In Your Opinion, Is Thaksin Guilty Of Terrorism?

[Jingthing]

In your opinion, is Thaksin guilty of terrorism?

Obviously, one would have to be in attendance at a trial and examine all the evidence to render a verdict. However, I am sure many or most of us have an OPINION on the matter. So, what is YOUR opinion?

[bangkokrick]

I voted yes because he has obviously been funding the reds. As they say in the Who from song from the Quadrophenia album. 'The man who spurred us on is the doer of the wrong'

Cheers, Rick

[up-country_sinclair]

I'd need to see the evidence the govt. has before determining whether or not someone is guilty of such a serious crime.

[Jingthing]

I'd need to see the evidence the govt. has before determining whether or not someone is guilty of such a serious crime.

That issue is covered in the OP. If you don't have an opinion yet, vote no opinion. This is only about people's OPINIONS. Not the same thing as legal proof and never will be. Cheers.

If nothing else, I reckon Thaksin's lawyer Robert Amsterdam may be curious about the general direction of public opinion about his client.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[saintofsilence]

I voted yes because if he has been funding the reds and videos show he incited violence and he told the reds what to do and even said he would join them, this is terrorism .

[tigerfish]

i dont know and i havent voted. the reason being is and i know im leaving myself open the a lot of flack, but having spent most of my youth in the u.k. and my early adult life in israel i was subject to what you could call terrorist acts. from the i.r.a. and the p.l.o. both of which had a politcal wings and at the time were represented by figures such as gerry adams and yasser arafat. everyone knew that the two parts were connected but through clever rhetoric and hiding behind the vail of them being a political movement nothing could be done as to link them with any terrorist acts.

although not entirely the same, there are some similarities in the case of thaxsin. plus the fact that he has a lot of money at his disposal and can get the best lawyers money can buy, to put a spin on things.

people like thaxsin didnt get where he is today without having some short nouse as to protect himself against anything that might threaten his position of power within thailand.

you and i may not like the guy, but there is no doubting that hes a sly old fox.

on the question of a warrant out for his arrest and bringing him back to serve justice. can you imagine what would happen if they did get their man and he was to return!

Edited May 25, 2010 by tigerfish

[rgs2001uk]

There is a difference between, terrorism and incitment.

So not guilty of terrorism, incitment is of course another matter.

[burleychassis]

I'd need to see the evidence the govt. has before determining whether or not someone is guilty of such a serious crime.

That issue is covered in the OP. If you don't have an opinion yet, vote no opinion. This is only about people's OPINIONS. Not the same thing as legal proof and never will be. Cheers.

If nothing else, I reckon Thaksin's lawyer Robert Amsterdam may be curious about the general direction of public opinion about his client.

If he wants to look at public opinion, it will not be on here, nor on Thai Army Media.

If you are happy with it, enjoy it, but most will get their news and information from reliable sources.

There is much to come from Mr Amsterdam. Slowly slowly catchy Abhisit and Suthep

[Jingthing]

I'd need to see the evidence the govt. has before determining whether or not someone is guilty of such a serious crime.

That issue is covered in the OP. If you don't have an opinion yet, vote no opinion. This is only about people's OPINIONS. Not the same thing as legal proof and never will be. Cheers.

If nothing else, I reckon Thaksin's lawyer Robert Amsterdam may be curious about the general direction of public opinion about his client.

If he wants to look at public opinion, it will not be on here, nor on Thai Army Media.

If you are happy with it, enjoy it, but most will get their news and information from reliable sources.

There is much to come from Mr Amsterdam. Slowly slowly catchy Abhisit and Suthep

Actually, the opinions of people here who have been following the Thai political crisis for years is much more informed than international people who just starting hearing about Thailand's trouble's recently. I suppose Amsterdam does care about the less sophisticated world opinion because he now has to fight for Thaksin to be able to travel to at least SOME countries.

I have no doubt there is more to come from Mr. Amsterdam! He's a good lawyer after all and the meter is running.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[centrico]

There is a difference between, terrorism and incitment.

So not guilty of terrorism, incitment is of course another matter.

Incitement seems sensible.

Does one need to throw a bomb into a crowded place or be a person to actually commit a similar act such as car bombings or carry out other direct action against the general population to be a terrorist?

Or does one who financially supports a terrorist movement or cell be also classed as a terrorist or be guilty of incitement or maybe stupidity?

[Jingthing]

Bin Laden doesn't actually DO any terrorist acts physically. He "just" talks and leads.

[bangkokrick]

Bin Laden doesn't actually DO any terrorist acts physically. He "just" talks and leads.

Also he provides the funds. Same same in my opinion.

Cheers, Rick

[centrico]

Therefore if Bin Laden or others supply funds to people who commit terrorist acts, that makes them what exactly?

[Jingthing]

Therefore if Bin Laden or others supply funds to people who commit terrorist acts, that makes them what exactly?

Obviously, terrorists. If they can legally establish a direct connection with the intention as well, they've got a strong case.

[powderpuff]

The correct term is sedition.

[bangkokrick]

Therefore if Bin Laden or others supply funds to people who commit terrorist acts, that makes them what exactly?

Suppliers of funds to terrorists = terrorist.

Cheers, Rick

[centrico]

The correct term is sedition.

I would tend to agree that Sedition does seem to be the correct term

[centrico]

For Rick and Jingthing .....

If donations to a known terrorist outfit makes a person or persons also terrorists then there are a lot of terrorists on this planet. I am thinking of two countries in particular that may not be on everyone's radar. Belgium and the USA.

Belgium used to openly sell recorded cassette tapes of the IRA in many shops. Funds from these recordings such as "Drums of the IRA" seem to have only one destination.

A lot of people in the USA used to donate a lot of funds to the IRA also. Many collections were made in bars and other places from Irish Americans and others.

Considering that until not many years ago the IRA used to murder men, women, children and babies with bombs, kneecap people, torture them and carry out other atrocities and as funding came from these two sources as well as others like Libya and a blind eye was turned to this funding, that could well make their governments responsible too.

If Thaksin is guilty of anything, sedition does seem to be the correct charge.

To me, terrorism is a word bandied about too easily and especially in the context of the problems in Thailand. I do not condone the murder of civilians, police, armed forces or others. Neither do I condone acts of arson and civil unrest that destroys lives, job and property. Neither do I feel these acts which have taken place over recent months are acceptable.

To close, I feel Thaksin is guilty of Sedition and not of terrorism. If he is found guilty of Sedition he should be made to pay for his crimes. So I cannot vote "Yes" to him being guilty of terrorism in my humble opinion or else I would have to accuse a lot of American and Belgian citizens of being terrorist too.

edit

OOPS!!

I feel an edit might be in order. It is late and I am tired, so not certain if Sedition is actually committed only against your own country. That might put a different slant on some of my text.

Though from my reading of Sedition I quote

se·di·tion play_w2("S0212400") (s-dshn)n.1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.2. Insurrection; rebellion.

This does not say if it applies to your own or any country or if you could be charged if it is an act against a foreign country.

Edited May 25, 2010 by centrico

[MAJIC]

Therefore if Bin Laden or others supply funds to people who commit terrorist acts, that makes them what exactly?

Suppliers of funds to terrorists = terrorist.

Cheers, Rick

Agreed,however:

Easy to research who funded the IRA and PLO,dont see the benefactors also labelled as Terrorists though.

[misterjag]

Th Red Shirts would be better served if Thaksin were jailed or assassinated. They could get along without his advice and financial contributions. They could use him as a martyr. More importantly, the government would no longer have a boogie man to blame for Thailand's problems.

[gregb]

Th Red Shirts would be better served if Thaksin were jailed or assassinated. They could get along without his advice and financial contributions. They could use him as a martyr. More importantly, the government would no longer have a boogie man to blame for Thailand's problems.

Not only the red shirts. The whole world would be better off if Thaksin were jailed or assassinated, and the latter option would provide more benefit to the world than the former.

Absolutely the man is a terrorist. He is also a demagogue and a danger to any civilized society. Trying to defend him is like trying to defend Hitler. I'm not saying eliminating him from the scene would completely remove what ills Thailand, but it would be a very good start. I doubt anyone else could ever completely replace him once he is gone.

There may always be a red shirt insurgent organization, but they would be severely crippled without that cretin being around to fan the flames of hatred and division. He is pure evil.

Guess how I voted.

[473geo]

And if you give to support people on a peaceful demonstration......and later a faction turns violent.....

How then are you a terrorist?

[Jingthing]

And if you give to support people on a peaceful demonstration......and later a faction turns violent.....

How then are you a terrorist?

I would say no terrorism to that but I don't think that description characterizes Thaksin's actions at all! Neither does the Thai government and I think they have evidence to prove it. So your question is meaningless as so many people won't accept your assumption.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Jingthing

[473geo]

And suppose you donate to a political party?

And a faction of that party turns violent at a rally......are you then a terrorist?

[Jingthing]

And suppose you donate to a political party?

And a faction of that party turns violent at a rally......are you then a terrorist?

No and if you have sex with a red shirt terrorist, you aren't a terrorist. Frankly, I find your line of questioning completely irrelevant to this thread. I guess you voted NO. Next ...

[roamer]

The whole purpose of issuing a warrant is PR, no more than that. Have no doubt whatsoever that if Thailand genuinely wanted him back to face trial in Thailand then they would do so a charge that could be dealt with far more easily by any court that had a valid extradition treaty with Thailand. As it is the Thai's have shot themselves in the foot...again. They wanted to proclaim to the world that he is a terrorist, they better hope that the warrant is never executed, at least in Europe. The attendant revelations of an ex-PM aired to the world would hardly be what the Thai government would seek to give oxygen to.

The reason why I say they have shot themselves in the foot is this. An extradition request takes if the suspect is residing in a country where the warrant can be applied then you can seek to lay evidence with that nations prosecuting authority that the warrant be executed. But there is another provision, I quote loosely from the UK provisions but any European nation has similar provisions :

" Provisional arrest is used when there is a perceived risk of flight, when the suspect may only be in the country for a short time etc, this may be applied by any constable etc""

We are talking about a man who has his own jet aircraft....gives a whole new meaning to the "perceived risk of flight"

This is really put up or shut up time for the Thai's. Thaksin could possibly be arrested now. Do you seriously believe there is any evidence that he has supported terrorism ?In legal terms ?

Not that I have seen, which proscribed terrorist movements is he alleged to have funded ? What terrorist acts has he supported ? Maybe I missed something but I have only seen him support peaceful regime change in legal terms.

He may well be an evil sod but on this showing he's a lot smarter than those who would seek to pursue him.

[tgw]

Voted "yes", but I'm thinking he is more guilty of high treason than of terrorism.

[mogoso]

Th Red Shirts would be better served if Thaksin were jailed or assassinated. They could get along without his advice and financial contributions. They could use him as a martyr. More importantly, the government would no longer have a boogie man to blame for Thailand's problems.

I felt the removal of Thaksin was wrong and for a short while thought the reds were ok. Then the unions joined them, then the socialist and communist supporters joined and they lost me as I've watched in the US how they installed the Obamination and how they are but a thug army for him to use to intimidate honest citizens. The same type of violence that occurred in Thailand will accelerate in Europe as violence in Greece and other Euro states seems to be on the rise, and the main antagonists are of course the unions

[Jingthing]

This is really put up or shut up time for the Thai's. Thaksin could possibly be arrested now. Do you seriously believe there is any evidence that he has supported terrorism ?In legal terms ?

Yes, so far about 60 percent of the respondents here say yes.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

It appears to me that if it were not for Thaksin and his money, there would be no red shirt terrorist. It also appears that they were abiding by his wishes. So that makes him Thailands #1 terrorist. The leaders rarely throw the bombs or expose themself to any danger.