Terrorism - Thaksin

[Sporty]

<< The government of the Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva ... >>

 

Since it was Oxford's hometown newspaper, maybe they wanted people to know, he once lived there?

[bust]

Lot's of civilians were terrorfied by the actions of the Police and Military. Does that make them terrorists?

 

And those who oredered the final assault on the red shirts. Are they terrorists?

 

 

In both cases' date=' it is called LAW ENFORCEMENT, against criminals and thugs.

 

My only complaint with the Government, Military and Police, is they did not do it soon enough. Letting it linger, not moving quickly, may have cost lives. Should have been done sooner with all necessary force, the day the court issued the order.

 

They were just being to dam nice, to them.[/quote']

 

No they let it esculate to support their position.

 

Imagine if the same approach was opted by Somchai? Let it drag on and on then go in hard? Would the PAD supporters re-acted the same way?

[Sporty]

"No they let it esculate to support their position.

 

Imagine if the same approach was opted by Somchai? Let it drag on and on then go in hard? Would the PAD supporters re-acted the same way?"

 

Your right, they were to damn nice.

 

When the first soldiers were injured and killed with grenades, the order should have been given, lay face down with you hands on head or stand and be shoot.

 

 

[Wallenda]

Very funny, but CLUELESS.

 

I'll play a bit, it was political, right ?

 

There was a "Particular Person" from the UN statement, inside Central World, a Security Guard.

 

When he was burned to death, do you think he experienced terror ?

 

Dude, spare me the histrionics and flaming ok? Clueless? That's pretty cliched stuff.

 

Political? Seems like you're responding to your own questions, not anything I mentioned. Like the UN said, that's not important. I thought that was one of your own points. It's a moot point. It was political, yes. So.

 

Was a security guard burned alive? I didnt' hear that one... tho if it happened, definitely an argument in favor of the terrorism side, tho not one I'm sure would stick. But they'd need to be aware and have deliberately set him ablaze. Do you think that's how it happened? (assuming it did... only taking your word for it here) And they'd need to be consciously doing it with the motive and intent of creating terror in the Bangkok population. It's possible, I guess. But... again... terror? Most Bangkokians figured it was an empty mall. "Oh my god, a closed down mall is on fire! We're all gonna die!" It's a bit silly.

 

It seems like you really really want this to be terrorism. To me, that's what is most interesting here. Why? Why can't it jut be arson and rioting? Or even if someone was killed, why can't it be murder? What's the point of making it terrorism. What is interesting to me is that we already konw how bad it was -- it was bad. But there's some effort on the part of some to make it seem even worse than it was, hence labeling it 'terrorism'. To me that seems about the same as when the reds call Abhisit a murderer of innocent protestors. Just foaming at the mouth. Histrionics. Hyperbole. Heavy duty spin.

 

I mean if it was terrorism, what you said earlier about the Osama analogy would be correct. But as it is, if Mr T is funding arson and rioting and murder knowingly, it still makes him an accomplice and even possibly the most guilty party if it's by his direct order. Of arson, looting and murder. I don't see what the problem is calling the crimes by their proper names. They're all felonies with severe punishments.

 

[Wallenda]

<< The government of the Oxford-educated Abhisit Vejjajiva ... >>

 

 

So why doesn't the journo refer to the "Kentucky- and Texas-educated Thaksin Shinawatra"?

 

Nobody refers to the "UCLA-educated Sondhi Limtongkul" either. Anytime I see that "Oxford-educated Abhisit", one thought immediately goes through my mind. The journo is a hackwriting wanker!

 

 

So you see that as a diss on Abhisit? To me it came across opposite, like this is the one guy in this whole circus who has his shit together. Oxford's your gold standard of education, along with a few others (Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc.)

 

Univ of Texas just doesn't cut it. Maybe we can refer to him as former Longhorn (or Wildcat). UCLA ditto -- those are schools best known for their sports teams, not their academics.

[sanddawg1]

Imagine if the same approach was opted by Somchai? Let it drag on and on then go in hard? Would the PAD supporters re-acted the same way?

 

Oh but they did not have to because the "courts" dissolved the government on some trumped-up charges and put thier (the

PADs) guys in.

 

I don't condone what the Reds did in any way but the farking double standard pisses me off.

[Sporty]

Very funny' date=' but CLUELESS.

 

I'll play a bit, it was political, right ?

 

There was a "Particular Person" from the UN statement, inside Central World, a Security Guard.

 

When he was burned to death, do you think he experienced terror ?[/quote']

 

Dude, spare me the histrionics and flaming ok? Clueless? That's pretty cliched stuff.

 

Political? Seems like you're responding to your own questions, not anything I mentioned. Like the UN said, that's not important. I thought that was one of your own points. It's a moot point. It was political, yes. So.

 

Was a security guard burned alive? I didnt' hear that one... tho if it happened, definitely an argument in favor of the terrorism side, tho not one I'm sure would stick. But they'd need to be aware and have deliberately set him ablaze. Do you think that's how it happened? (assuming it did... only taking your word for it here) And they'd need to be consciously doing it with the motive and intent of creating terror in the Bangkok population. It's possible, I guess. But... again... terror? Most Bangkokians figured it was an empty mall. "Oh my god, a closed down mall is on fire! We're all gonna die!" It's a bit silly.

 

It seems like you really really want this to be terrorism. To me, that's what is most interesting here. Why? Why can't it jut be arson and rioting? Or even if someone was killed, why can't it be murder? What's the point of making it terrorism. What is interesting to me is that we already konw how bad it was -- it was bad. But there's some effort on the part of some to make it seem even worse than it was, hence labeling it 'terrorism'. To me that seems about the same as when the reds call Abhisit a murderer of innocent protestors. Just foaming at the mouth. Histrionics. Hyperbole. Heavy duty spin.

 

I mean if it was terrorism, what you said earlier about the Osama analogy would be correct. But as it is, if Mr T is funding arson and rioting and murder knowingly, it still makes him an accomplice and even possibly the most guilty party if it's by his direct order. Of arson, looting and murder. I don't see what the problem is calling the crimes by their proper names. They're all felonies with severe punishments.

 

 

United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following [color:red]political description of terrorism:[/color] [color:red]"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke[/color] [color:red]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."[/color]

 

Get a dictionary and if you can find anyone that likes you with comprehension skills maybe they can help you!

 

 

[Wallenda]

United Nations General Assembly has condemned terrorist acts using the following [color:red]political description of terrorism:[/color] [color:red]"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke[/color] [color:red]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."[/color]

 

Get a dictionary and if you can find anyone that likes you with comprehension skills maybe they can help you!

 

 

Yeah I actually tried that already and shared what I found here. So maybe you can help me. What does terror mean to you?

 

(by the way, have you read this UN quote that you keep posting? It doesn't say what you seem to want it to say)

 

My point is that they didn't "cause a state of terror in the public", which is what your UN definition above here says is necessary in order for it to qualify as terrorism. They caused outrage and annoyance. That's not terror. Terror is when you fear for your life. And the acts probably weren't done for that purpose, which is also required by this UN definition that you've so kindly posted twice.

 

The London underground bombings -- that's terrorism. The Lockerbie bombing. Suicide bombs in Tel Aviv cafe. There's a huge difference between what happened in Bangkok and those kinds of acts.

 

 

 

[ThaiHome]

Oh but they did not have to because the "courts" dissolved the government on some trumped-up charges and put thier (the

PADs) guys in.

 

I don't condone what the Reds did in any way but the farking double standard pisses me off.

 

Here is what The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) in the March 2008 report on their montioring mission for the December 2007 election.

 

The mobilization of a large number of police officers and Special Branch officers to supplement the ECT’s own investigators undoubtedly increased the authorities’ overall capacity to investigate election violations. Given the widespread nature of vote buying, it is natural that the ECT would wish to make use of all the resources at its disposal. This strategy did produce some positive results, shown most clearly in the investigation of Yongyuth Tiyapairat, a PPP candidate who successfully contested for a proportional representation seat in zone 1 in northern Thailand and was subsequently made Speaker of the House of Representatives. Using a hidden camera, Yongyuth was filmed bribing local government officials from the town of Chiang Rai to campaign on his behalf. The strength of such evidence – collected by the Special Branch police – lead to the ECT giving Yongyuth a ‘red card’. His case is currently being considered by the Supreme Court and he stands to lose his seat in Parliament and prevented from political activities for five years.

 

As party executive, after his conviction in July 2008 the EC recommended the disbanding of the PPP as required by Article 237 of constitution. This was confirmed by the Constitution Court.

 

This was not a trumped up charge, it was real and he and the PPP knew the consequence when he committed the act.

 

You really need to make sure you get your facts straight if you are going discuss this rationally. You seem to have a tendency towards bending them a bit to fit your views

 

TH

 

 

[Wallenda]

As party executive, after his conviction in July 2008 the EC recommended the disbanding of the PPP as required by Article 237 of constitution. This was confirmed by the Constitution Court.

 

This was not a trumped up charge, it was real and he and the PPP knew the consequence when he committed the act.

 

I'm not sure what country you're from, but let's just take Britain for a moment. In the UK, if some MP gets caught paying a bribe like the one you describe, would people consider it appropriate to then ban the entire, say, Conservative Party permanently? Should some other politician who had nothing to do with this, who won his seat fair and square possibly, be punished for what this guy did?

 

I'm an anti-red person here, so it's not like you're talking to someone who supports Thaksin.

 

But I'm still able to see that there's things that are obviously wrong on both sides of this divide.