Twitter trolling, should it be punishable?

[Zak]

Depends on what it is - the 14 year old deserved it (after what I just read on GommeInc's post).

For most things though no.

[Kardan]

9/11 wouldn't have happened or would have been less likely to have happened had the pilots firstly been armed and trained OR had some passengers also been armed. Or just cabin crew for that matter. Absolutely. It's better to go down with a fight than to sit there like a dummy.

And can I ask with the security thing and terrorism, do you support racial/religious profiling in the name of safety then?

Well, Flight 93 ended up with a fight, and they all still died. And considering the pilots were killed as soon as the cockpit was entered, the only people left that could fly the plane were the terrorists. Do I think the 2 pilots would be able to shoot dead 5 terrorists without being injured and without causing any damage to the cockpit instruments? No. My view is the people on those 4 flights didn't have much hope at all.

And no, I don't support racial or religious profiling - but there's a difference between someone threatening to blow up an airport, and a Muslim wanting to catch a flight.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well, Flight 93 ended up with a fight, and they all still died. And considering the pilots were killed as soon as the cockpit was entered, the only people left that could fly the plane were the terrorists. Do I think the 2 pilots would be able to shoot dead 5 terrorists without being injured and without causing any damage to the cockpit instruments? No. My view is the people on those 4 flights didn't have much hope at all.

Dear God. Flight 93 CRASHED because the people put up a fight and took down the terrorists. Whilst it's true that they all died, it's also true that due to their heroic effort many more lives were saved by preventing the terrorists conducting an attack similar to those on the two towers.

So again as I said - it is better to put up a FIGHT and take them *******s down than to go to your grave like a sitting duck. Agreed?

And no, I don't support racial or religious profiling - but there's a difference between someone threatening to blow up an airport, and a Muslim wanting to catch a flight.

OHHHHHHHHHH so the minute when I complain about our civil liberties being damaged or destroyed, you turn around and tell me that it doesn't matter as long as we're safe. But the minute somebody suggests random checks on the people who are more likely to carry out terrorist attacks (statistically) you falter and put political correctness before safety. Why is it that you'll place political correctness before our safety but not place civil liberties before our safety?

And for the record, i'm against racial or religious profiling.

[Kardan]

Dear God. Flight 93 CRASHED because the people put up a fight and took down the terrorists. Whilst it's true that they all died, it's also true that due to their heroic effort many more lives were saved by preventing the terrorists conducting an attack similar to those on the two towers.

So again as I said - it is better to put up a FIGHT and take them *******s down than to go to your grave like a sitting duck. Agreed?



OHHHHHHHHHH so the minute when I complain about our civil liberties being damaged or destroyed, you turn around and tell me that it doesn't matter as long as we're safe. But the minute somebody suggests random checks on the people who are more likely to carry out terrorist attacks (statistically) you falter and put political correctness before safety. Why is it that you'll place political correctness before our safety but not place civil liberties before our safety?

And for the record, i'm against racial or religious profiling.

I never said they didn't stop more potential deaths, but my point still stands, those 4 flights all still would have crashed. Also, let's take your unlikely situation, that on all 4 planes, somehow all 19 hijackers were taken down without any damage to the plane or pilots, and everyone landed safely and 9/11 was averted. How many flights from 2001 to now would have had issues with people being allowed to carry guns onto planes?

And presumably, guns on airplanes would only be allowed for domestic flights (USA to USA) - you wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun from the USA to UK for example? So how do we tackle terrorists from international flights?

It's also worth noting that Flight 93 managed to fight back *without* the use of firearms, sadly for them, the pilots were already dead.

So people should be able to freely say they're going to blow up an airport? Freedom of speech is obviously more important than protecting against potential threats that have been declared. And you said yourself 'Carry out random checks' - they're not random if you're profiling.

[Kardan]

Also worth noting @-:Undertaker:-; you say that the people on Flight 93 'took down the terrorists' - they didn't. The passengers didn't breach the cockpit. All they did was force the terrorists to crash earlier and not into their intended target.

[Kardan]

Also, if you let passengers carry guns onto a plane... Well... Then the hijackers can simply take guns onto planes as well...

[scottish]

9/11 wouldn't have happened or would have been less likely to have happened had the pilots firstly been armed and trained OR had some passengers also been armed. Or just cabin crew for that matter. Absolutely. It's better to go down with a fight than to sit there like a dummy.

And can I ask with the security thing and terrorism, do you support racial/religious profiling in the name of safety then?

and at the same time we'd have 100x other planes per year going down due to guns being allowed on board

don't be a ******* ****** for once in your life.

[Empired]

With that argument you could ask why doesn't the state just strip us all down at the airport, conduct a rectal examination on everybody and install CCTV in every single house in the country because something COULD MIGHT WOULD happen. Better safe than sorry, right?

What's the difference between making a threat on Twitter and making a threat whilst stood in the airport? Both of them are real threats and of course action should be taken.

And anyway, that was just an appeal to ridicule; taking action against someone who is threatening the safety of lots of people (sensible) and putting CCTV in peoples' houses (ridiculous) are totally incomparable and your argument there is pretty much invalid :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

I never said they didn't stop more potential deaths, but my point still stands, those 4 flights all still would have crashed. Also, let's take your unlikely situation, that on all 4 planes, somehow all 19 hijackers were taken down without any damage to the plane or pilots, and everyone landed safely and 9/11 was averted. How many flights from 2001 to now would have had issues with people being allowed to carry guns onto planes?

But you are not listening to what I am saying. I am not saying that the flights would have landed safely - that would have been out of the question with the pilots both dead. I am saying that had people been armed on the flights that flew into the towers, the terrorists would have been shot dead and the people would have foiled their plan by not crashing them into the two towers.

Yes the people would still have died - but it would have saved 2,000+ lives. Do you understand now?

And presumably, guns on airplanes would only be allowed for domestic flights (USA to USA) - you wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun from the USA to UK for example? So how do we tackle terrorists from international flights?

It's also worth noting that Flight 93 managed to fight back *without* the use of firearms, sadly for them, the pilots were already dead.

Just have Pilots and Cabin Crew armed then.

Or have onboard (armed) security.

So people should be able to freely say they're going to blow up an airport? Freedom of speech is obviously more important than protecting against potential threats that have been declared.

If somebody makes the threat in an airport, have the airport security investigate them there and then. But threats on twitter, down the pub and so on? It's utterly ridiculous. It goes to show by the fact we're sitting here arguing over whether a 14 year old girl on Twitter should be arrested on suspected terrorism threats. Absurd, absurd, absurd.

And you said yourself 'Carry out random checks' - they're not random if you're profiling.

And I said that I don't agree with random checks (which are a PR stunt) OR racial profiling.

AND (unlike you) I support our civil liberties which is exactly what we are fighting for against Islamic jihadists.

Also worth noting @-:Undertaker:-; you say that the people on Flight 93 'took down the terrorists' - they didn't. The passengers didn't breach the cockpit. All they did was force the terrorists to crash earlier and not into their intended target.

YES AND THATS MY WHOLE POINT - that it is better to fight back and DIE but to save other people's lives than it is to sit there like a dummy while the hijackers prepare to kill even more people. That's known as putting yourself before others.

If you want to sit there on the plane chewing your nails then that's fine, i'd rather that I was armed and have a shot at one of them *******s and at least attempt to DO SOMETHING against evil people. The government cannot save you thousands of feet in the air whilst your being held hostage by an Islamic jihadist. Do you get that?

Also, if you let passengers carry guns onto a plane... Well... Then the hijackers can simply take guns onto planes as well...

Yes. But the hijackers are outnumbered then by 4 to 200.

and at the same time we'd have 100x other planes per year going down due to guns being allowed on board

OMGZ YES COS ALL AMERICANS ARE GUN RAVING LOONS. Rightttttttt. :rolleyes:

Can I ask though - would you at least agree with arming the pilots and cabin crew?

don't be a ******* ****** for once in your life.

You shut your filthy mouth.

What's the difference between making a threat on Twitter and making a threat whilst stood in the airport? Both of them are real threats and of course action should be taken.

Do I need to answer that? It's self evident.

And anyway, that was just an appeal to ridicule; taking action against someone who is threatening the safety of lots of people (sensible) and putting CCTV in peoples' houses (ridiculous) are totally incomparable and your argument there is pretty much invalid :S

No it isn't.

A few years ago the last Labour government attempted to ram through parliament an act that would have increased the time you can be held by the government under 'terrorism' charges to 90 DAYS. That's like something out of a dictatorship.

Yet a lot of people sat by like lemmings (Kardan) and were prepared to accept it because they're paranoid over terrorism.

[Empired]

Do I need to answer that? It's self evident.

Actually you do. Just because a threat is made on the internet doesn't instantly make it a "joke" or something not worthy of notice. Making a stupid, threatening comment on the internet is just as real as making one in real life.

No it isn't.

A few years ago the last Labour government attempted to ram through parliament an act that would have increased the time you can be held by the government under 'terrorism' charges to 90 DAYS. That's like something out of a dictatorship.

Yet a lot of people sat by like lemmings (Kardan) and were prepared to accept it because they're paranoid over terrorism.

I'm not sure if you meant to quote me for this bit or made a mistake or what, but I'm confused by how this is relevant to me telling you you used an appeal to ridicule.
As far as I can tell, my point about CCTV in houses and that girl getting arrested had absolutely nothing to do with me saying it was okay for people to be held by the government under terrorism charges for 90 days.