Naming Of Thailand On New US Terror Risk List Worrying

[SteeleJoe]

...that is untill I read pomp assed remarks such as you have made regarding what America has done for the world??

All you are able to do is make snide remarks about myself, rather than actually trying to prove what I have said is wrong. Your the loser my man.

Pomp assed.

[animatic]

'animatic' timestamp='1310281591' post='4548583'

In the south there definitely are terrorists. Some tied to Al Qu'eda and J.I.

In Bangkok last year, there was much proof publicly of terrorist actions, home grown or not, politically un-involved people were attacked regularly, in what could only be called political contexts. Bombers blowing things up, and blowing themselves up. This is not simply about the Red Rally and it's closure, but many things happening all over, but especially Bangkok.

Add to that the charges of terrorism hanging over Red leaders,

and there is more than the typical amount of terrorist labeled activity.

This listing doesn't surprise a bit.

If things stay clam this fall and winter, this could easily change the rating, but I have little hope of this. Certainly the southern insurgents have no love of any Shinawatras by any name after Tak Bai and the other incidents on Thaksins watch.

And the Red Leaders court dates are still approaching only to be stalled with claims of 'post charges filed immunity from prosecution applying', and the usual legal wrangling. I can certainly see the USA saying; Allowing charged terrorists to become MP's and then have the charges dropped would be consistent with "Protecting' Terrorists.

I want to say, "I wish people ACTUALLY understood the meaning of the word 'terrorist'", but, I am thankful that most do not have to know. Still, those who don't, really need to be a bit more careful about using the term.

In my opinion, NOTHING the Red or Yellow shirts have done is even remotely terror. The Muslims in the south, definitely. The WTC bombings, definitely. Mumbai, Bali, trains in Spain, definitely.

The US (and her allies, including Thailand) have done a LOT to stem terrorism, both here, and abroad. Be thankful.

Don't imagine that your comment about 'understanding' applies to me....

To put terrorism and it's creation of a victims attitude into perspective:

I was 1 block from World Trade Center went it was bombed in '93.

I felt the blast knock me back. Sheik Abdel Rahman and friends got convicted.

Rahman for inciting them to do it, al la red leaders in Bangkok.

And some slightly farther connection with effects of the Omaha bombing 2 years later with Abdel Rahman being tried 1 block away. Till we knew who, why and had freedom to move to greater distance, it was still terrifying.

I was 15 minutes past a news stand trash can that

was blown up killing my news agent in '95 in Paris.

Later that summer I rode, 2 days before, on the train that got blown up with many killed.

My family was lucky to survive multiple bombings from terrorists early than that.

I fully understand the word.

Those that use randomized violence to get a political point across

via violent intimidation of the populace are terrorists.

I had the EXACT same feelings about being in Bangkok last year,

as I had in Paris and NYC. This is the effect of terrorist actions on people.

The random bombings and grenade attacks around Bangkok and the bomber who blew himself up, and the calls for bottles of gas to be thrown, all give the same sense of fear that an organized group is attacking random individuals to get their political point accepted or win power for their type of leadership.

To be clear, I definitely wasn't applying it to you. But the word has been bandied about so carelessly, that only people have begun to equate the airport closure with terrorism. And while it's enlightening that you have been so closely touched by it, the perpetrators of the random acts in Bangkok can be condemned, but not accused of terrorism, simply because they were not identified, nor associated positively with a specific cause. I can appreciate that those acts were evocative for you, and they mayhave fFELT the same as the truly terrorist acts you have witnessed, but they were NOT the same.

In any case, since the topic was the American response to terrorism, even if those bombs in Bangkok were set by terrorists (who took no responsibility, nor made any demands, they do not affect America.

Sorry I seemed to call your cred into question - it wasn't aimed at you.

I still have to re state it seems

Those that use randomized violence to force a political point across

via violent intimidation of the populace are terrorists.

Random House Dictionary 2011

ter·ror·ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm] –noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce,especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

------------------------------------------

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism

1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion

2 : violent and intimidating gang activity

I most definitely KNEW that I was, yet again,

being victimized by terrorists. I felt that also,

How you feel is one of the things terrorists attack. The want to manipulate your feelings and sense of security as individuals within the public.

Your feelings are the prime target of their agressions.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Not necessarily directed by the 'leaders at the red rallies', but the insidious, and clearly organized, work of those little guys polcie and DSI were not catching, who were running around throwing grenades and blowing up bus stations... notice after that bus station death... it suddenly went quiet? Did they finally strike a nerve to big to ignore?

If the reports of Dem/army meetings with Thaksin reps in Brunie that allegedly stopped the random violence, as if by magic last fall, in return for the election we have just had are true, then it could possibly be extrapolated that in this case, terrorism and the threat of it continuing, DID force a compromise?

And might this also explain why Thaksin feels so free to flout EC regulations about banned pols running political parties?

Did terrorism of the population of Bangkok win in the end?

If so then is organized terrorism actual directly tied to the incoming government, IN THE EYES of the USA State Department Terrorist Watch List compilers?

Something to think about.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Please note that these last are all QUESTIONS,

for consideration by the many, and not statements of fact or accusations.

Edited July 10, 2011 by animatic

[ding]

Thailand should reciprocate by putting the US on a similar list. Surely the US has been doing much more than Thailand in order to "promote, produce, or protect terrorists" But greed for the green dollar will - for the time being - stop them from doing so, i presume ;-)

America is a very diverse country, and often not what it seems;

"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, March 13 2002

Then a "liberal" like President Obama is the one who kills Bin Laden.

The US is run by corporations who know no national loyalty, but it's citizens care just like Thais care about Thailand.

[Gonsalviz]

The ignorance in this forum is amazing. Cant hack it in the west so move to thaiand/asia to bash your homeland. Sad. Im sure your country is happy to be rid of you

I'm glad they glad to be rid of me. At least I don't get to pay taxes for the moronic things they do.

[cbc]

countries that are known to "promote, produce or protect terrorist organisations or their members".

Could this be reference to red shirt leaders that are now in government?

Exactly

Not only protect them but elect them to positions in the government where they are immune to prosecution.

That being said one must consider the fact that they the states are paranoid anyhow.

And believe it or not Canada is worse.

What has happened to you that you can make a statement as such that canada is worse ?What evidence do you have to backup your statement.If you can produce such then let's see it.Then maybe i'll agree with you.

[davehowden]

I see that the UK is not on the list, why not, we have more home bred terrorists than most "civilised" countries!

[mesohappy]

countries that are known to "promote, produce or protect terrorist organisations or their members".

Could this be reference to red shirt leaders that are now in government?

This piece of 'reportage' by The Nation, and by extension, by ThaiVisa is irresponsible and potentially inflammatory.

The actual document, if any of the 'reporters' would care to, or be able to, read it says:

"ICE provided this list of specially designated countries. ICE

policy requires officers to perform a TAC for

detained

aliens from

these countries. "

Italics mine.

There is no reference to a "Third Agency Check" for visa applicants, or other legal travelers to the USA.

Since I hear how difficult it is for Thais to travel to the US, and that 'fact' is used as a justification for the byzantine Thai Immigration procedures so frequently, this kind of disinformation merely provides grist for the mill of xenophobia.

And as for the geniuses who keep referring to the possibility that the US is aiming at Red Shirts with this policy: are you even conscious? Have you heard of Muslim separatists in the South, killing Buddhist monks, teachers, and beheading folks? The appear as yet unaligned with JI or Al Qaeda, but they are terrorists, pure and simple. For the US to be interested, we are not talking about dirty Thai politics, which, although it appears new to newbies, has been going on for decades. I'm sure, other than the effect on global markets (read, nil), the US DHS doesn't even know the Reds exist.

Honestly, what a yellow rag The Nation has become. Unfortunately, most here are too lazy or too stupid to look past it.

Well said.

[mesohappy]

A very quick google search found the following:

Police arrested seven people in Spain and three in Thailand in an international operation against a group suspected of forging passports for an al Qaeda-linked Islamic terrorist group, the Spanish Interior Ministry said Wednesday.

The detainees formed part of a group based in Thailand and linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based terror group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai, India, attacks that killed 166 people, the ministry said in a statement.

The arrests in Spain took place late Tuesday and early Wednesday in the northeastern city of Barcelona, the ministry said.

The detainees included six Pakistanis and one Nigerian. The ministry said the group stole passports, mostly from tourists in the Barcelona area, and sent them to Thailand to be doctored and later distributed to groups linked to al Qaeda.

The ministry said the passports allowed members of the terror groups to enter European and other countries.

The group was run by one of the three people--two Pakistanis and one Thai citizen--arrested in Thailand.

The statement said that in the Spanish raids police seized passports ready to be sent to Thailand,computer and mobile telephone equipment.

-- Cracked by Spanish Police

In the war against terror, especially after the Bali bombings of October 2002, both Malaysia and Indonesia exerted pressure on the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) activists on their soil. As a result, it was believed the operational leadership of JI fled to Thailand.

Arrests made in June 2003 of three men plotting to bomb western embassies in Bangkok during a regional summit brought to light the existence and movement of terrorists in Thailand much to the embarrassment of the government.

Later the Thai police also nabbed a school teacher who was trying to sell the ingredients for a "dirty bomb". When Hambali, the mastermind behind the Bali bombings and operational chief of JI was arrested in Thailand in August 2003, the Thai government realized that terrorists are also functioning in their backyard.

-- Hambali found by US CIA living in Ayuthaya

A Russian arms dealer thought to have inspired the lead character in the blockbuster film Lord of War was arrested in Bangkok today.

Viktor Bout, 41, was detained while allegedly attempting to buy weapons for Colombian rebels.

Dubbed "the merchant of death", he has been accused of breaking UN embargoes since the early 1990s by selling arms to conflict-torn regions in Africa and around the world.

Thai police said today that Mr Bout had been arrested in a Bangkok hotel. "He was attempting to procure weapons for Colombia's FARC rebels", the arrest report said.

-- Arrested in US FBI sting operation

(…to be continued no doubt)

More speculation if you don't mind. These facts are so boring...

[BuckarooBanzai]

2 years after 9/11 Britain was put near the Top of the List. Probably the USA’s Biggest ally

If you think about the perpetrators of that most horrendous act, they were actually living and studying in the US, perhaps the US should put its self on the list as well

The patriot act clearly indicates the US is high on the list. Do not be fooled by it's omission.

[chaoyang]

A very quick google search found the following:

Police arrested seven people in Spain and three in Thailand in an international operation against a group suspected of forging passports for an al Qaeda-linked Islamic terrorist group, the Spanish Interior Ministry said Wednesday.

The detainees formed part of a group based in Thailand and linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Pakistan-based terror group blamed for the 2008 Mumbai, India, attacks that killed 166 people, the ministry said in a statement.

The arrests in Spain took place late Tuesday and early Wednesday in the northeastern city of Barcelona, the ministry said.

The detainees included six Pakistanis and one Nigerian. The ministry said the group stole passports, mostly from tourists in the Barcelona area, and sent them to Thailand to be doctored and later distributed to groups linked to al Qaeda.

The ministry said the passports allowed members of the terror groups to enter European and other countries.

The group was run by one of the three people--two Pakistanis and one Thai citizen--arrested in Thailand.

The statement said that in the Spanish raids police seized passports ready to be sent to Thailand,computer and mobile telephone equipment.

-- Cracked by Spanish Police

In the war against terror, especially after the Bali bombings of October 2002, both Malaysia and Indonesia exerted pressure on the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) activists on their soil. As a result, it was believed the operational leadership of JI fled to Thailand.

Arrests made in June 2003 of three men plotting to bomb western embassies in Bangkok during a regional summit brought to light the existence and movement of terrorists in Thailand much to the embarrassment of the government.

Later the Thai police also nabbed a school teacher who was trying to sell the ingredients for a "dirty bomb". When Hambali, the mastermind behind the Bali bombings and operational chief of JI was arrested in Thailand in August 2003, the Thai government realized that terrorists are also functioning in their backyard.

-- Hambali found by US CIA living in Ayuthaya

A Russian arms dealer thought to have inspired the lead character in the blockbuster film Lord of War was arrested in Bangkok today.

Viktor Bout, 41, was detained while allegedly attempting to buy weapons for Colombian rebels.

Dubbed "the merchant of death", he has been accused of breaking UN embargoes since the early 1990s by selling arms to conflict-torn regions in Africa and around the world.

Thai police said today that Mr Bout had been arrested in a Bangkok hotel. "He was attempting to procure weapons for Colombia's FARC rebels", the arrest report said.

-- Arrested in US FBI sting operation

(…to be continued no doubt)

But mystery remained over where Selvarajah Pathmanathan, theman who ran the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's (LTTE) lucrative arms and smuggling operations for decades, was arrested.

Pathmanathan is the public face of the LTTE's post-war remnants and the highest-ranking Tiger still alive, after troops killed LTTE founder Vellupillai Prabhakaran in the war's cataclysmic final battle on the northeastern coast on May 18.

"He is in custody in Colombo and is being questioned," saidmilitary spokesman Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara, who declined to say where hehad been arrested.

Late on Thursday, Nanayakkara had said Pathmanathan — wanted on two Interpol warrants and better known by his nickname KP — was picked up inThailand.

But Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said he had information Pathmanathan had been arrested — but not in Thailand.

The LTTE, in an e-mailed statement, said he had been arrested by Malaysian intelligence officers on Wednesday, but Malaysian authorities denied that.

Sri Lankan officials declined yesterday to say where he had been caught, citing diplomatic necessity.

"It is a sensitive issue and the government wants to respect the wishes of all parties involved," a senior Sri Lankan official said oncondition of anonymity.

-- Unclear who arrested him and where; possible 'secret deal' by Thailand

Jemaah Islamiya operates across Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and possibly in the Philippines and Thailand. Due to weak central authority and lax or corrupt law enforcement and open borders allows J.I. to operate easily throughout the region.

Following the regional crackdown against JI, it is unclear how the network has responded. The JI is believed to have cells spanning Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and southern Thailand and may have some presence in neighboring countries.

In January, 2005, a Singaporean Jemaah Islamiyah fugitive, Mas Selamat Kastari, and four others were believed to have fled to Thailand. Kastari was suspected to be planning to hijack an aircraft from Indonesia,Malaysia or Thailand, and crash it into Changi Airport.

-- Apparently still at large

Often linked to the infamous Saudi gems case, it appears that four Saudi diplomats who were assassinated in Thailand may have been killed by the "terrorist" group Hezbollah:

According to Wikileaks: it was commonly accepted by Thai security and intelligence officials that the four Saudi diplomats had been killed by Hezbollah, supposedly in retribution for bungled attempts by the Saudi government to assassinate Hezbollah operatives. Panitan said there was no clear reason why this information had not been made public in the face of media confusion, other than that the RTG had been cautious about the association with Hezbollah and Iran.

--Unsolved, and likely to remain that way

Edited July 11, 2011 by chaoyang

[dmcguire70]

I see that the UK is not on the list, why not, we have more home bred terrorists than most "civilised" countries!

Yes that is rather odd.I'd have the UK on the list before Thailand.

[spidermike007]

It's very easy for Thais to get visas to the USA. Just show up and watch as 90% get accepted when they go up to the booth.

That is such a crock of sh++. You are misinformed. I personally know of at least 10 Thais that have been turned down. The level of your ignorance is phenomenal. You are one of the great fools of the land, to utter such falsehoods, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Not only was my girlfriend turned down, but she met a woman who was married to an American, and she had been turned down 5 times! The state department told me that a Thai national applying for a tourist visa would be turned down flat, unless they had a minimum of 20 million baht cash in the bank, property assets, etc. Somebody who knows as little as you do will be doing all of mankind a favor by keeping his mouth shut, and not offering any advice.

Spidermike, such venom, you really should control yourself. None of the forum rules, that I have read, say that a poster has to be sensible, have a brain, if in possession of same put it into gear, or refrain from writing complete rubbish. That is half the fun of reading the posts on this forum. Just to make your day, I have a mate (an American) who has recently had approval for his GF to visit the US with him. She has little or no money and no land, but comes from a good Isan family.

Would love to hear how she accomplished that. I have heard and seen repeated attempts, to no avail. I am not saying it is impossible, just extremely difficult. Please let me know, if you are able to find out how she did it. Perhaps her family has real money? Officials in Washington told me not to even bother trying with less that 20,000,000 baht in the bank here in Thailand.

[spidermike007]

The bottom line, is that both the yellow shirt occupation of Suvarnabhumi, and the takeover of Bangkok by the red shirts for 6 plus weeks, were both terrorist events. That is how the international community views it. It was a mistake of enormous proportions that Samak did not stop the yellow shirts from getting within 2 kilometers of the airport. And it was an equally enormous mistake when Abhisit did not stop the red shirt demonstrations within the first week or two. Both could have been prevented. Both spiraled into massive events, that forever damaged the reputation of Thailand. Of course, everything the US does at this point is misguided, but that is besides the point. Thailand has to accept responsibility for allowing both of these disastrous events to happen, and the aftermath. This will not go away. The memories are here to stay. Perhaps the mistake Abhisit made was to not stop the protests earlier, even if it meant a loss of human life. You shut down a world capital, and lose your life in the process, and that is simply a price you may have to pay, for such an act of foolishness. The US has gone bonkers with this terrorism nonsense. It is an empire in decline, and as an American, I can say the government is making one mistake after another. But, all of that is besides the point. Thailand, and some of it's very incompetent politicians have to claim some responsibility. Humility is not exactly a strong suit, of the tiny men that have been leading this nation for quite some time.

Another genius.

Do you have ANY idea what terrorism is?

Neither the Yellow Shirts, nor the Red Shirts are terrorists, and neither of their main activities, including Rachaprasong and the Airport takover, NOR the Asean seige were terrorist activities.

Terrorism is the act of indiscriminate killing and injuring of innocent civilians to produce terror in a populace for political ends. I will admit that who ever fired M-79 grenades at the BTS platform, and those who set bombs in trash bins in Bangkok were acting as terrorists, but there is no proof that they were directed by, or approved by either Reds or Yellows.

Examples of terrorism, successful I might add, are the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11/2001, bombings in Bali, Mumbai, the Lockerbee Pan Am bomb, etc.

Can you see any similarities to the Airport shutdown? I can't.

And while I share your assessment that my country is in decline, I can't help noting that people who don't know the difference between civil disobedience and terrorism, are not helping prevent that decline. Rather, they are giving comfort to the enemy.

The effects of terrorism are subtle but powerful - GWBush & Co. took mean advantage of those effects, and may have sealed our fate. I still hope not. The true terrorists are gleeful. Don't play into their hands.

Most informed sources I speak with feel that taking over the flagship airport, and shutting it down for days is an extreme act. In your mind, it is not an act of terrorism. Where I come from, it certainly is. In my mind, it certainly is. It threatens the economy of the nation, and is an act that should never have been allowed to happen. Whether or not the red shirts were directly responsible for the burning of central world, and the other buildings in Bangkok during their rallies is almost besides the point. The fact of the matter is, the red shirt leaders lost control of their rallies, and their people, and they have to accept responsibility for the horrendous damage they did directly, or indirectly to Thai society, as a result of that. Abhisit should have acted sooner. The loss of life is a small thing compared to maintaining order, and keeping the capital up and running. Sorry to have offended your liberal mind, but the facts are the facts.

[whybother]

Most informed sources I speak with feel that taking over the flagship airport, and shutting it down for days is an extreme act. In your mind, it is not an act of terrorism. Where I come from, it certainly is. In my mind, it certainly is. It threatens the economy of the nation, and is an act that should never have been allowed to happen. Whether or not the red shirts were directly responsible for the burning of central world, and the other buildings in Bangkok during their rallies is almost besides the point. The fact of the matter is, the red shirt leaders lost control of their rallies, and their people, and they have to accept responsibility for the horrendous damage they did directly, or indirectly to Thai society, as a result of that. Abhisit should have acted sooner. The loss of life is a small thing compared to maintaining order, and keeping the capital up and running. Sorry to have offended your liberal mind, but the facts are the facts.

First of all, the yellow shirts should be (and are being) charged for what they did at various airports.

But I don't see how it can be considered terrorism.

Certainly "threatening the economy of the nation" would not be a reason to call it terrorism.

If they had blocked all the roads into/out of the airports and therefore caused it's closure - would that have been terrorism? When taxi drivers blockade airports because of their disputes - is that terrorism? When baggage handlers or pilots go on strike and cause an airport to effectively close - is that terrorism? When workers at the wharves go on strike and stop anything from moving in and out of the ports - is that terrorism?

Did the yellow shirts take any hostages? Did they attack any passengers? At the airport, did they blow anything up, or go rampaging through the terminals?

I'm sure there were some pretty pissed off passengers, but were they in any danger? Did the yellow shirts threaten them?

Protesting at an airport and causing it to close simply isn't terrorism.

It's a huge inconvenience to a lot of people, but since when is that considered terrorism?

[lannarebirth]

Most informed sources I speak with feel that taking over the flagship airport, and shutting it down for days is an extreme act. In your mind, it is not an act of terrorism. Where I come from, it certainly is. In my mind, it certainly is. It threatens the economy of the nation, and is an act that should never have been allowed to happen. Whether or not the red shirts were directly responsible for the burning of central world, and the other buildings in Bangkok during their rallies is almost besides the point. The fact of the matter is, the red shirt leaders lost control of their rallies, and their people, and they have to accept responsibility for the horrendous damage they did directly, or indirectly to Thai society, as a result of that. Abhisit should have acted sooner. The loss of life is a small thing compared to maintaining order, and keeping the capital up and running. Sorry to have offended your liberal mind, but the facts are the facts.

First of all, the yellow shirts should be (and are being) charged for what they did at various airports.

But I don't see how it can be considered terrorism.

Certainly "threatening the economy of the nation" would not be a reason to call it terrorism.

I'm certainly willing to accept this premise the minute I start to see thousands of global bankers indicted.

[SteeleJoe]

Most informed sources I speak with feel...

Who are these informed sources? And what does it have to do with what they feel? While clearly the issue of what is or sin't terrorism has been contentious and remains so, there are consistent definitions for terrorism in most dictionaries and in international law.

I've never understood why people need to make it subjective. The only thing that should be subjective, to my mind, is whether terrorism is ever justified -- ie must "terrorism" be inherently pejorative in meaning or is that a value judgement that we attach to the tactic(s) described therein. Why must we politicize and thus cloud the issue with semantics and partisan rhetoric? Why not just agree that "terrorism" means what the UN says it does and be done with it?

Any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

EDIT to ADD:

That was disingenuous; of course I understand why people need to make it subjective and they politicize it.

But it annoys me as it only obfuscates and enables bigots and apologists on both sides of various conflicts.

Edited July 11, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[hanuman1]

It seems to me that pre Al Quaida the term 'terrorist' was much less used by governments.

Prior to the US concentrating its intelligence and military agencies more on 'terrorists' than more easily defined and identified armed enemies such as foreign armies and military wings, governments the world over would use terms such as 'insurgents' and 'rebels' whereas today they call them 'terrorists'.

I can see a couple of reasons for this:

1) Seeing that the US suddenly focused its fear and might on terrorism, other governments could now garner more sympathy and support and all the beneficial things that come with it - aid, standing etc - from the US if they too made it known that they were suddenly suffering from a similar scourge and trying to combat it.

2) Governments could suddenly create more draconian laws and longer sentencing tariffs for those they deemed 'terrorists', thus more effectively suppressing opposition in their countries.

If we go back pre Al Quaida and look at the way the word 'terrorist' was applied back them, its characteristics would generally involve a clearly defined policy involving the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants to spread fear as a way of putting pressure on governments.

Since these characteristics cannot be applied to the actions of either Reds or Yellows in Thailand, I can only see that the reason for labelling them as such must be one of the two points above. IMHO, neither group is a terrorist group.

Post Al Quaida, other governments around the world have described killings of their own soldiers as terrorist activities but this too would fall outside of the 'traditional' definition of what terrorist activity is.

I'm not saying that it's America's fault that so many governments that face armed insurgent groups around the world are so quick to label them 'terrorists', but it is a side-effect of its role as a world leader that whatever scares it can be used to sway its judgement, and this current global trend of labelling any group which contains some armed elements as 'terrorist' is not actually helping to achieve peace in the localities where it is being applied.

Maybe this is one reason why in Thailand people accused of 'terrorism' are allowed out on bail and even to become MPs, and also why - in my opinion - this US list is not to do with Red/Yellow shirts.

Edited July 11, 2011 by hanuman1

[phiphidon]

[

So whilst most countries would see the terrorist tag being used as a political tool, the americans, having started the "War on Terror" are duty bound, it seems, to place Thailand on the Terrorist Watch List due to Abhisits labelling of the Red Shirts as Terrorists (aided and abetted by Suthep and various other democrat flunkies jumping on the bandwagon).

First 'Americans' should be capitalized.

Second, bandying about of the word "terrorist" notwithstanding, this has NOTHING to do with Red or Yellow shirts, or with Ratchaprasong or the airport.

Look south, and/or to Sukhumvit Soi 3. Thailand is porous, AND has some of the homegrown article. Jihadis on R&R break, and groups who assassinate monks and schoolteachers are worthy of scrutiny.

And no where is Thailand on a terrorist watch list. That is inane. The article is about inclusion on a list of "Specially Designated Countries", which means that people, otherwise detained by DHS, should have their identities checked ("Third Agent Check") to see if they are wanted by another jurisdiction. No impact on visa issuance, no extra hassles for legal entrants into the US.

Do some reading before posting.

Obviously hit a nerve with the uncapatilized american - how do you feel about the french interpretation "un americain" but I suppose you would get that confused as being something you, as a nation, don't agree with. I digress, I was responding to the OP posted by the Nation. Once again it seems that the Nation is wrong. OK, nothing strange there, complain to them , not me.Oh and I didn't mention Yellow shirts, Ratchaprasong or the airport - do some reading before replying.

Edited July 11, 2011 by phiphidon

[Bkkorupcountry]

Were it not for America's self proclaimed role as the world's police force and it's debatable foreign policies, we might well be still living in peace and terrorism would be a word consigned to the annals of history.

[spidermike007]

[

So whilst most countries would see the terrorist tag being used as a political tool, the americans, having started the "War on Terror" are duty bound, it seems, to place Thailand on the Terrorist Watch List due to Abhisits labelling of the Red Shirts as Terrorists (aided and abetted by Suthep and various other democrat flunkies jumping on the bandwagon).

First 'Americans' should be capitalized.

Second, bandying about of the word "terrorist" notwithstanding, this has NOTHING to do with Red or Yellow shirts, or with Ratchaprasong or the airport.

Look south, and/or to Sukhumvit Soi 3. Thailand is porous, AND has some of the homegrown article. Jihadis on R&R break, and groups who assassinate monks and schoolteachers are worthy of scrutiny.

And no where is Thailand on a terrorist watch list. That is inane. The article is about inclusion on a list of "Specially Designated Countries", which means that people, otherwise detained by DHS, should have their identities checked ("Third Agent Check") to see if they are wanted by another jurisdiction. No impact on visa issuance, no extra hassles for legal entrants into the US.

Do some reading before posting.

Obviously hit a nerve with the uncapatilized american - how do you feel about the french interpretation "un americain" but I suppose you would get that confused as being something you, as a nation, don't agree with. I digress, I was responding to the OP posted by the Nation. Once again it seems that the Nation is wrong. OK, nothing strange there, complain to them , not me.Oh and I didn't mention Yellow shirts, Ratchaprasong or the airport - do some reading before replying.

Though I am an american, I deliberately do not capitalize the word, as I truly feel that america has not been earning that respect, in the past 10 years of so. It is an empire in decline, and as far as I am concerned, a nearly completely dysfunctional government. It has been for some time. So, the choice I made is, and was deliberate, and I plan to continue doing so, as a form of personal protest against a nation that is getting so much wrong, and so little right. How about that?

[chaoyang]

Were it not for America's self proclaimed role as the world's police force and it's debatable foreign policies, we might well be still living in peace and terrorism would be a word consigned to the annals of history.

Or is it the anus of history? 'Cause a lot of you fellas are sure talkin' out yo ass.

But I'm not calling you (alone) a butt-hole.

[Gonsalviz]

Most informed sources I speak with feel that taking over the flagship airport, and shutting it down for days is an extreme act. In your mind, it is not an act of terrorism. Where I come from, it certainly is. In my mind, it certainly is. It threatens the economy of the nation, and is an act that should never have been allowed to happen. Whether or not the red shirts were directly responsible for the burning of central world, and the other buildings in Bangkok during their rallies is almost besides the point. The fact of the matter is, the red shirt leaders lost control of their rallies, and their people, and they have to accept responsibility for the horrendous damage they did directly, or indirectly to Thai society, as a result of that. Abhisit should have acted sooner. The loss of life is a small thing compared to maintaining order, and keeping the capital up and running. Sorry to have offended your liberal mind, but the facts are the facts.

First of all, the yellow shirts should be (and are being) charged for what they did at various airports.

But I don't see how it can be considered terrorism.

Certainly "threatening the economy of the nation" would not be a reason to call it terrorism.

If they had blocked all the roads into/out of the airports and therefore caused it's closure - would that have been terrorism? When taxi drivers blockade airports because of their disputes - is that terrorism? When baggage handlers or pilots go on strike and cause an airport to effectively close - is that terrorism? When workers at the wharves go on strike and stop anything from moving in and out of the ports - is that terrorism?

Did the yellow shirts take any hostages? Did they attack any passengers? At the airport, did they blow anything up, or go rampaging through the terminals?

I'm sure there were some pretty pissed off passengers, but were they in any danger? Did the yellow shirts threaten them?

Protesting at an airport and causing it to close simply isn't terrorism.

It's a huge inconvenience to a lot of people, but since when is that considered terrorism?

Osama Bin Laden's entire career was to threaten the economies of rich nations. I guess in your mind, what he did is not terrorism?

[Gonsalviz]

Were it not for America's self proclaimed role as the world's police force and it's debatable foreign policies, we might well be still living in peace and terrorism would be a word consigned to the annals of history.

[/quote}

Naive is way too weak of a word to describe your thought. I am American. I am sure that the government makes some not very wise decisions but if you think that the world can do with out some kind of police you are sorely mistaken.

[SteeleJoe]

Osama Bin Laden's entire career was to threaten the economies of rich nations. I guess in your mind, what he did is not terrorism?

Sorry, but your post makes no sense.

If someone contends that threatening an economy in and of itself does not meet the definition of "terrorism" that does not mean that any action that threatens an economy can not be terrorism. Indeed it's an objective fact that a negative effect on the target country's economy is a welcome and not unanticipated consequence (no doubt often a deliberate if not primary one). If terrorism is defined something along the lines that the UN describes it ('Any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act') there's nothing that excludes economic repercussions there -- and I think maybe we can apply that description to Osama bin Laden's "career", don't you?

Edited July 15, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[whybother]

Osama Bin Laden's entire career was to threaten the economies of rich nations. I guess in your mind, what he did is not terrorism?

Nice try, but no cigar.

What I said was

Certainly "threatening the economy of the nation" would not be a reason to call it terrorism.

Osama bin Laden did a lot more than just threaten the economy of a nation.

[chooka]

No need for Thailand to get to upset about this, The U.S also look down on thier allies and have them on the list also. You are my friend come help us but we don't trust you.

[Gonsalviz]

Osama Bin Laden's entire career was to threaten the economies of rich nations. I guess in your mind, what he did is not terrorism?

Sorry, but your post makes no sense.

If someone contends that threatening an economy in and of itself does not meet the definition of "terrorism" that does not mean that any action that threatens an economy can not be terrorism. Indeed it's an objective fact that a negative effect on the target country's economy is a welcome and not unanticipated consequence (no doubt often a deliberate if not primary one). If terrorism is defined something along the lines that the UN describes it ('Any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act') there's nothing that excludes economic repercussions there -- and I think maybe we can apply that description to Osama bin Laden's "career", don't you?

The attack on the Twin Towers was an attack on the economy of the United States of America and as it turns out the rest of the world. The death and destruction were mere collateral damage for a demented mind.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Gonsalviz

[FOODLOVER]

No need for Thailand to get to upset about this, The U.S also look down on thier allies and have them on the list also. You are my friend come help us but we don't trust you.

Depending on the"Allie" they may also be saying "Please give us your billions why we harbor terrorists and bend you over while never giving you dinner".Cigarette anyone?

[SteeleJoe]

Osama Bin Laden's entire career was to threaten the economies of rich nations. I guess in your mind, what he did is not terrorism?

Sorry, but your post makes no sense.

If someone contends that threatening an economy in and of itself does not meet the definition of "terrorism" that does not mean that any action that threatens an economy can not be terrorism. Indeed it's an objective fact that a negative effect on the target country's economy is a welcome and not unanticipated consequence (no doubt often a deliberate if not primary one). If terrorism is defined something along the lines that the UN describes it ('Any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act') there's nothing that excludes economic repercussions there -- and I think maybe we can apply that description to Osama bin Laden's "career", don't you?

The attack on the Twin Towers was an attack on the economy of the United States of America and as it turns out the rest of the world. The death and destruction were mere collateral damage for a demented mind.

We can argue about that -- and I suspect you'd be unable to support that claim with any real substance -- but there's no reason to assume that one desired outcome has to hold clear and significant primacy over another More to the point, as your post now acknowledges, the action was comprised of an intent to cause death or serious bodily harm etc -- the fact that economic repercussins occurred --desired or not, primary motive or not -- does not in any way mean that those economic motives repercussions alone are enough to make it terrorism.

I wonder why you try and work backwards like this -- look at results and then claim they argue (by extension) that the results (or rather, the particular ones you choose) are what serve as the definition of that act.

I also think it curious that you speak of ObL's entire career and then cite only WTC as your proof. Tell me about the African Embassies, for example.

For that matter, you realize that terrorism didn't start or end with bin Laden, surely? Maybe you should look at a list of events that are almost universally regarded as terrorism and see how many you can argue were in fact attacks on an economy where "the death and destruction were were mere collateral damage for a demented mind".

PS:

You are confusing cause and effect; even allowing that economic damage is a motive -- even for the sake of argument, the primary one -- that doesn't negate the fat that the death and carnage that causes the economic damage is part of a strategy that is meant as a blow against an enemy for reasons of politics/ideology.

So again, the economic component in no way precludes or excludes the violence or diminishes its significance. Indeed, how would you really have the former without the latter?

Edited July 15, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Gonsalviz]

No need for Thailand to get to upset about this, The U.S also look down on thier allies and have them on the list also. You are my friend come help us but we don't trust you.

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

It applies in your personal life also.