Terrorism?

[klikster]

The term 'terrorism' has be slung about all over the forum in recent weeks. People and factions have been labeled (with and without obvious evidence) as "terrorists".

What seems interesting is that the "pundits" on TV have been able to do what the international community or the U.N. has not succeeded in doing .. defining terrorism.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[4] ..

source: Wikipedia

The UN has no internationally-agreed definition of terrorism.

The definitional impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to adopt the Convention, and the deadlock continues to this day.

Source: eyeontheun.org

It goes without saying that every international bloc, every State or indeed every community has enemies and opponents that seek to eliminate it, and, as the conflict becomes violent, each party tries to undermine the reputation of the other by attributing to it repulsive epithets, such as "anarchist", "criminal", "outlaw", "inhuman", "terrorist", and the like.

More at: al-islam.org

[tw25rw]

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

They threatened destruction/disruption. Followed through. Are threatening more.

[givenall]

I am not sure how much more evidences you need. I have heard enough from both Thaksin, and the Red Shirt Leaders to order their supporter\s to burn or use weapon against the government and anyone who do not agree with them.

Case closed

[PhilHarries]

Does the term, terrorist or criminal, matter? Does it somehow change anything? People have lost their lives and livelihoods is what was essentially criminal acts. In a way, for them, it may be better not to term the perpetrators terrorists as their insurance policies may not cover the damage. But then most insurance runds out as soon as anything approaching insurrection, riot ot civli strife rears it's ugly head.

So it doesn't really matter unless you are a lawyer interested in the finer points of law. The term terrorist is merely a handy tag to hang on acts that are beyond criminal but short of acts of war.

[brownbear]

With respect PhilHarries, it has a very real relevance. Insurance policies in most countries now include "War and Terrorism" or similar exclusion clauses. The exclusions can be waived in some instances in return for the payment of additional premium. In some cases the exclusion is absolute.

An article in the insurance press today confirmed that only a few of the owners of the properties damaged in Bangkok had purchased the waiver. The majority of smaller vendors would certainly not have (rather expensive for the average operation).

Rightly or wrongly the government have themselves defined these losses as acts of 'Terrorism', bit of a gaff is some respects but it wouldn't be the first time. At the same time I understand they appealed to insurance companies to contribute to the 'regeneration'.

Case not rested as the whole issue will be disputed I have no doubt. The lesson for all of us is to check our own insurance policies and to not take anything for granted.

[KunMatt]

They became terrorists in my book the day after Abhisit met the three Red Leaders for a live TV discussion at the end of March, not only compromising a lot in the process meeting with them but to actually broadcast it on live TV really surprised me and the PM got a lot of Browny points from me for that.

Anyways, the day after this show of diplomacy from the government Nattawut was on the red's stage saying that if the PM didn't dissolve parliament and quit in a week then he promised the reds would start grenande attacks and bombings all over Bangkok.

This is the point I lost any belief in the red's cause or the claim that they were just peaceful protestors. The red leaders were totally incapable of debating anything with the PM and only seemed to have one cause and position, and that was to make Abhisit quit and bring back Thaksin, they never really wanted what was best for Thailand or the Thai people.

[phetaroi]

I do look at it from a slightly different perspective.

Is it terrorism, or is it revenge...or both?

I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference in how it affects victims and society, but I think it is an interesting question.