Whatever you do, don't Twitter about blowing up an airport!

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug
Whatever you do, don't Twitter about blowing up an airport!
Doug

Don't mean it. Oops, I hate not being able to edit the first post.

Snert Snert's picture

If I'm not mistaken, joking about blowing up an airplane has always resulted in grief.  I know we can certainly say "Oh, look, he's a nice young man who surely wasn't about to blow up any airports" but at the same time, he couldn't see something like this as a possibility?  Where has he been living since 2001 that he wouldn't know that people don't find threats like this funny anymore the way maybe they used to?

Here's a tip for him, for the future:  if a broken packet of Splenda is leaking out of your carry-on, say "that's just Splenda".  Don't say "that's Anthrax, and now you have mere hours to live!!!"  Little nuances of communication like that can make all the difference.

Michelle

Gotta agree with Snert on this one.  A colossally dumb thing to do.  What an idiot!

I don't think he was "conspiring" - that would be a hard one to prove, and it's clear anyhow that he wasn't.  But he did make a bomb threat against an airport whether he was joking or not, and I'm sorry, but it's not clear that it was a joke.  That's the thing about 140 character sentences - things get misunderstood.

G. Muffin

Snert wrote:
Here's a tip for him, for the future:  if a broken packet of Splenda is leaking out of your carry-on, say "that's just Splenda".  Don't say "that's Anthrax, and now you have mere hours to live!!!"  Little nuances of communication like that can make all the difference.

:)  Quite right, Snert.  It's got nothing to do with 2001.  This guy was treated appropriately, in my humble opinion. 

Got anything to declare?  "Just this bomb" --> bad news.

The guy's a fucking idiot.

ETA:  Michelle, I just read your post.  From now on, I'll just say "ditto."

Unionist

Ditto.

skdadl

Tweet rage? It's the new new thing.

 

Not the same thing, but some people do and say stupid things when they're actually in the situation, just because they're nervous. They're in line for security check, and they're thinking hard to themselves, "Don't make a bomb joke. Don't make a bomb joke." So then a bomb joke just falls out of their mouths. It's like "Don't talk about the war." (See Fawlty Towers.)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Have a friend named Jack? Don't call out to him on the plane, "Hi, Jack!". Surprised

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I'm trying to imagine the reaction if I decided to vent my frustration with a bank, motor vehicle licensing people, hospital, etc, using this young man's technique...  I can't see it going well.  It's not just airports. 

Rule of thumb:  Don't threaten to blow things up unless you're in a movie with Bruce Willis.  Or maybe Al Pacino.  Then it's okay.

HeywoodFloyd

Dumb dumb dumb dumb. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

So now idiots making impotent, macho threats online should be charged under the Terrorism Act? IANAL, but what happened to public nuisance charges? Just because we think this man is an idiot and deserves to be arrested doesn't mean we should be cheerleading the draconian arm of the state. Conspiracy? Terrorism? Really? Are these words so meaningless now?

Fidel

Doug wrote:
So that seems to be how far the UK has gotten with anti-terrorism legislation. You can be arrested and charged for joking about blowing up an airport even if you happen to be nowhere near one at the time.

I don't care what they say, Guy Fawkes is still a champion imo. They should burn Henry the Eighth and Maggie in effigy instead.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Fidel wrote:
I don't care what they say, Guy Fawkes is still a champion imo. They should burn Henry the Eighth and Maggie in effigy instead.

 

One of my favourite movies is a Guy Fawkes thing set in the future: V for Vendetta (2005)

Bacchus

There are signs at Pearson saying do not make jokes about bombs and that it is illegal and has been for years before 9/11

skdadl

Bacchus wrote:

There are signs at Pearson saying do not make jokes about bombs and that it is illegal and has been for years before 9/11

 

Yes -- there was an MP who was arrested and charged in Ottawa a few years before 9/11 because he made a bomb joke at the airport there, on his way home to his constituency. Forget who that was -- he struck me as a nice guy who was probably just making either a limp or a nervous joke. I used to be so scared that my husband would do the same thing -- he was perfectly capable of it, and the situation almost provokes it.

 

Some of this reeks to me so intensely of the bourgeois proprieties, and worse. Sooner or later, people are going to start rebelling at being controlled so stupidly, for no obvious benefit.

Snert Snert's picture

I can scarcely wait until I'm once again permitted to shout "Fire" in a theatre!

skdadl

Snert, when was the last time you were in a theatre that was plastered with signs that said, "Whatever you do while you're here, DO NOT SHOUT FIRE!" -- ???

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hee. And I wonder if you'd get thrown in solitary for 40 days without charge if you did...

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Snert, when was the last time you were in a theatre that was plastered with signs that said, "Whatever you do while you're here, DO NOT SHOUT FIRE!" -- ???

 

Never. I'm expected to just know better.

 

Why?

kropotkin1951

So Snert shouting fire in a theatre has been a terrorist act for how long?

I thought it was a reasonable limit on free speech and I doubt anyone would say this guy has a right to scare the hell out of already traumatized passengers.  

However I have a big problem with the state having the right to have him arrested and jailed without the benefit of a normal trial procedure for an extremely bad joke.

skdadl

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Snert, when was the last time you were in a theatre that was plastered with signs that said, "Whatever you do while you're here, DO NOT SHOUT FIRE!" -- ???

 

Never. I'm expected to just know better.

 

Why?

 

So why aren't you just expected to know better in an airport?

 

I'm just following up on my Fawlty Towers theme. If you make people self-conscious beyond a bearable point, they will begin to emit things. They may spout off. They may fart. They may cry or faint.

 

It is not civilized, what we are doing in our airports. We don't do it in our theatres, even though there have been horrible terrorist incidents in theatres, one in very recent memory.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 If you make people self-conscious beyond a bearable point, they will begin to emit things.

 

I'm reminded of a Kids in the Hall skit, in which Kevin McDonald is cautioned "Don't put salt in your eye!". He begins to repeat this to himself over and over until — whoops! — he drops the "don't", at which point he's repeating "put salt in your eye, put salt in your eye". And then of course he dumps out a salt shaker and grinds the salt into his eye.

 

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

 

Anyway, a little perspective? This guy didn't nervously blurt something out. He managed to take the time to get out some kind of electronic device, turn it on, log in to Twitter and type out his threat. I'm having a hard time seeing it as some kind of "Tourette's lite".

Michelle

Good point about the "terrorism" thing - that is kind of ridiculous.  That said, saying "Look, a fire!" is different than saying, "I'm going to bomb the airport."  One is a threat, the other is a lie.

G. Muffin

Unionist wrote:
Ditto.

Took the words right out of my mouth, Unionist.  How are you doing?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

They have the signs in the airport because enough people have made the joke and then claimed they had no idea that was something they shouldn't do.

The majority of rule signs exist because of the minor percentage of idiots who do things that are dangerous, ill-advised and antisocial and then claim ignorance.

G. Muffin

skdadl wrote:
Snert, when was the last time you were in a theatre that was plastered with signs that said, "Whatever you do while you're here, DO NOT SHOUT FIRE!" -- ???

Actually, skdadl, the regular hospital here has signs to the effect of "verbal abuse will not be tolerated by our staff."  I note with a combination of a smirk and a tear that there are no such signs on the psych ward.

G. Muffin

Catchfire wrote:
Hee. And I wonder if you'd get thrown in solitary for 40 days without charge if you did...

Further to my post above to skdadl, the punishment is usually 24 hours in an isolation cell without food or cigarettes.  Plus an assful of Loxapine.  Personally, I think 40 days in solitary is for pussies.

skdadl

Snert wrote:

Anyway, a little perspective? This guy didn't nervously blurt something out. He managed to take the time to get out some kind of electronic device, turn it on, log in to Twitter and type out his threat. I'm having a hard time seeing it as some kind of "Tourette's lite".

 

Oh, I agree. In fact, that's how I started out my first post on the subject (see above). This guy gave into tweet rage; he isn't John Cleese / Basil Fawlty. I'm not sure the distance is that great, though. A lot of people are bothered these days by what is being done to control and surveil us, and I can't see that lightening up any time soon.

G. Muffin

Snert wrote:
I'm reminded of a Kids in the Hall skit, in which Kevin McDonald is cautioned "Don't put salt in your eye!". He begins to repeat this to himself over and over until — whoops! — he drops the "don't", at which point he's repeating "put salt in your eye, put salt in your eye". And then of course he dumps out a salt shaker and grinds the salt into his eye.

I once had a borderline ineffective riding coach who claimed that saying to yourself "Don't Stop" was interpreted by your brain as "Stop."  Apparently, your subconscious can't register negatives (or something like that).  She may have had a point -- I turned a $10,000 show jumper into a stopper so clearly her theory still stands.

skdadl

G. Muffin wrote:

Catchfire wrote:
Hee. And I wonder if you'd get thrown in solitary for 40 days without charge if you did...

Further to my post above to skdadl, the punishment is usually 24 hours in an isolation cell without food or cigarettes.  Plus an assful of Loxapine.  Personally, I think 40 days in solitary is for pussies.

 

Hi, Muffin. Well, you know, and I pretty much know now, that the healthcare system becomes a world unto itself when you get caught up in it. You meet some of the greatest people there you ever will meet, but then you also meet some real ... well, twits. And the whole time you're thinking, "This shouldn't be happening to any of us." But it is, and there's blinking nothing you can do about it but walk through it.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Michelle wrote:
Good point about the "terrorism" thing - that is kind of ridiculous.  That said, saying "Look, a fire!" is different than saying, "I'm going to bomb the airport."  One is a threat, the other is a lie.

Right, but as Snert advises us, let's have a bit of perspective--this is a guy who is tweeting fer crissakes, about bombing an airport because a runway is closed. Does that sound like terrorism to you? Or in any way a "credible threat"? It doesn't to me, and I'll bet it doesn't to the "authorities" either. Here's what I think, and it's a modulation on skdadl's Fawlty Tower's theme: actions like these, when security auhtorities throw up their hands and say "look, we told you, we have no choice to follow through to the hilt on any and all miniscule threats," it's part of the overarching mechanism that normalizes the state's draconian surveillence and coercion of its people. We've already got people saying in this thread, that this guy deserves to be charged under conspiracy and terror charges because he is a loose-lipped moron. Is this what wrist-slapping looks like now?

If this is what our baseline looks like, what happens up the food chain?

al-Qa'bong

This horribly maladjusted dumb dumb dumb person should have known bette,r and simply said he would hold his breath until he turned blue.

 

Oh wait, DER STAADT would have then charged him with attempted suicide.

G. Muffin

Catchfire, are you saying we don't need any heightened security measures?  I know some of the airline stuff is just stupid (no tweezers, knitting needles) and is mostly busy work to make us feel that we're taking charge of the problem but, really, why can't we run airlines like El Al?  As far as I know, they've never had a problem. 

skdadl

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Oh wait, DER STAADT would have then charged him with attempted suicide.

 

Let's keep our rhetoric up to date, shall we? "Suicide" is so down the memory hole. It's "asymmetrical warfare" from now on, eh?

Le T Le T's picture

This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre. It's like yelling fire in your own home and having the theatre ban you for life and the cops charge you as a terrorist.

It should also be pointed out that the benefit of the doubt is given to this mild-mannered, fair skinned Brit. Had he been someone else I'm sure that the media, airport and cops would have painted him as something much scarier than an idiot that needs to be made an example of.

 

Quote:
One of my favourite movies is a Guy Fawkes thing set in the future: V for Vendetta (2005)

The movie is actaully a poor rendition of the comic book series by Allen Moore. If you liked the movie, the book will blow your mind. The difference between V and Guy Fawkes is that Fawkes was a mercenary in the pay of the Catholic establishment, V is an anarchist super hero.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
It should also be pointed out that the benefit of the doubt is given to this mild-mannered, fair skinned Brit. 

 

Yes. It had occurred to me that if, on the other hand, they let him off with an apology once they found out he was a white male, we could have a whole different thing to grump about.

 

Instead he's charged, and the explanation can come out at trial. Isn't that really where his threat, and whether it was actual or just "a joke" is supposed to be determined? 

p-sto

But they don't care if it was a threat.  They're charging him with creating a hoax.  Which more or less if he is found guilty, he's being punished simply for creating the fear that something may happen.  In less generous terms he's being jailed for running his mouth in a manner deemed publicly unacceptable.

Stargazer

Catchfire wrote:

Michelle wrote:
Good point about the "terrorism" thing - that is kind of ridiculous.  That said, saying "Look, a fire!" is different than saying, "I'm going to bomb the airport."  One is a threat, the other is a lie.

Right, but as Snert advises us, let's have a bit of perspective--this is a guy who is tweeting fer crissakes, about bombing an airport because a runway is closed. Does that sound like terrorism to you? Or in any way a "credible threat"? It doesn't to me, and I'll bet it doesn't to the "authorities" either. Here's what I think, and it's a modulation on skdadl's Fawlty Tower's theme: actions like these, when security auhtorities throw up their hands and say "look, we told you, we have no choice to follow through to the hilt on any and all miniscule threats," it's part of the overarching mechanism that normalizes the state's draconian surveillence and coercion of its people. We've already got people saying in this thread, that this guy deserves to be charged under conspiracy and terror charges because he is a loose-lipped moron. Is this what wrist-slapping looks like now?

If this is what our baseline looks like, what happens up the food chain?

 

Completely agree with Catchfire in his two posts.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Which more or less if he is found guilty, he's being punished simply for creating the fear that something may happen. 

 

Isn't that kind of exactly what a threat is?

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
Isn't that kind of exactly what a threat is?

I think that searching for a definition of "threat" in the current political climate would be difficult. The term is used quite loosley to mean anything really that people in power need to stop.

 

p-sto

Touche, I suppose I should I written more clearly.  It seems to me they're charging him for creating an empty threat.  Nit picking but when you're dealing with the law it often helps to do so.  The language you used

Quote:
Isn't that really where his threat, and whether it was actual or just "a joke" is supposed to be determined?
in asking if the threat was actual seems to imply that the authorities care if there may have been some actual danger behind the threat.

Michelle

Le T wrote:

This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre. It's like yelling fire in your own home and having the theatre ban you for life and the cops charge you as a terrorist.

You're right, it's not.  Actually, it's more like yelling, "I'm going to start a fire in a week at YOUR home if you don't smarten up!" on a public broadcast system to the entire planet.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I think that searching for a definition of "threat" in the current political climate would be difficult.

 

A perfect definition? Perhaps. But I don't think a definition of "threat" needs to be perfect to include people publicly saying that they're going to blow something up.

 

Quote:
The term is used quite loosley to mean anything really that people in power need to stop.

 

If those shadowy "people in power" want to stop people from blowing things up because they're all frustrated and stuff, I'm OK with that. That's just the sort of thing I want the "people in power" to do!

kropotkin1951

Those people in power want everyone to just stay in line and be docile compliant sheep that is why they use a sledge hammer against an extremely bad joke.  Don't ever ever complain about airport functions.  I had Air Canada try to arrest me for complaining about their baggage delays and using the terrorism card.  it is a control mechanism.  

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Actually, no.  I complain about airport stuff frequently, and I've never had a problem.  It's how you do it.  What the guy did was unreasonable (I'm assuming the airport doesn't close down for frivolous reasons) and his method was antisocial.  He deserves a smack upside the head.  Maybe not via anti-terrorism legislation, but any defense for his actions is damned thin.

When you say Air Canada tried to arrest you for complaining about baggage delays, I suspect there was more to the story.  When I do it, they give me free stuff.

kropotkin1951

Timebandit wrote:

Actually, no.  I complain about airport stuff frequently, and I've never had a problem.  It's how you do it.  What the guy did was unreasonable (I'm assuming the airport doesn't close down for frivolous reasons) and his method was antisocial.  He deserves a smack upside the head.  Maybe not via anti-terrorism legislation, but any defense for his actions is damned thin.

When you say Air Canada tried to arrest you for complaining about baggage delays, I suspect there was more to the story.  When I do it, they give me free stuff.

Your a lying asshole also

kropotkin1951

I tell you a personal story and you tell me it is not true 

 

al-Qa'bong

No she didn't, pumpkin; she said there must be more to the story.

kropotkin1951

Nuanced version of I don't belive you

 

Michelle

Hey, calling someone a "lying asshole" isn't okay, no matter how annoyed you are.  She didn't say she didn't believe you - she said she thought there might be more to the story.  Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I don't know.  But it's a valid speculation and she didn't call you a liar.

kropotkin1951

So Michelle how does one determine the gender of the person posting.  

Yes I escalated the insult but I didn't know I would be insultiong a lady

 

Pages

Topic locked