Arrest warrant against Thaksin?

[Specialist]

Thailand works with Interpol. If they can make a serious terrorism warrant stand up, they can ask Interpol to assist, and Interpol can cause the scumbag all kinds of grief.

 

[Pom Michael]

All the countries that harbored Thaksin should be held morally responsible for a portion of this crisis.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Would it not be funny being that Thaskin pissed off a lot of Moslems in Thailand, that he should hole up his ass in a Moslem country?

[Wallenda]

 

Terrorism, is for sure: Politically motivated ARSON, Inciting a riot, that has thousands dead and injured, defying a legal government order to seize and desist, is certainly a few. This list would take a while to finish as well.

 

The defining aspect of terrorism is that it cause terror -- fear for one's life. Whether it's political or not is something that can be present or not. That it causes terror or not is what makes it terrorism. So some criminal acts aren't terrorism. I think it needs to be violent, at least. Hurling grenades at a train station full of commuters: clearly terrorism. Burning an empty building: probably not.

 

[LizardKing]

Except that buildings were not all empty. Channel 3 employees were all trapped inside when their building got torched and had to be rescued.

 

There were about 60 CTW employees inside when they burned it.

[Wallenda]

OK, then those at least would qualify as terroristic, I'd say. I did not realize Central was occupied when it was burned. Anyone killed in that?

 

"Terrorism" was coined in the British press to describe the French revolutionary govt of the 1790s, in particular their use of violence to basically scare people into submission. Think guillotine.

 

I suppose the case could be made pretty convincingly that what's been happening after the surrender hasn't been so much with the design of scaring anyone as just going berzerk. And yeah I've seen the comments about how it appears to show some signs of orchestration.

 

Anyway, I'm just a stickler about this word "terrorism" because I think it's a special category of crime (simliar to genocide in that way) where we need to reserve it for that type of crime only, not go diluting its meaning by trying to basically make some other type of crime seem worse to people who aren't paying close attention by attaching this term to it.

 

I say, let's keep the word "terrorism" for when they really do something terroristic. Something that was meant to create fear, and something that actually does kill people in a brutal way.

 

So my overall take: in general the reds aren't terrorists. There have been acts perpetrated by some of them here and there that I think qualify as terroristic acts, but not in a clear black and white way as a bomb in a crowded cafe might.

 

But don't worry: I don't think they're terrorists, but I do think they're dangerous zealots capable of almost any depraved act at this point. And they may yet become bonafide terrorists. Let's see.

[Sporty]

United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." [4]