Terrorism - Thaksin

[Sporty]

DSI to seek more arrest warrants on terrorism charges

 

The Department of Special Investigations will seek more arrest warrants against suspects under terrorism charge, DSI director-general Tharit Pengdit said Monday.

 

Tharit said the DSI would seek the third bunch of arrest warrants on charge of terrorism but he declined to elaborate.

 

He said the DSI is confident that it has provided enough evidence to the Criminal Court to approve an arrest warrant against former prime minister [color:red]Thaksin Shinawatra on charge of terrorism.[/color]

 

The Nation

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/DSI-to-seek-more-arrest-warrants-on-terrorism-char-30130075.html

 

Right thing to do, but can you imagine, it actually happening ?

 

Success, on terrorism against a few others first, would be nice.

[Flashermac]

I'd love to see those phone conversations the US has allegedly intercepted (CIA?) The question in my mind is just how much Takky was personally responsible for and how much was simply him providing the funds and saying, "You do what you think is best".

 

Despite the low opinion of have of him, I still find it hard to think he could be as evil as he is charged with being. Then again, maybe he is simply a psychopath who cannot see anything wrong with doing whatever it takes to get what he wants.

 

Wudja say, Faustie?

 

 

[Wallenda]

I'd love to see those phone conversations the US has allegedly intercepted (CIA?) The question in my mind is just how much Takky was personally responsible for and how much was simply him providing the funds and saying, "You do what you think is best".

 

Despite the low opinion of have of him, I still find it hard to think he could be as evil as he is charged with being. Then again, maybe he is simply a psychopath who cannot see anything wrong with doing whatever it takes to get what he wants.

 

Wudja say, Faustie?

 

 

Not sure I can agree -- he never explicitly condemned violence from his side. He knew they would listen to him if he did that. He chose not to. And he did put out public statements that blamed the government solely for the violence, charged that they were attacking peaceful protestors. Given the degree things reached, the only responsible thing to do would have been to try to get your people back under control. He was aware of everything that was going on, just like us here, but said nothing. WHen your followers are rioting and killing, that is not what a responsible leader does. And had they won the day that way, do you think that he would not have accepted the premiership? then he would have told the crowds how thankful he was for the sacrifices they made, how honored he was by that.

 

But as it was, he had to keep his distance and maintain his plausible deniability. He made the strategic decision to let other smaller fish do the nasty deeds for him so he could maintain his clean image. He heard the incitements to violence and destruction. Have you heard of him making any comment about that? Do you think they'd have been saying those things if they thought he was against it?

 

No, the snake is only pretending to sleep. Just part of the strategy. Get within striking range and you'll see a very different kind of snake.

 

But back to the original question, I think it's fair to call this an attempt at rebellion, insurrection, and whatever else you can call it. But it's not terrorism.

 

If I was PM, I'd ask for a special prosecutor from the UN. Feel pretty sure a decent impartial investigator would quickly implicate Thaksin and other red leaders, with most likely Seh Daeng as the one emerging as causing the most trouble.

 

[Flashermac]

I'd call the aftermath terrorism - 36 buildings torched, banks, shops and 7-Elevens looted, threatening people's life at TV Channel 3 etc.

 

 

 

 

[Mekong]

NEWSFLASH

 

Osama Bin Laden did not Pilot the aircraft during the attacks of 9/11 He is not a terrorist.

[Mekong]

Double Post

[Wallenda]

I'd call that arson, breaking and entering, robbery and attempted murder -- if it was actually as bad as that (honestly I don't know the key details of the Ch 3 thing).

 

Terrorism is worse than that. Think 1972 Munich. That's what I think of as terrorism. Or that wedding in Beirut that was attacked by suicide bombers. That kind of stuff is a whole other level. I'm not saying what they did wasn't nasty as hell, just that it doesn't (imo) qualify as what I'd call terrorism.

[pasathai1]

one bullet , one kill solution

[Sporty]

 

But back to the original question, I think it's fair to call this an attempt at rebellion, insurrection, and whatever else you can call it. But it's not terrorism.

 

 

I call it terrorism, and so would the UN.

 

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."

 

 

Police ask for arrest of Thaksin Shinawatra on terrorist charges

 

Police have applied for a warrant to arrest the fugitive former prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, on terrorism charges following the deadliest political violence in decades.

 

Ian MacKinnon in Bangkok

Published: 4:19PM BST 24 May 2010

 

 

The government of the Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva - which the protesters had sought to bring down - accused the billionaire telecoms tycoon of bankrolling the demonstrations. Photo: AFP The country's criminal court has heard evidence and received reports from the Department of Special Investigations (DSI) detailing the co-ordinating role of Mr Thaksin in the mayhem that left 88 people dead and thousands wounded.

 

The agency was given the job of investigating the circumstances surrounding the Red Shirt demonstrations that hobbled the Bangkok for nine weeks until a bloody army crackdown crushed the protest that left swaths the capital burning.

 

The government of the Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva - which the protesters had sought to bring down - accused the billionaire telecoms tycoon of bankrolling the demonstrations.

 

DSI head, Tharith Pengdit, said the evidence presented to the court clearly showed the involvement of Mr Thaksin, who is in self-imposed exile to avoid a two-year jail term for corruption.

 

"The court questioned three witnesses from the DSI, and the DSI also submitted to more files of evidence which show Thaksin's co-ordinating role, " he said outside the court.

 

A defence lawyer, Thanadej Puangpool, said the court had rejected his objection to the terrorism charges.

 

The proposed charges seem designed to increase pressure on countries who have played host to Mr Thaksin to extradite him.

 

But they will certainly inflame bitterness in the already angry Red Shirt ranks where Mr Thaksin remains an unfairly treated hero.

 

The court will make its decision on whether to issue the arrest warrant on Tuesday.

 

In a separate move the opposition Puea Thai party, allies of Mr Thaksin, moved to censure Mr Abhisit's government over its handling of the protests.

 

The critical motion is largely symbolic as it would require a vote in the parliament, where Mr Abhisit and his coalition allies can easily defeat it with their superior numbers.

 

The political bickering came as a bruised Bangkok began to get back to normal on Monday, with schools and offices returning as the transport network started running nearly full services again after a week-long shutdown.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7759104/Police-ask-for-arrest-of-Thaksin-Shinawatra-on-terrorist-charges.html

[Wallenda]

 

I call it terrorism, and so would the UN.

 

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."

 

 

I guess I have to ask you, what do you refer to specifically when you say "it"?

 

And I think the key words in the UN quote are "state of terror" and also "intended ... to provoke" that terror.

 

I put it in that order because the word "terror" is most important: it means the public must feel terrified by the act. I dunno if you were in Bangkok, but when you heard that Central World had been torched, did you feel terrified by that? In fear for your life? That's what terror is. I think if we went down a list of all the individual acts perpetrated by the reds/blacks, we probably wouldn't come up with too many that a person could even argue made much of Bangkok fear for their lives.

 

The other keywords are also important though. Basically, intent. Burning down Central and other things like that, an act of desperate hatred ok, but intended to make people fear for their lives? I dunno. It's a stretch.

 

To be precise, I think they did things intended to provoke outrage, which is different from terror. Not all unpleasant feelings are terror.