3 ms·
I think the concern was probably less about foiling a terrorist attack as worry that he was a cross person who might take extreme action. The questions about h
by ErrantX 17y ago
I think the concern was probably less about foiling a terrorist attack as worry that he was a cross person who might take extreme action.
The questions about his life to me indicate that was their main worry. You know; of he just lost his job or something and life was spiralling out of control etc etc.
In a way I can see why they investigated. Arresting him was too much clearly but you can't just ignore an explicit threat entirely - ESP if it is reported.
- jacquesm 17y agoRight... that's pretty arbitrary though, given that not that long ago the father (instead of some random stranger) of an individual warned authorities that his son was being radicalized and might be used to stage an attack. And nothing was done with that information. That was specific, actionable and nothing was done with it, this is just a guy with a sense of humour that finds that everyday manners of speech are no longer tolerated. There is this movie called 12 angry men, which deals with exactly that subject. What people say when they're pissed off should be taken with a grain of salt. If someone tells you they'd like to blow up the house of commons we expect you to be sharp enough to see the difference between something said tongue-in-cheek or whether you're serious. If you haven't seen it then I suggest you do. It's quite an old movie (1957).
- ErrantX 17y agoIt's a fair comment. The only thing I would say is that a terrorist usually acts out of anger too and additionally we are getting hung up on non-existent terrorist parallels; probably cos of the laws used to arrest him. Forget them; the tweet sounded like a threat as much as a joke. There was even a timeframe :-) i think it's fair to say you don't ignore the possibility of a crazy carrying it through :-)