Police Asked To Press Terrorism Charges Against Pad Leaders

[TAWP]

Steve2UK>> Both Crispins texts as well as the magazine Asia Times have already been criticized here.

I did look and did try searching - but (as you probably know) the post search function is still not working. I won't ask you to point out the previous mention of the point I'm raising about Asia Times Online, but I would ask you if the criticism then expressed was about its ownership/affiliations. If it was, then I'm sorry I missed it. I think you realise that my point relates to dismissing The Economist content on the one hand yet accepting Asia Times Online content on the other.

Having read both articles (as well as others in both publications), I find them each illuminating and each, of course, inevitably written from somewhat different perspectives - and valid within those perspectives and their limitations. In line with the approach that others have described, I look to a range of sources in order to form my own opinions.

@ quiksilva: as I hope I've indicated above, I'm not setting out to condemn Crispin's article (leave alone just because of where it was published) - but I am questioning the criteria given for distrusting the Economist article when those same criteria appear not to be applied even-handedly to Asia Times Online content.

There are some posters that have strongly pointed out the ties Asia Times Online has to those involved, so it's not something new.

One should read both and know the sources. Even in a web of lies one can find a grain of truth.

[Steve2UK]

Steve2UK>> Both Crispins texts as well as the magazine Asia Times have already been criticized here.

I did look and did try searching - but (as you probably know) the post search function is still not working. I won't ask you to point out the previous mention of the point I'm raising about Asia Times Online, but I would ask you if the criticism then expressed was about its ownership/affiliations. If it was, then I'm sorry I missed it. I think you realise that my point relates to dismissing The Economist content on the one hand yet accepting Asia Times Online content on the other.

Having read both articles (as well as others in both publications), I find them each illuminating and each, of course, inevitably written from somewhat different perspectives - and valid within those perspectives and their limitations. In line with the approach that others have described, I look to a range of sources in order to form my own opinions.

@ quiksilva: as I hope I've indicated above, I'm not setting out to condemn Crispin's article (leave alone just because of where it was published) - but I am questioning the criteria given for distrusting the Economist article when those same criteria appear not to be applied even-handedly to Asia Times Online content.

There are some posters that have strongly pointed out the ties Asia Times Online has to those involved, so it's not something new.

One should read both and know the sources. Even in a web of lies one can find a grain of truth.

Thank you for the reply - and I agree 100% with those sentiments.

[Koo82]

Back to the topic, "Police Asked To Press Terrorism Charges Against Pad Leaders", did they do anything yet? Or mei pen rai?