch potential terrorists. And then when you do, you can say 'hey! Imagine if we DIDN'T hack all these people's phones? What would have happened then.'
On February 01 2012 22:26 Velr wrote: Wow, you are in fact paranoid and on top really don't see the diffrence between shouting "BOOOMB" at an airport and twittering something stupid among your friends.
But they can't do that though. They can't say "oh, they're probably not terrorists. Terrorists wouldn't be that stupid..." and then ten hours later a plane gets blown up or crashes into the Statue of Liberty. What are they going to say to the American people? "Oh, but they announced it on twitter. We didn't think terrorists would be that stupid, so we didn't bother. Very sorry."
Well guess what your security already gave them a visa so there was nothing stopping them from actually hijaking a plane and bombing the Statue of Liberty. I guess I know what you say know: better late than never. Or maybe this: they were given visa because they said they'd dig up MM and that rules out the Statue of Liberty bombing.
On February 01 2012 20:13 urashimakt wrote: Makes me wonder what would happen if someone got #DestroyAmerica trending. Would some poor soul reading these "suspicious" tweets have to sift through them all?
Also, I hope the warm welcome didn't turn the British couple off the U.S. for good or harm them in any severe way.
lol someone (who doesn't plan on going to the US in the near future), should totally start that up.
Americans don't really like people coming to visit america thats the impression me, my father and my brother has recieved when we've gone to USA on different occasions.
I think almost all of us in this forum take security for granted. I know in my life i could count maybe a few times or even one ore two, in my life that i felt genuinely like my life was about to end, not lose a finger or break a leg but that i would be DEAD never returning.
I live in a very safe area where the worst crime is white collared crimes. Theres no real gangs unless you go looking for them. Security is important but yes we (America) could be a little to paranoid, but i mean compare my life to an Africa in Uganda i don't have to worry about food i don't have to worry about soldiers coming into my house and shooting/capturing me. Thats what happens when security deteriorates/ doesn't exist i couldn't imagine living a life like that. you might say i'm on the total opposite side of the spectrum and my argument is invalid. But i think security is very important if a few people have to be burdened for a "trivial act" so be it, i think people need to be mroe accountable for their actions.
Yes some cases may seem completely ridiculous (Read the 2 young brothers in the airport playing guns). But that is the price which must be paid, is it to high of a price? Everybody has their own opinions or idea's but the fact is YOU wont change anything, I wont change anything you can criticize America and our bravado speeches about freedom and war on terror. Except no one is ever right and ever wrong, this is just an endless debate with everyone flinging fact based opinions. But then again it feels like every piece of controversial news ends up becoming like this anyway i don't know why i even bother.
I'm genuinely amazed at some of the reactions in this thread.
Seriously, how do you expect US security to act? Someone publicly states that they're going to destroy America, then they head to the airport and attempt to enter the country. That's all that needs saying here imo. You simply can't take a risk and assume that was just a joke, especially when it is so simple to stop them and have them questioned and searched.
On February 01 2012 12:08 Zerksys wrote: Wasn't it the United States that hated communism because of a lack of free speech? Honestly China has more free speech than the United States these days.
You probably wouldn't want to go test that assertion.
I'm native born Chinese so I know what I'm talking about. The only thing you can't say in China are bad things about the government. Also you can't preach religion in a public setting (which may be a good thing if you look at organizations like the Westburrow Baptist Church). Other than that everything else is pretty much fair game.
On February 02 2012 00:36 greyconnect wrote: I'm genuinely amazed at some of the reactions in this thread.
Seriously, how do you expect US security to act? Someone publicly states that they're going to destroy America, then they head to the airport and attempt to enter the country. That's all that needs saying here imo. You simply can't take a risk and assume that was just a joke, especially when it is so simple to stop them and have them questioned and searched.
I expect them to be able to use logic and judgement during their search/questioning and to be able to determine that these people are not threats. That's called investigating. That they were so worried about spades and can't understand context is quite alarming to me. It certainly doesn't instil confidence that they will be able to properly identify a non-obvious threat when one comes through the airport.
@DreamChaser: Did you just pull the old trick of comparing the USA to a third world country, so it looks good, instead of another first world country, because that would make the USA look stupid, to justify moronic over the top security measures (also often done on other "controversial" debates like health care and crime/murder rates)?
Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: 1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
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.
Which part of this says citizens only, again?
Either way, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is, however, an issue of batshit insane paranoia.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: 1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
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.
Which part of this says citizens only, again?
Either way, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is, however, an issue of batshit insane paranoia.
I expect more from a Canadian.
Congress =/= Parliament.
It is not paranoia. It is just a case when people abused their own idocy and paid a small price for it.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
So this is what the land of the free and the home of the brave has become? Listen to yourself sir. Here's basically what you said.
YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US SO YOU DON'T DESERVE TO SPEAK FREELY IN OUR COUNTRY. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY SO YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK LIKE US AND ACT LIKE US. IF YOU EVEN SO MUCH AS ACCIDENTALLY HINT AT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COMMIT AN ACT OF TERRORISM, THEN YOU ARE TO BE TREATED AS A TERRORIST.
Seriously dude the problem isn't the freedom of speech. I can understand if they stopped them at the airport, searched their belongings and questioned them slightly. However, from the sound of the article, way that the airport security responded was way over the top. I don't know about you, but I honestly don't feel safe if they're using twitter as a reliable source to attempt to predict an incoming terrorist attack. Who tweets about an incoming terrorist attack before they're about to do it? If these guys, who don't have the common sense to realize that terrorists are not going to announce their attacks to the world before it happens, are so terrible at picking out the people that are not a threat, then what exactly is making the better at picking out the real threats.
For f-_- sake, the one "official page" originally published by SWNS news (check their background) agency says "continued on I-853" and you're still buying the article.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
So this is what the land of the free and the home of the brave has become? Listen to yourself sir. Here's basically what you said.
YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US SO YOU DON'T DESERVE TO SPEAK FREELY IN OUR COUNTRY. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY SO YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK LIKE US AND ACT LIKE US. IF YOU EVEN SO MUCH AS ACCIDENTALLY HINT AT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COMMIT AN ACT OF TERRORISM, THEN YOU ARE TO BE TREATED AS A TERRORIST.
Seriously dude the problem isn't the freedom of speech. I can understand if they stopped them at the airport, searched their belongings and questioned them slightly. However, from the sound of the article, way that the airport security responded was way over the top. I don't know about you, but I honestly don't feel safe if they're using twitter as a reliable source to attempt to predict an incoming terrorist attack. Who tweets about an incoming terrorist attack before they're about to do it? If these guys, who don't have the common sense to realize that terrorists are not going to announce their attacks to the world before it happens, are so terrible at picking out the people that are not a threat, then what exactly is making the better at picking out the real threats.
Do you even bother to look up Freedom of Speech before blindly posting to prove your stupidity? I have no need to use my common sense on such sensitive matters. I have guidelines and procedures to follow. Let say I use my common sense to let the British couple passing through. Few days later, they commit a terrorist act. Would you be there and take the responsibility for me? If you can tell me with a straight face, you would be there to take a full responsibility. I am truly sorry for not using my common sense.
I dont blame them, if i told i posted on twitter as i was entering the UK that i was going to defile there churches and dig up there knights i would not be allowed there im sure.
On February 02 2012 01:37 Hodgyy wrote: I dont blame them, if i told i posted on twitter as i was entering the UK that i was going to defile there churches and dig up there knights i would not be allowed there im sure.
People aren't too bothered about church or knights here.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: 1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
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.
Which part of this says citizens only, again?
Either way, this isn't a freedom of speech issue. This is, however, an issue of batshit insane paranoia.
The U.S. Constitution does not protect foreigners in foreign countries. The speech was not made while in the U.S. Entry into the U.S. is conditional for non-citizens, therefore it's up to the government's discretion to let foreigners in or not. These people acted as asshats, and therefore were refused entry.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
So this is what the land of the free and the home of the brave has become? Listen to yourself sir. Here's basically what you said.
YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US SO YOU DON'T DESERVE TO SPEAK FREELY IN OUR COUNTRY. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY SO YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK LIKE US AND ACT LIKE US. IF YOU EVEN SO MUCH AS ACCIDENTALLY HINT AT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COMMIT AN ACT OF TERRORISM, THEN YOU ARE TO BE TREATED AS A TERRORIST.
Seriously dude the problem isn't the freedom of speech. I can understand if they stopped them at the airport, searched their belongings and questioned them slightly. However, from the sound of the article, way that the airport security responded was way over the top. I don't know about you, but I honestly don't feel safe if they're using twitter as a reliable source to attempt to predict an incoming terrorist attack. Who tweets about an incoming terrorist attack before they're about to do it? If these guys, who don't have the common sense to realize that terrorists are not going to announce their attacks to the world before it happens, are so terrible at picking out the people that are not a threat, then what exactly is making the better at picking out the real threats.
Do you even bother to look up Freedom of Speech before blindly posting to prove your stupidity? I have no need to use my common sense on such sensitive matters. I have guidelines and procedures to follow. Let say I use my common sense to let the British couple passing through. Few days later, they commit a terrorist act. Would you be there and take the responsibility for me? If you can tell me with a straight face, you would be there to take a full responsibility. I am truly sorry for not using my common sense.
Would it be correct to assume you wouldn't let anyone in?
freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Each country has regulations on to what extent Freedom of Speech would protect you.
For example:
In Iraq, saying "Bomb American", they would hand you a vest of dynamite and 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven. In American, saying "Bomb American", you land your ass in Guantanamo Bay.
I find it alarming, that the US government not only listens in on private conversations but also uses them to flag someone as a terrorist threat depending on certain keywords. This all being worldwide and with no approval of some kind of judge or court.We had some thing like that in East Germany, it was called Stasi. They were also suspicious of everyone, they also listened in on private conversations, they also acted based on this information and they also weren't controlled by any judge or court. I am not saying that the Stasi and the HLS are the same but there are similarities which should at least get you thinking.
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Each country has regulations on to what extent Freedom of Speech would protect you.
For example:
In Iraq, saying "Bomb American", they would hand you a vest of dynamite and 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven. In American, saying "Bomb American", you land your ass in Guantanamo Bay.
Ha ha verry funny. People should know by now to not make jokes with usa customs at airfields. This isnt the first incident ,i remember a dutch football coach beeing held for a few days after he jokingly answerd the question "whats in that bag" with "a bomb!" Do not make jokes with us customs people ^^
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
Not only is this post filled with spelling mistakes which makes it nearly impossible to read, but pretty much everything in it is absurd and or false.
OT : Not much to add to the discussion in all honesty, I think its pretty obvious the whole situation is rather absurd, a tiney bit of common sense would have helped to avoid such a mess. It does show how careful you have to be when using any form or social media.
edit : reading your last posts I probably wasted my time, you have to be trolling...
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Not all countries have freedom of speech. In America we hold the term very highly so we can have neonazi rallies if we want. In Germany you get your ass in jail for that.
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Each country has regulations on to what extent Freedom of Speech would protect you.
For example:
In Iraq, saying "Bomb American", they would hand you a vest of dynamite and 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven. In American, saying "Bomb American", you land your ass in Guantanamo Bay.
This is why nobody likes the us, because no matter where your from or what happened to you, the us doesn't care and all they will ever do is oppress until's its a police state
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
Not only is this post filled with spelling mistakes which makes it nearly impossible to read, but pretty much everything in it is absurd and or false.
OT : Not much to add to the discussion in all honesty, I think its pretty obvious the whole situation is rather absurd, a tiney bit of common sense would have helped to avoid such a mess. It does show how careful you have to be when using any form or social media.
edit : reading your last posts I probably wasted my time, you have to be trolling...
You call me out for my spelling mistakes and look at your post. Why is my post absurd and/or false? I do not mind constructive criticism but you have not clearly provided a reasonable argument.
My last post showed the relationship what is tolerable based on geographical location. Your best argument you can ever come up with is "you have to be trolling, i probably wasted my time".
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Each country has regulations on to what extent Freedom of Speech would protect you.
For example:
In Iraq, saying "Bomb American", they would hand you a vest of dynamite and 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven. In American, saying "Bomb American", you land your ass in Guantanamo Bay.
wtf is wrong with you?
The same thing as the people who wear said vest of dynamite. Ignorance, the only difference is they have no way of knowing better.
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Each country has regulations on to what extent Freedom of Speech would protect you.
For example:
In Iraq, saying "Bomb American", they would hand you a vest of dynamite and 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven. In American, saying "Bomb American", you land your ass in Guantanamo Bay.
wtf is wrong with you?
If I said Crazy American I would be talking about him.
Very unfortunate for this British couple, they just wanted to party and instead they got deported. The US is slowly turning into a fascist state, just look at these laws they are trying to pass lately and the ones have passed like this airport security bullshit. Not only that, all the republican candidates are trying to use authority and nationalism to gain support. This is exactly how you from a democracy to a fascist state.
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote: I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah it would be insanely scary to have people throw you out of a country. I agree with you completely. Paranoia or not, it's still scary.
Most European posters did not realize that the British couple got off with a slap on the wrist.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows the military to detain a person indefinitely without trial if that person is considered to be a terrorist.
American is really sensitive about terrorism and the feds do not take it lightly.
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Not all countries have freedom of speech. In America we hold the term very highly so we can have neonazi rallies if we want. In Germany you get your ass in jail for that.
do you think this means that Germany doesn't have freedom of speech?
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
wow, I read through the thread and found this gem here.
1. Are you seriously saying that freedom of speech should be conditional? As in 'not a human right', but a 'right you're born into'. Dude, that attitude is bad. Really bad. Like Reaaaally bad. "Yea, they are not from here, they might be spreading rumours", "Oh these news are from Europe, they might contain bad anti US ideas, you're not allowed to watch them". Do you realize the consequences of this general idea? Do you?
2. and 3. It was just fun. TBH, when my friends from chicago visited me, they posted similar stuff on facebook "Germans hide your daughters, we're coming" and so on. It's not unusual. IMO, it's quite common to say phrases like "let's go into foreign country and misbehave" or other stuff like that. We even have a song with a comparable text in Germany, we sing it when we get really wasted on vacation.
It's things like that which makes the US the prime target for terrorist. I went to Vancouver this year, the border check was ridiculously nice. Do they have problems? Not at all.
Some US guys here seem to get the illusion that they are safer with those checks, but the way I see it, terrorist thread increases. Chillax, don't act like you are the chosen ones and you cease to be the focussed country. Every other country in the EU, canada and so on, they're all fine without doing stuff like this.
Not to mention that the homocide rate due to free available weapons crushes quite a bit of the safety in the US itself. Seems shizophrenic.
e: also, @ feuerfliege:
this isn't exactly freedom of speech. It's discriminating against someone and spreading wrong ideas which hurt foreigners and so on. This is against our constitution and therefore to punish. And I am glad that it is that way.
If you just randomly say someone murdered someone in the US, it is a crime to (false accusation). Crime <> Freedom of speech. Apples and oranges.
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote: I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah it would be insanely scary to have people throw you out of a country. I agree with you completely. Paranoia or not, it's still scary.
Most European posters did not realize that the British couple got off with a slap on the wrist.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows the military to detain a person indefinitely without trial if that person is considered to be a terrorist.
American is really sensitive about terrorism and the feds do not take it lightly.
You seem confused about the fact that most things in life are not black or white, or simple to an extreme. We generally have a strong preference for picking one of the two the most opposite categories, either people good or evil(probably never correct), either people agree with everything or nothing at all(almost never correct), either people are certain that someone is guilty or not guilty(the truth is usually the third main option, that they don't know) and so on.
Arguments like "they can, for no good reason, turn out to be terrorists" aren't necessarily always invalid but in this thread they are just arguing for the position that you should not let anyone enter(or leave) the US and that you probably shouldn't let Americans travel freely inside the US either. And that thousands and thousands of other things shouldn't be allowed because well, anyone could be a terrorist. The level of those types of arguments are probably the reason some say/think/feel it's not worth discussing.
Let's say some should be allowed to enter and some should not, should the selection process be completely random or high accuracy?
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote: I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah it would be insanely scary to have people throw you out of a country. I agree with you completely. Paranoia or not, it's still scary.
Most European posters did not realize that the British couple got off with a slap on the wrist.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows the military to detain a person indefinitely without trial if that person is considered to be a terrorist.
American is really sensitive about terrorism and the feds do not take it lightly.
You seem confused about the fact that most things in life are not black or white, or simple to an extreme. We generally have a strong preference for picking one of the two the most opposite categories, either people good or evil(probably never correct), either people agree with everything or nothing at all(almost never correct), either people are certain that someone is guilty or not guilty(the truth is usually the third main option, that they don't know) and so on.
Arguments like "they can, for no good reason, turn out to be terrorists" aren't necessarily always invalid but in this thread they are just arguing for the position that you should not let anyone enter(or leave) the US and that you probably shouldn't let Americans travel freely inside the US either. And that thousands and thousands of other things shouldn't be allowed because well, anyone could be a terrorist. The level of those types of arguments are probably the reason some say/think/feel it's not worth discussing.
Let's say some should be allowed to enter and some should not, should the selection process be completely random or high accuracy?
This is just generalization.
1. The British couple got the airplane because they have a VISA. That also means the US embassy has no problem with the couple entering the country. 2. The British couple decided to tweet a unfunny joke on a sensitive issue. 3. The TSA now has a reasonable doubt to detain the couple.
My thought is simple. Why would you let the TSA questioning your reason to entering the US? The US was totally fine with the couple entering but suddenly the couple brought upon themselves their intention to go to the US.
Did the US stop the couple from entering in the first place? No Did the US randomly deport the couple without reasonable explanation? No
Hence, your post is under the assumption that US selectively allowed people entering the country.
On February 02 2012 03:20 Chaosu wrote: freedom of speech isn't restricted to USA, it's basically in every country so i hav no idea why this was even mentioned here, when they said it outside of USA
Not all countries have freedom of speech. In America we hold the term very highly so we can have neonazi rallies if we want. In Germany you get your ass in jail for that.
do you think this means that Germany doesn't have freedom of speech?
I hate to make this sound like a positive thing, but there are neonazi rallys in germany too, and they only get thrown into jail if they start beating up people.
There are some specific things you are not allowed to say, mostly revolving around denying that the holocaust happened and gloryfying the nazi regime. To be quite honest, i am not entirely convinced that i like that. The reasoning behind it is to not insult the survivors, or people who lost someone to it, which is reasonable. But i don't like the general concept of the state being allowed to punish people for not believing the official story.
Well that's not the point so please don't go off topic. He suggested that Germany have no freedom of speech because certain things are forbidden. Freedom ends where someones else freedom begins and that's the case here. People generally aren't censored in Germany and they can criticize government etc.
On January 31 2012 19:22 SolHeiM wrote: I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah it would be insanely scary to have people throw you out of a country. I agree with you completely. Paranoia or not, it's still scary.
Most European posters did not realize that the British couple got off with a slap on the wrist.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows the military to detain a person indefinitely without trial if that person is considered to be a terrorist.
American is really sensitive about terrorism and the feds do not take it lightly.
You seem confused about the fact that most things in life are not black or white, or simple to an extreme. We generally have a strong preference for picking one of the two the most opposite categories, either people good or evil(probably never correct), either people agree with everything or nothing at all(almost never correct), either people are certain that someone is guilty or not guilty(the truth is usually the third main option, that they don't know) and so on.
Arguments like "they can, for no good reason, turn out to be terrorists" aren't necessarily always invalid but in this thread they are just arguing for the position that you should not let anyone enter(or leave) the US and that you probably shouldn't let Americans travel freely inside the US either. And that thousands and thousands of other things shouldn't be allowed because well, anyone could be a terrorist. The level of those types of arguments are probably the reason some say/think/feel it's not worth discussing.
Let's say some should be allowed to enter and some should not, should the selection process be completely random or high accuracy?
This is just generalization.
1. The British couple got the airplane because they have a VISA. That also means the US embassy has no problem with the couple entering the country. 2. The British couple decided to tweet a unfunny joke on a sensitive issue. 3. The TSA now has a reasonable doubt to detain the couple.
My thought is simple. Why would you let the TSA questioning your reason to entering the US? The US was totally fine with the couple entering but suddenly the couple brought upon themselves their intention to go to the US.
Did the US stop the couple from entering in the first place? No Did the US randomly deport the couple without reasonable explanation? No
Hence, your post is under the assumption that US selectively allowed people entering the country.
There are selection processes and they got sent back to the UK because of one.
The question about completely random or high accuracy selection was of course rhetorical since I assume everyone wants it to be as accurate as possible.
To be less rhetorical: Assuming the information in the thread is correct it seems like the selection process was pretty close to completely random in this case to me.
On February 02 2012 06:09 Chaosu wrote: Well that's not the point so please don't go off topic. He suggested that Germany have no freedom of speech because certain things are forbidden. Freedom ends where someones else freedom begins and that's the case here. People generally aren't censored in Germany and they can criticize government etc.
Well, sure. I never disagreed with that. I was explaining how things are here, because apparently there are some misconceptions about that, and afterwards gave my opinion on it.
Also, this thread is supposedly about 2 brits who were deported from the US, so i don't see my post as being more or less offtopic then the one before it.
On February 02 2012 04:26 Dont-Panic wrote: I find it alarming, that the US government not only listens in on private conversations but also uses them to flag someone as a terrorist threat depending on certain keywords. This all being worldwide and with no approval of some kind of judge or court.We had some thing like that in East Germany, it was called Stasi. They were also suspicious of everyone, they also listened in on private conversations, they also acted based on this information and they also weren't controlled by any judge or court. I am not saying that the Stasi and the HLS are the same but there are similarities which should at least get you thinking.
Twitter is probably the furthest thing from a private conversation. I will start worrying about my privacy when the government starts wiretapping everyone's house. There is also no need for a Judge or Court since no criminal charges were pressed, the couple was only denied entry to the country.
No doubt the government would try to tap into those private conversation, but that doesn't rule out Twitter as a place to look. Sure it sounds dumb, why would anyone say stuff so openly. But remember, there are cases where people announce their intention on social medias, before committing their massacre. There are people who wants to reach out to the public, so even it sounded dumb, but you can't rule out possibilities.
No doubt they are monitoring youtube as well, because some insane do post videos before their crime.
On February 02 2012 14:25 furymonkey wrote: No doubt the government would try to tap into those private conversation, but that doesn't rule out Twitter as a place to look. Sure it sounds dumb, why would anyone say stuff so openly. But remember, there are cases where people announce their intention on social medias, before committing their massacre. There are people who wants to reach out to the public, so even it sounded dumb, but you can't rule out possibilities.
No doubt they are monitoring youtube as well, because some insane do post videos before their crime.
I don't think too many people are worried that they are monitoring social media, the US certainly uses far more clandestine ways to obtain information regarding potential terrorists.
I think the problem people have, is that this debacles shows a complete lack of competence in using that information however they obtain it.
Did they seriously believe they had a plan to 'destroy america' and 'dig up marylin munroe' ?? even after questioning them???
There are questions: 1. Is the reaction of the Security Personnel standard and defined per protocol on such instances? 2. Are there processes included to ascertain observance of basic human rights in relation to said protocols against threats, that is, did the authorities go to the same lengths to actually verify the degree or presence at all of threat after the initial flaggin 3. In cases of false alarms, are there furthere protocols, like apologizing to the aggrieved and inconvenienced parties, possibly with just compensation,
Now, to the immediate issue, people have to understand that the world has change. We live in highly unstable times, not because there is an actual threat anytime to America or other countries, but that we do not know exactly, and it can happen anytime or not at all, and technology is used to heighten the tension and confusion. The internet and new media and the anonimity and mobility it provides should not be an excuse to jest or take things for granted. I understand that kids, certainly my students, use "destroy" to mean get wasted or party hard, but its use has to be parallel to its context. The UK couple could have avoided this situation. At the same time, again, those earlier questions need to be addressed.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course).
Am I the only one who thinks this is justified? Most of the 9/11 bombers got past airport checkpoints with ease. And this is despite the fact that half of them were on the terrorist watch or no fly list.
Also freedom of speech and due process protections are not treated in the same way at a point of entry into the United States as compared to the public square. There's an additional national security concern that gives great discretion to security personnel to turn away people they have a reasonable belief are ineligble for admittance.
Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Whenever people quote Franklin, I just *facepalm* at their ignorance. I'm surprised there's so much backlash on such tight procedures in this thread given it's mostly filled with the generation of people who witnessed things like 9/11, the underwear bomber, etc...
On February 16 2012 01:16 MeriaDoKk wrote: Wow, people actually defend this? Wouldn't you realise that they were not terrorists after checking them?
How? You look at their facebook? You ask them questions? Right...
Anyone turned away is entitled to a hearing where they can demonstrate that the belief of security personnel was unfounded. I'll grant that it's a real pain in the ass, but it's a normative judgment on whether you'd rather have questionable people entering the country or be on the safe side and grant them entrance after looking at the situation a bit more.
It's really easy to take news items like this and take 'em at face value, but you have to remember that there are over a million people EACH DAY who enter the united states on flights. It's difficult to do a full comprehensive review of each person who enters. So given the circumstances, I think what happened is justified. Maybe not the best, but justified in the least.
@ post below me: Sorry but the world isn't light and dark, black and white, good and evil. Everything comes in shades of gray. Yes even some of those rights granted to you by your nation's Constitution (dunno anything about Romania) bend and flex depending on the situation. The US 1st, 4th amendment jurisprudence doesn't stop with the Constitution. If you read the actual case law you'll see that even those rights are susceptible to certain important interests of the State (and nation). If you want to get a good discussion on the issue, look up the case law and read the majority and dissenting opinions in some of the major cases. It'll give you more insight than I ever could from a succinct post on TL.
coffecup, let's stop all crime all over the world. It's easy, put a camera in every single room in world, ignore all privacy rights and give government godlike powers on individual's freedom. You won't ever again have crime committed by common people. I think NK has a rather low terrorist activity/threat/attacks in it.
On February 16 2012 01:16 MeriaDoKk wrote: Wow, people actually defend this? Wouldn't you realise that they were not terrorists after checking them?
How? You look at their facebook? You ask them questions? Right...
Anyone turned away is entitled to a hearing where they can demonstrate that the belief of security personnel was unfounded. I'll grant that it's a real pain in the ass, but it's a normative judgment on whether you'd rather have questionable people entering the country or be on the safe side and grant them entrance after looking at the situation a bit more.
It's really easy to take news items like this and take 'em at face value, but you have to remember that there are over a million people EACH DAY who enter the united states on flights. It's difficult to do a full comprehensive review of each person who enters. So given the circumstances, I think what happened is justified. Maybe not the best, but justified in the least.
I understand, but they were still kicked out, there has to be a way to say "Ok I think these people are not terrorists", because if thats not the case then they should just close the airports and don't allow anyone to fly to the US.
And if they can look at your twitter they could at least check your facebook, and if you have pictures with some guy from the middle east or burning the US flag, well that can be suspicius.
obamas policys are not the bomb... even if would say something like: "obama is a douche lets blow him up". I should not be considered as a terrorist. It's what you do not what you says that's important.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course).
Checkmate?
Don't you think that is a bit harsh stance to take?
At first I was laughing at all these people who were going "HAHA TSA" because this wasn't in no way the TSA
Then I noticed that all those people saying that were from the US. :/
There can't be that meany people that don't know who runs what in our government and why.... I hope.
ps This is the TLDR story on what happen. Drunken people acting the fool come to the USA. Not saying this will get you kicked out, but it will get you noticed and some random custom agent may take a closer look at you (-this is unlikely to happen) They just happen to drew the short straw and got noticed by that "one" officer. Five sec of lmgtfy turns up this twitter msg giving everything needed. So another 15min of paper work and few hours of over time for the officer ends with this story.
I don't want to say in anyway what happen was right or just. But it's should just be a common sense rule that no one should never enter another country drunk and/or acting a fool. I know it's a long flight, but just wait to act a drunken fool till your in the US please.
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course).
Checkmate?
No, I'm afraid not. When one group of people kills another group of people over territory, the group that wins does not become the guest of the people that lost. Are people living in Texas the guests of Mexico?
I'm not condoning what happened, but to say that non native americans are guests is inaccurate.
What did you expect? This is America. America is kinda like Blizzard, nothing right gets done BUT we do have awesome social networks, now integrated to airport security 2.0!
On February 02 2012 00:50 Prime`Rib wrote: Why do a bunch of European posters crying about freedom of speech for those 2 British travelers?
1. You are not US citizen. The freedom of speech is not entitled to you. To United States, you are just a guest to our country.
2. Even if US excercises its 1st Amendment on forgeiners; you have to realize that there are things that gonna get you into alot of troubles for saying it.
3. Stop crying about British Slang. This is American. If you are visiting our country, stop crying about our government does not understand your slang. You are a guest here.
If you are dumb enough to give DHS a reason to suspect you a terrorist, you deserve to be sent back home.
You are a guest in the home of the native Americans as well (unless you are a native american of course).
Checkmate?
Using that logic, there is hardly a country or nation in the world that isn't the "guest" of someone else, especially in Europe lol
Hahaha, one more dart to throw at Americans in a USA vs the world debate.
What's all the fear about terrorists anyway, more people die by drinking too much than people who die in terrorist attacks. When I was 7, I went to the US and they confiscated a fucking plastic watergun and ripped my plush open. Looking back, I realize they were afraid of me, which is absurd at best.
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
what about using some common sense. Its not like i actually believe you are a representative of solheim cup, a golf tournament for women, right?
On February 16 2012 01:03 coffecup wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this is justified? Most of the 9/11 bombers got past airport checkpoints with ease. And this is despite the fact that half of them were on the terrorist watch or no fly list.
Also freedom of speech and due process protections are not treated in the same way at a point of entry into the United States as compared to the public square. There's an additional national security concern that gives great discretion to security personnel to turn away people they have a reasonable belief are ineligble for admittance.
Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Whenever people quote Franklin, I just *facepalm* at their ignorance. I'm surprised there's so much backlash on such tight procedures in this thread given it's mostly filled with the generation of people who witnessed things like 9/11, the underwear bomber, etc...
The problem that lead to 9/11 was that the terrorists were allowed to bring box cutters onto the plane.
On February 16 2012 01:03 coffecup wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this is justified? Most of the 9/11 bombers got past airport checkpoints with ease. And this is despite the fact that half of them were on the terrorist watch or no fly list.
Also freedom of speech and due process protections are not treated in the same way at a point of entry into the United States as compared to the public square. There's an additional national security concern that gives great discretion to security personnel to turn away people they have a reasonable belief are ineligble for admittance.
Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Whenever people quote Franklin, I just *facepalm* at their ignorance. I'm surprised there's so much backlash on such tight procedures in this thread given it's mostly filled with the generation of people who witnessed things like 9/11, the underwear bomber, etc...
The problem that lead to 9/11 was that the terrorists were allowed to bring box cutters onto the plane.
Furthermore, WTC was 3000 dead and it's the ONLY attack that ocurred on American territory, Pearl Harbour aside. And the reason was much more than "they managed to get through the airport" check but poor decision-making on the CIA's part (!).
It was a tragedy but tragedies happen. I simply find it odd to control the borders in such a tight way and at the same time allow individuals to possess machine guns. The American soil is a piece of land like any other, if you treat it like a sacred space you will only attract hostility from foreign countries.
If I was a terrorist looking to cause damage to the United States, I think the first thing I would do would be to display it for all to see on Twitter.
Then I'd make little "Terrorism FTW!!" banners and take out advertisments in the local newspapers.
What has this world come to .. I don't mean just this security nonsense at airports and throughout the US. By the way, of course they have programs searching the internet for stupid ppl saying stupid shit like that. That's pretty obvious that the internet isn't entirely private. To whoever said America's reputation will be affected by this incident, I dont think you have to worry about that.It has already been tarnished from years of wars and years of corrupt so called government."In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Dwight D. Eisenhower 1890 - 1969 " A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
I'm sorry but your point is just as stupid as arresting these people. Any British person could have told you that this is how we talk and that "destroy" is a word we use to indicate that we either had or are goin to have one hell of a party, any semi-intelligent person could have told you that anyways. You really think a terrorist is going to announce their plans on twitter? lol
I used to work at an airport and just saying the word "bomb" or the like could have gotten you arrested if the wrong person heard you say it, I saw this happen with my own two eyes... some surfer dude from Torquay was chatting with his mates and said something like "If I don't get a MacDonald's soon I'm gonna blow you all up" he happened to be right next to airport security and was whisked away nearly immediately, missed his flight and his holiday all because he said something in passing to his mates...
Imagine if the "no terrorist is that stupid" logic was good enough for the TSA, and cases like this were dismissed all the time. Now spend 5 more minutes thinking about it, and hopefully you might realize exactly why they shouldn't be dismissed.
Spend 5 minutes thinking about it too, and realize that most cases like ARE in fact dismissed.
"Im gonna fill the Mississippi with my pee woooooo" is NOT a valid reason to prevent a foreigner from entering national territory. And I think it doesn't happen very often, because this person is OBVIOUSLY joking. A backround check can confirm that, if you really want to know if these three Swedish drunk surfers really want to contaminate the river with their pee.
Jesus Christ. But go ahead, enjoy the patriot act, feel safe, don't listen to Eisenhower or to the founding fathers. Just close your borders, give the president all powers and enjoy safety.
On February 17 2012 03:16 Kukaracha wrote: Spend 5 minutes thinking about it too, and realize that most cases like ARE in fact dismissed..
You have evidence to support this claim? Like, can you actually show me examples similar to the case of the British couple where the TSA actually was aware of and dismissed such cases because of that logic?
On February 17 2012 03:16 Kukaracha wrote: Spend 5 minutes thinking about it too, and realize that most cases like ARE in fact dismissed..
You have evidence to support this claim? Like, can you actually show me examples similar to the case of the British couple where the TSA actually was aware of and dismissed such cases because of that logic?
Do you have the sources that lead you to say that anything that could be interpreted as a wish to harm the country in any way, regardless of their seriousness and of who said what, is a common reason to stop people from entering the country?
I'd be curious to know, because I sure as hell hate a lot on the US and I've been there multiple times.
I know of Homeland Security calling people Human Traffickers, Drug Dealers, Criminals, etc, without having even checked those people. Stupidity breeds obedience and stupidity, and they are only facilitating this process.
Am I the onyl one who thinks the tourists deserved it?
You dont walk into another country and make fun of them. Only an idiot goes anywhere and does that. Seriously. We don't fly to Paris and talk about kicking down the Eiffel Tower and digging up Jim Morrison.
You can't just go visit a lot of countries.. and even then you wont be treated nicely in most of them.
Say, Japan for instance shopkeepers/resturaunts, etc: can kick you out of their residence jsut for being a foriegner.
Its ridiculous that so many of you are hating on the USA and comapring it to the next North Korea.
They didn't make fun of the US. They said they were going to party so hard it would destroy America - there's a big difference.
The only lack of respect they showed was to arrive drunk, but that's not a national issue.
Edit : and yes, people do set foot in France and immediately complain on how we're part of Eurabia now, and that we're arrogan stinky frogs. We don't kick them out though, because we have common sense.
On February 17 2012 04:26 Kukaracha wrote:Do you have the sources that lead you to say that anything that could be interpreted as a wish to harm the country in any way, regardless of their seriousness and of who said what, is a common reason to stop people from entering the country?
I don't know which part of this sentence to correct first. So I guess I'll just assume your answer is no, you don't have the evidence to support your claim.
On February 17 2012 04:26 Kukaracha wrote:Do you have the sources that lead you to say that anything that could be interpreted as a wish to harm the country in any way, regardless of their seriousness and of who said what, is a common reason to stop people from entering the country?
I don't know which part of this sentence to correct first. So I guess I'll just assume your answer is no, you don't have the evidence to support your claim.
I'll translate : if I need to show proof, so do you.
On February 17 2012 05:07 Xtal wrote: You dont walk into another country and make fun of them. Only an idiot goes anywhere and does that. Seriously. We don't fly to Paris and talk about kicking down the Eiffel Tower and digging up Jim Morrison.
You could. Nobody would care because it is obvious that you are joking. USA behaves irrational like Idra on tilt.
A common sense rule of tourism is to tread lightly. If they can't do that, then no wonder they will risk trouble. Sure it went a bit too far, but they shouldn't have said that.
if the security didn't take the couple and deny them entrance to the country and then the couple did do something wrong like blowing up a building then you all would be sitting here saying what idiots! this couple even said they were going to do this
On February 17 2012 09:04 Lightwip wrote: A common sense rule of tourism is to tread lightly. If they can't do that, then no wonder they will risk trouble. Sure it went a bit too far, but they shouldn't have said that.
So your argument is essentially "they started it."
On February 17 2012 05:07 Xtal wrote: You dont walk into another country and make fun of them. Only an idiot goes anywhere and does that. Seriously. We don't fly to Paris and talk about kicking down the Eiffel Tower and digging up Jim Morrison.
You could. Nobody would care because it is obvious that you are joking. USA behaves irrational like Idra on tilt.
A German talking about irrational? The United States does not make the swastika illegal, at the very least.
On February 17 2012 09:04 Lightwip wrote: A common sense rule of tourism is to tread lightly. If they can't do that, then no wonder they will risk trouble. Sure it went a bit too far, but they shouldn't have said that.
So your argument is essentially "they started it."
My argument is "they were stupid and got punished for it."
On February 17 2012 09:04 Lightwip wrote: A common sense rule of tourism is to tread lightly. If they can't do that, then no wonder they will risk trouble. Sure it went a bit too far, but they shouldn't have said that.
"They shouldn't have said that," and with that all sense of humor will die.
On February 17 2012 09:09 durr wrote: if the security didn't take the couple and deny them entrance to the country and then the couple did do something wrong like blowing up a building then you all would be sitting here saying what idiots! this couple even said they were going to do this
Yes, what if! What if security had some competence. What if security could identify real terrorists before they get on the plane. What if security could minimize the severe inconvenience they impose on the rest of us. What if.
While we run through all the hypotheticals, why not try some of the ones where security actually makes life safer while not sexually harassing everyone and making people's travel experience miserable.
On February 17 2012 09:04 Lightwip wrote: A common sense rule of tourism is to tread lightly. If they can't do that, then no wonder they will risk trouble. Sure it went a bit too far, but they shouldn't have said that.
"They shouldn't have said that," and with that all sense of humor will die.
There's a time and a place for jokes. It is not when you are going into a country that takes terrorism seriously. Sure the officials went a bit overboard(only in that they were rejected), but it's their fault, really.
On February 17 2012 09:09 durr wrote: if the security didn't take the couple and deny them entrance to the country and then the couple did do something wrong like blowing up a building then you all would be sitting here saying what idiots! this couple even said they were going to do this
I lol'd. If something had in fact happened, we would probably not know.
Are you implying that foreigners are more dangerous to the US than citizens themselves, too? In US history, Americans have killed much more of their own people than all other nations combined. Events like Columbine or Virginia Tech also show that you really don't need our help to mess things up.
On February 17 2012 09:09 durr wrote: if the security didn't take the couple and deny them entrance to the country and then the couple did do something wrong like blowing up a building then you all would be sitting here saying what idiots! this couple even said they were going to do this
I lol'd. If something had in fact happened, we would probably not know.
Are you implying that foreigners are more dangerous to the US than citizens themselves, too? In US history, Americans have killed much more of their own people than all other nations combined. Events like Columbine or Virginia Tech also show that you really don't need our help to mess things up.
im not saying that at all. all im saying is that everyone would be saying that the security did not do their job if they would have had a "possible" threat and did nothing to investigate it. i do not blame them for being careful, even though it doesn seem kind of over protective sometimes.
On February 17 2012 09:09 durr wrote: if the security didn't take the couple and deny them entrance to the country and then the couple did do something wrong like blowing up a building then you all would be sitting here saying what idiots! this couple even said they were going to do this
I lol'd. If something had in fact happened, we would probably not know.
Are you implying that foreigners are more dangerous to the US than citizens themselves, too? In US history, Americans have killed much more of their own people than all other nations combined. Events like Columbine or Virginia Tech also show that you really don't need our help to mess things up.
im not saying that at all. all im saying is that everyone would be saying that the security did not do their job if they would have had a "possible" threat and did nothing to investigate it. i do not blame them for being careful, even though it doesn seem kind of over protective sometimes.
I have no problem with them being questioned, since i'm fairly sure whatever they use to trawl twitter is automated, and just brings up a warning on their record electronically without supervision. The fact that they were denied entry after they were interviewed when the 'threat' was clearly ridiculous is the problem.
EVERYONE can be a 'possible threat', some are more unlikely to be threats than others. If we were to apply that logic that if security didn't deny them entry and they did something, consistently, then the US should just shut down all air travel into the country completely, because anyone could be able to do something, however unlikely.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, and this was a fairly ridiculous place to draw it. They were pretty clearly harmless, if you are going to draw the line at 'it's not impossible that they might do something, and it would be embarassing if we let them through' then you should be denying a heck of alot more people if you were to apply it consistently.
Either the people interrogating them were completely incompetent in seperating innocuous social banter from actual threats of violence, or were touchy about having the ridiculousness of the situation pointed out to them and denied them entry out of spite.
On February 17 2012 08:49 Kukaracha wrote:I'll translate : if I need to show proof, so do you.
This is a strange game you're playing. Proof for what? I merely stipulated that some brief thought on the alternative should lead any normal person to the right conclusion. However, you're the one making unsubstantiated claims as if you are a TSA agent and are aware of similar incidents that are ignored.
So no. You're the one that needs proof for your claims. I've made no claims.
On February 17 2012 01:40 enigmaticcam wrote: Imagine if the "no terrorist is that stupid" logic was good enough for the TSA, and cases like this were dismissed all the time.
Thus implying that cases like this are never or rarely dismissed. I ask proof showing that joking about the USA on the internet is enough to see yourself expelled from American territory the vast majority of the time.
On February 17 2012 05:41 Kukaracha wrote: They didn't make fun of the US. They said they were going to party so hard it would destroy America - there's a big difference.
The only lack of respect they showed was to arrive drunk, but that's not a national issue.
Edit : and yes, people do set foot in France and immediately complain on how we're part of Eurabia now, and that we're arrogan stinky frogs. We don't kick them out though, because we have common sense.
Look, they make a comment using slang that's not even native to Americans. Did the USA overreact? Sure, it's pretty obvious an overreaction. But it's completely within their right to overreact. I can't even imagine how this topic is still going on.
Yeah really, it's just some TSA idiots getting confused and going overboard and sending the people home. Everyone knows the TSA has become a big over bloated mess. What's there to talk about much more in regards to this specific incident, besides how funny/dumb it is? There's 60 MILLION people that enter this country every year... if people think this one stupid occurence is that important i think they really have some other angst filled opinion they want to get out there.
On February 17 2012 23:34 DannyJ wrote: Yeah really, it's just some TSA idiots getting confused and going overboard and sending the people home. Everyone knows the TSA has become a big over bloated mess. What's there to talk about much more in regards to this specific incident, besides how funny/dumb it is? There's 60 MILLION people that enter this country every year... if people think this one stupid occurence is that important i think they really have some other angst filled opinion they want to get out there.
uggg This isn't the TSA in any way, shape or forum. This is U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Customs has kinda been around awhile.
On February 17 2012 01:40 enigmaticcam wrote: Imagine if the "no terrorist is that stupid" logic was good enough for the TSA, and cases like this were dismissed all the time.
Thus implying that cases like this are never or rarely dismissed. I ask proof showing that joking about the USA on the internet is enough to see yourself expelled from American territory the vast majority of the time.
Is it so hard to imagine a hypothetical? Must you create these personal barriers that I have to show you through before you're willing to look at it from a different point of view? I can't imagine living in a world where I only ever see things from my own perspective.
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. And dont tell me that the london train bombings are what you are fucking referring to.
Look up who heads up your United States House Committee on Homeland Security.
Then look up his views on the IRA.
United States starts to care about terrorism only after 9/11 but allowed NORAID to exist for nearly half a century supplying money to the IRA to attack your supposed 'closet ally'.
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. And dont tell me that the london train bombings are what you are fucking referring to.
Look up who heads up your United States House Committee on Homeland Security.
Then look up his views on the IRA.
United States starts to care about terrorism only after 9/11 but allowed NORAID to exist for nearly half a century supplying money to the IRA to attack your supposed 'closet ally'.
Bennie Thompson? Christopher Cox? There has been a few committee chairmen. But I am playing cory, you're talking about Pete King (R-NY), 2011-present.
On February 17 2012 22:49 Kukaracha wrote: Thus implying that cases like this are never or rarely dismissed. I ask proof showing that joking about the USA on the internet is enough to see yourself expelled from American territory the vast majority of the time.
Is it so hard to imagine a hypothetical? Must you create these personal barriers that I have to show you through before you're willing to look at it from a different point of view? I can't imagine living in a world where I only ever see things from my own perspective.
Well, if you were indeed completely hypothetical and are willing to admit that you have no idea of what you're talking about, I will admit that I, too, have no idea of what I'm talking about, as I have no other proof the back me up other than my personal experience (and the fact that I often joke in such a way, stating that I will be "invading England" when I travelled there this christmas).
Now, what really amazes me is how you're able to see things from a different perspective than yours. This is truely a remarquable feat, care to explain how you do this? Can you also see trough the eyes of other people, like Harry Potter?
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.
On January 31 2012 19:21 Keitzer wrote: Lol, if I was this brit couple, i'd be just laughing the ENTIRE time... fucking jokes these airport security are man...
I wouldn't be laughing. I'd be scared shit-less I'd be thrown into some prison like Guantanamo Bay.
Terrorist won't anounce on a public social media device that they gonna attack. How are they gonna succed? .......
And yes, the bigger question is how much they monitor twitter....Or all social medias, for "hot" words or whatever...
although i found the story funny, after reading solheim's point i think he is right, they should have checked them out, but I still think they overracted afterwards when they knew they werent terrorists.
Now you say that terrororists wont announce anything like this on twitter, but imagine if they did and actually came through with the threat. I bet you then people would be posting about how dumb USA is for not stopping terrorists who twiited about the attack. They should have been checked upon entry, even if it was a misunderstanding.
People other than me getting shit while travelling. I approve !
Honestly I have the cleanest (and reasonably extensive) travel record possible and I travel a fair bit to and from the US and on very rare occasions am I not treated like a threat. But I dont mind, Im not a citizen and the color and content of my passport means they have some parameters they go by and its their perogative. Its silly that they sent them home though, just looking into it and inconveniencing them is more than enough punishment for a flagged twitter comment. Usually Homeland security goes out of their way to make sure you dont get into trouble in the country (or maybe just in my experience). Theirs plenty of idiots going around in all departments though.
Anyone arguing that it was sensible to send them home is being ridiculous. Ive seen people with fake visa's, wrong documents and god knows what from Latin America to I dont know... pfft Turkey (latest trip dude got conned into a fake visa or something). They treated him pretty well, gave him food, place to sleep. Just made sure he didnt step on US soil (because thats when laws become a problem) and went out of their way to make sure the dude didnt get blacklisted because it was just a mistake. Ofcourse they do get sent home because they dont have the right paperwork but if the problem can be solved without doing so they pretty much do it.
So no I cant agree that this is standard practice and it really is just silly behaviour from some eggheads having a bad day seen quite a bit of those to (personally never given a reason to piss them off but again seen people witht to much attitude get cuffed once).
We're only seeing one side of the story-- the British couple's side. The TSA hasn't really made a statement on the matter far as I know. Like, do we know what the British couple might have said or done while in custody? They might have said something stupid, or just not taken security seriously as they should have. That, along with a potentially strange tweet, might be enough rounds to get ejected.
In my opinion, they were asking for what they got... It's like saying you're going to bomb the airplane right before you get on... Even if you're joking, why would you say it?
On February 26 2012 03:39 Rebs wrote: People other than me getting shit while travelling. I approve !
Honestly I have the cleanest (and reasonably extensive) travel record possible and I travel a fair bit to and from the US and on very rare occasions am I not treated like a threat. But I dont mind, Im not a citizen and the color and content of my passport means they have some parameters they go by and its their perogative. Its silly that they sent them home though, just looking into it and inconveniencing them is more than enough punishment for a flagged twitter comment. Usually Homeland security goes out of their way to make sure you dont get into trouble in the country (or maybe just in my experience). Theirs plenty of idiots going around in all departments though.
Anyone arguing that it was sensible to send them home is being ridiculous. Ive seen people with fake visa's, wrong documents and god knows what from Latin America to I dont know... pfft Turkey (latest trip dude got conned into a fake visa or something). They treated him pretty well, gave him food, place to sleep. Just made sure he didnt step on US soil (because thats when laws become a problem) and went out of their way to make sure the dude didnt get blacklisted because it was just a mistake. Ofcourse they do get sent home because they dont have the right paperwork but if the problem can be solved without doing so they pretty much do it.
So no I cant agree that this is standard practice and it really is just silly behaviour from some eggheads having a bad day seen quite a bit of those to (personally never given a reason to piss them off but again seen people witht to much attitude get cuffed once).
We don't know the whole story here. My assumption is that when you are traveling, you are respectful to the inspectors doing their jobs, and while they take an extra look at you, they don't stop you from going where you are going. We have no information about how this couple acted toward the inspectors. Just based on what they've said, it seems they don't take the situation seriously and I'm guessing disrespecting the inspectors. When it is within the discretion of the inspectors to let them in or not, it's not a good idea to act like an immature shit. I am guessing that is what went on, and the real reason they weren't let in. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk it up to "silly behavior from some eggheads having a bad day". They were probably doing just fine and the travelers learned a lesson about life that day. That is all. Have a nice day.
I'll echo this, we don't know the full story. Every time bOneSeven posts some news story a poster almost always mentions additional details that bOneSeven conveniently left out to paint the U.S. in a bad light. Not saying he's done the same thing here, but I wouldn't be surprised.
On February 26 2012 03:39 Rebs wrote: People other than me getting shit while travelling. I approve !
Honestly I have the cleanest (and reasonably extensive) travel record possible and I travel a fair bit to and from the US and on very rare occasions am I not treated like a threat. But I dont mind, Im not a citizen and the color and content of my passport means they have some parameters they go by and its their perogative. Its silly that they sent them home though, just looking into it and inconveniencing them is more than enough punishment for a flagged twitter comment. Usually Homeland security goes out of their way to make sure you dont get into trouble in the country (or maybe just in my experience). Theirs plenty of idiots going around in all departments though.
Anyone arguing that it was sensible to send them home is being ridiculous. Ive seen people with fake visa's, wrong documents and god knows what from Latin America to I dont know... pfft Turkey (latest trip dude got conned into a fake visa or something). They treated him pretty well, gave him food, place to sleep. Just made sure he didnt step on US soil (because thats when laws become a problem) and went out of their way to make sure the dude didnt get blacklisted because it was just a mistake. Ofcourse they do get sent home because they dont have the right paperwork but if the problem can be solved without doing so they pretty much do it.
So no I cant agree that this is standard practice and it really is just silly behaviour from some eggheads having a bad day seen quite a bit of those to (personally never given a reason to piss them off but again seen people witht to much attitude get cuffed once).
We don't know the whole story here. My assumption is that when you are traveling, you are respectful to the inspectors doing their jobs, and while they take an extra look at you, they don't stop you from going where you are going. We have no information about how this couple acted toward the inspectors. Just based on what they've said, it seems they don't take the situation seriously and I'm guessing disrespecting the inspectors. When it is within the discretion of the inspectors to let them in or not, it's not a good idea to act like an immature shit. I am guessing that is what went on, and the real reason they weren't let in. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk it up to "silly behavior from some eggheads having a bad day". They were probably doing just fine and the travelers learned a lesson about life that day. That is all. Have a nice day.
Yea fair enough, but the eggheads Im talking about tend to go out of their way to inconvenience you, just because they are having a bad day and to be perfectly honest its hard to appreciate sending someone home because they probably werent used to it and felt they were being hard done by. That sort of reaction even to the point of being rude is a pretty reasonable. I mean lets be clear everytime I walk up to a booth and the officer doesnt have a friendly expression Ive pretty much dumped all my self respect out the window for those particular 5 mins.
After which I take a pretty lengthy tour of JFK going from NSEERS to immigration to back to NSEERS to customs it can take anywhere between 10 mins and 10 hours. Once you know the same thing that was taking ages to sort is doable in 10 mins by competent people then its upsetting to know that guy is chilling with his coffee and sandwich while people just sit their and wait for him (no hes not on break just didnt care).
Is it really fair to have to sit at the airport for 4-5 hours because the guy with specific "login" to process went home and never bothered to make sure the post was filled ? Its not but Im resigned to that and while this sounds like complaining Im just pointing out the human flaws that do exist and its just a part of the work they do.
Doesnt mean its ok. Travellers can be rude and obnoxious and what not if their being treated what they think is unreasonably. Problem is the egghead in question will go all macho on your ass instead of being reasonable ( I cant imagine those brits doing anything beyond making lawyer threats, what not and just being angry. Point being their demeanor isnt really a good reason to kick them out given the situation. Its a pretty natural ethnic response imo. But yeah absolutely I can admit not knowing how they responded to detainment makes it difficult to judge wether it was ok.
EPT
)
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/30/article-0-1184EC23000005DC-998_468x553.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7BBXA.jpg)
