Naming Of Thailand On New US Terror Risk List Worrying

[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.

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".

Anyone that thinks that terrorism began or will end with ObL (as you say) would be very naive.

What I am trying to say is that his (et al) entire plan was to destroy western economies because in some manner devised in his miniature brain, they have abused the poor people of the middle east and become rich on their oil monies. In reality the Sultanates, Emirs and Kings of these nations are the ones that squandered the monies that were derived from this oil economy. Squandered it for themselves and left out the peoples they are supposed to be the leaders of.

No matter the means of what they were trying to do or how they did it, the entire basis for these attacks was to destroy the economies of western nations.

[SteeleJoe]

What I am trying to say is that his (et al) entire plan was to destroy western economies because in some manner devised in his miniature brain, they have abused the poor people of the middle east and become rich on their oil monies...No matter the means of what they were trying to do or how they did it, the entire basis for these attacks was to destroy the economies of western nations.

I've read a fair bit on the subject of radical Islamism as well as ObL. I'd be interested in anything you can point to that supports your absolutism about his sole motive, entire strategy and singular objective.

And AGAIN: none of what you say negates the original contention (that you dismissed) that economic damage alone doesn't constitute terrorism. Indeed in a effort to support your position, rather than cite a single instance of a "terrorist" act which had results entirely comprised of economic damage, you offer an action that in addition to economic damage resulted in circa 3,000 deaths.

[whybother]

Anyone that thinks that terrorism began or will end with ObL (as you say) would be very naive.

What I am trying to say is that his (et al) entire plan was to destroy western economies because in some manner devised in his miniature brain, they have abused the poor people of the middle east and become rich on their oil monies. In reality the Sultanates, Emirs and Kings of these nations are the ones that squandered the monies that were derived from this oil economy. Squandered it for themselves and left out the peoples they are supposed to be the leaders of.

No matter the means of what they were trying to do or how they did it, the entire basis for these attacks was to destroy the economies of western nations.

"His entire plan was to destroy western economies" and he used terrorism to do that.

The yellow shirts plan wasn't to destroy the economy of Thailand. What they did by blocking the airports had an effect on the economy, as do a lot of protests and labour strikes. That doesn't make it terrorism just because Osama bin Laden's plan was to destroy western economies.

[Gonsalviz]

What I am trying to say is that his (et al) entire plan was to destroy western economies because in some manner devised in his miniature brain, they have abused the poor people of the middle east and become rich on their oil monies...No matter the means of what they were trying to do or how they did it, the entire basis for these attacks was to destroy the economies of western nations.

I've read a fair bit on the subject of radical Islamism as well as ObL. I'd be interested in anything you can point to that supports your absolutism about his sole motive, entire strategy and singular objective.

And AGAIN: none of what you say negates the original contention (that you dismissed) that economic damage alone doesn't constitute terrorism. Indeed in a effort to support your position, rather than cite a single instance of a "terrorist" act which had results entirely comprised of economic damage, you offer an action that in addition to economic damage resulted in circa 3,000 deaths.

You know, I don't care anymore. It could have been any number of places where these planes could have crashed and still killed 3,000+. Do you think there might be any significance in where they really did crash? Or are you you another one of the non-believers of 9/11?

[SteeleJoe]

You know, I don't care anymore. It could have been any number of places where these planes could have crashed and still killed 3,000+. Do you think there might be any significance in where they really did crash?

You aren't real good at this, are you?

1) I have not once claimed that economic effects were not a desired and welcome result of the attacks on WTC. Indeed, I said precisely that they were and acknowledged it more than once.

2) I have never claimed that the deaths were the sole or even primary objective. Indeed, I happen to know that while no doubt there is just an element of sheer malice and nihilism in such an action, as a rule deaths are a means to an end in terrorism; they are the cause rather than the effect (ie the number of deaths furthers the strategic goals of the perpetrators).

3) You seem to think the WTC is the one and only incident needed to be looked at to define any and all terrorism. (Otherwise, why not mention the deaths that have happened elsewhere and explain how the selection of those targets support your thesis).

4) You have failed to actually address any of my rebuttals or respond to my calls for support for your claims.

Or are you you another one of the non-believers of 9/11?

I can't even begin to work out what that means or why you said it.

By the way, you may think the WTC as a target explains everything, but you apparently fail to recognize the other symbolic/psychological and political reasons why it would be a target -- reasons that neither Ramzi Youzef in '93 nor Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he proposed it to ObL in '96 failed to recognize.

[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.

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?

In league with the US Federal Reserve, The European Central Bank and Goldman Sachs no doubt.

[xenaz]

Viewpoint worrying yes so; Thailand, Philippines, Egypt, Israel recently put on new USA terrorism watch scare fear lists. Articles found on this are misleading… “Promote, Produce, Protect Terrorism” does not seem like Thailand, unusual, there are bad folks found everywhere in the world. These countries were USA allies working together on counter terror initiatives, now suddenly switch has been flipped, a recipe for hostilities for all these countries. As well look for added BS bureaucracy for travel Thailand-USA because of ambiguous third party agency descriptions and the idiots assuming they know best how to construe practices for following policies. The totalitarian tables are being set, backed by Obamaism admin at its worst.

[Nisa]

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.

Nonsense. Any significant or long lasting economic impact was to do with the war in Iraq that nobody could have guessed 9/11 would be an excuse for. The US economic troubles had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorist and was the doing of dishonest & greedy accounting and banking practices. As well, the global and US financial crisis didn't even raise it's head until 7 years later. As for BinLaden's motives, we simply need to listen to his own words that say nothing about an economic impact since nobody saw any real concern even 3 years after the attacks ...

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack

the towers

, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-

Israeli

alliance against our people in

Palestine

and

Lebanon

—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were

that of 1982

and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the

U.S. Sixth Fleet

. As I watched

the destroyed towers in Lebanon

, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

— Osama bin Laden, 2004

Edited July 15, 2011 by Nisa

[SteeleJoe]

As for BinLaden's motives, we simply need to listen to his own words that say nothing about an economic impact since nobody saw any real concern even 3 years after the attacks ...

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack

the towers

, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-

Israeli

alliance against our people in

Palestine

and

Lebanon

—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were

that of 1982

and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the

U.S. Sixth Fleet

. As I watched

the destroyed towers in Lebanon

, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

— Osama bin Laden, 2004

This is somewhat off topic from OP so I'll try and refrain rambling on as much as I might be inclined to on this topic, but..

I think it would be extremely ill-advised to take ObL's public statements on his motives at face value. Foolish even. Why would we assume what he said was true? Surely it should be obvious that -- just as with a US President or UK Prime Minister et al -- he used political rhetoric that would garner support and give palatable justifications for his deeds.

There is little evidence to support any real concern for Palestine (indeed, Radical Islamists and Palestinian radicals were often enemies and contemptuous and/or distrustful of one another and Radical Islamists in general -- and ObL/al Q have done little or nothing for the Palestinians directly and certainly far less than they could have).

[Nisa]

As for BinLaden's motives, we simply need to listen to his own words that say nothing about an economic impact since nobody saw any real concern even 3 years after the attacks ...

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack

the towers

, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-

Israeli

alliance against our people in

Palestine

and

Lebanon

—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were

that of 1982

and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the

U.S. Sixth Fleet

. As I watched

the destroyed towers in Lebanon

, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women."

— Osama bin Laden, 2004

This is somewhat off topic from OP so I'll try and refrain rambling on as much as I might be inclined to on this topic, but..

I think it would be extremely ill-advised to take ObL's public statements on his motives at face value. Foolish even. Why would we assume what he said was true? Surely it should be obvious that -- just as with a US President or UK Prime Minister et al -- he used political rhetoric that would garner support and give palatable justifications for his deeds.

There is little evidence to support any real concern for Palestine (indeed, Radical Islamists and Palestinian radicals were often enemies and contemptuous and/or distrustful of one another and Radical Islamists in general -- and ObL/al Q have done little or nothing for the Palestinians directly and certainly far less than they could have).

My reply had to do with disputing the attack being motivated by economic reasons. Clearly his statement would have included this if significant economic damage was done ... not to mention the vast terrorist attacks are not done for economic reasons ( can't think of one off the top of my head) but instead are done to cause terror, fear, confusion, awareness as well as revenge. As for his words in this instance, I believe that he believed them. He was a lunatic who found a cause and loved being a leader. Psychologically he had issues that put him in this role but he did latch on to the Muslim cause and there are few worse places for Muslim's than in Palestine. His crazed obsession and dedication to Muslim causes started when he was very young. His stated reasons for the attack are logical and accepted as fact unless you want to believe he did it because "he hates freedom" as George Bush would like everyone to believe. We can also believe this about the Palestinians reasons for fighting as well as why BinLaden went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

Bottom line is that usually one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Both in my mind are sick. Keep in mind there were approx. 900,000 civilians killed in Iraq & Afghanistan after 9/11 compared with the 3,000 killed on 9/11.

[Thaddeus]

Bottom line is that usually one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Whenever that line is trotted out, the response to it should be.

Freedom Fighters are fighting against armed oppressors, a la French Resistance.

Terrorists kill innocent unarmed civilians.

There is a large difference.

[SteeleJoe]

As for his words in this instance, I believe that he believed them.

I don't know why you would. And given the copious reading I've done of people who have studied him far more than I (and perhaps yourself), I think I have some pretty sound reasons for my doubts.

He was a lunatic who found a cause and loved being a leader. Psychologically he had issues that put him in this role but he did latch on to the Muslim cause and there are few worse places for Muslim's than in Palestine.

I don't know that he was a lunatic. Nor do I think it helpful -- rather the contrary in my view -- to demonize him as some sort of madman rather than a ruthless and calculating leader of a a cause supported by vast numbers.

And if you view what radical Islam has always been about and where ObL's interests have been and those of Wahhabism or Salafism -- it was not primarily Palestine but rather the traitorous infidel nominally Muslim governments as well as foreign infidels and their foriegn Infidel friends. The Palestinians are generally far more secular than the Islamists. It's a fairly broad oversimplification to reduce Muslims as a whole as being primarily focused on Palestine as their grievance.

Look at the writings of Sayyid Qutb. At the Muslim Brotherhood et al. Look at the strikes in Egypt, Yemen and the like. Now compare them to how often alQ and/or radical Islamist strikes have been carried out in Israel?

ObL only began talking about Palestine a lot well after he became a devoted believer in the cause of Islamist Jihad and indeed for years into his terrorist leadership, while he gave plenty of reasons for his fight, he made much less mention of the Palestinians.

His crazed obsession and dedication to Muslim causes started when he was very young. His stated reasons for the attack are logical and accepted as fact unless you want to believe he did it because "he hates freedom" as George Bush would like everyone to believe.

I'm fairly well informed about the man -- I'm aware of when he is regarded to have become impassioned about his causes. And I am neither stupid enough nor ignorant enough to accept that simplistic BS rhetoric from the Bush administration; but you are wrong in implying that it can only be Bush's BS or the ones later given by ObL -- just as you are wrong in your absolute claim they are "accepted as fact". One only need to read about what radical Islam says and has been saying for decades to see that there are plenty of logical reasons that are not about Palestine per se or "hating freedom".

We can also believe this about the Palestinians reasons for fighting as well as why BinLaden went to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

I don't know what that means. "We" can believe what?

I know why the Palestinians fight and why ObL contributed to the Afghan jihad (he didn't "go to fight" and he didn't do that much fighting -- but he provided some useful logistical support and leadership on a small scale); their reasons are not related much at all; the Palestinians fight for what they see as their home and/or for their own political reasons (ie power and territory). The Palestinians were not traditionally Islamist (very secular in fact) and it's only relative newcomers like Hamas and Hezbollah who are more Islamic (but as proxies of Iranian Shiites, not truly compatriots of ObL and his ilk). The Mujaheddin and their Arab volunteers fought to expel and injure the brutal and despotic infidel power that had attacked Afghanistan and ...well a greater agenda that I won't go into...

Bottom line is that usually one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Wow, that cliche...Only if you buy that moral relativism s**t -- which I don't. Whether you agree with his cause or not or even feel his actions are justified, a terrorist is a terrorist. A "freedom fighter"? That's just partisan rhetoric.

Keep in mind there were approx. 900,000 civilians killed in Iraq & Afghanistan after 9/11 compared with the 3,000 killed on 9/11.

Why would you direct me to keep that in mind? (And you realize that we don't know for sure about the numbers?):

1) I never supported war in Iraq.

2) I never saw the reason for war in Afghanistan as being about achieving some sort of retribution or parity in a body count of innocents so I don't see where the 2 figures have anything to do with each other. One was the result of a deliberate mass murder, the other is an at least partly unavoidable but undesired result of war-making (justified or not, strategically sound or not, etc).

Would it have been OK if only 3,000 Muslim civilians had died in the war(s)? Of course not. Are those deaths, in retrospect, reasons to not have gone to war? For some, I'm sure they are. No doubt others would say that to a great extent such things are horribly tragic but inevitable in a necessary fight against an ultimately greater evil (eg German and Japanese civilians in WWII). That is a debate I'd rather not go into here (especially given that it has zero to do with what we are currently discussing or the OP)

EDITED: I overstated things a wee bit in one portion and tried to correct. mea culpa.

Edited July 15, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

Man, I tried to not go into a long spiel but asa result only managed to be even less effective in what I was trying to say than I normally might have been and still went on too long...

Oh, well.

[Nisa]

Bottom line is that usually one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Whenever that line is trotted out, the response to it should be.

Freedom Fighters are fighting against armed oppressors, a la French Resistance.

Terrorists kill innocent unarmed civilians.

There is a large difference.

According to many posters here who love to complain, Thailand can be considered an oppressive nation as can so many others. I guess that makes the Reds, who took siege of the city and burned down buildings, freedom fighters. As well, your definition of a terrorist would apply to the US and UK to name just a few. In fact, with more than 800,000 civilians killed during the war in Iraq, you might say the US is the biggest terrorist of the new century. And had Germany won the war, the French Resistance would without a doubt be viewed as terrorist now.

[Thaddeus]

Bottom line is that usually one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Whenever that line is trotted out, the response to it should be.

Freedom Fighters are fighting against armed oppressors, a la French Resistance.

Terrorists kill innocent unarmed civilians.

There is a large difference.

According to many posters here who love to complain, Thailand can be considered an oppressive nation as can so many others. I guess that makes the Reds, who took siege of the city and burned down buildings, freedom fighters.

Absolutely not, innocent unarmed civilians were in those buildings.

[animatic]

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.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

—Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.

—Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.

—James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.

—Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

—FBI Definition

Definition of TERRORISM Function: noun

Date: 1795

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun

- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

terrorism: "...the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective. Terrorism has been used by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and ethnic groups, by revolutionaries, and by the armies and secret police of governments themselves."

Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as:

"..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorists:

• Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

• International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.

Edited July 15, 2011 by animatic

[warfie]

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.

With all due respect (and considering the insults you stooped to hurling, zero respect is due).

My wife has just applied for and received a visa to visit the USA this September, with nothing like the assets you mention...

Who is holding the crock now?

"Somebody who knows as little as you do will be doing all of mankind a favour by keeping his mouth shut, and not offering any advice."

[Nisa]

Terrorism is defined in the U.S. by the Code of Federal Regulations as:

"..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

The key in this is that the acts need to be "unlawful" and guess who defines what is lawful? It is either the US or those in power. If you take away the words "unlawful" then clearly the US is a terrorist nation. But even leaving those words in, the Iraq war was questionably illegal by some international standards and this ongoing attack resulted in the death of more than 800,000 civilians for what was purely social and political change.

I certainly do not in any way shape or form condone the attacks of 9/11 but if one would step back from our typically brainwashed minds then one could view this as an attack against the US government and military by a group who didn't posses the resources to use standard military weapons (fighter jets & bombs). Both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center housed personal and resources for the government intelligence and military making them perfectly legit military targets. Having innocent civilians getting killed or being collateral damage is simply the cost of warfare and always has been. Ever see pictures of Berlin after the war? Upwards to 3-million German civilians died as a result of the war. Bombing of civilian factories, power plants and civilian run military contractors are all the norm of war. Even with today's laser & GPS guided bombs, there are still civilians killed ... including 800,000+ in a war in Iraq where the opposition had little to no use of missiles, tanks or planes and mostly were fighting with small arms or improvised and stationary explosives.

If one of our countries cheated in warfare against a much superior force in order to preserve our way of life and did something similar to using civilian airliners (we've shot them down before) while sacrificing their own lives to harm the enemy then I think they would be considered (incorrectly) heroes.

It is all about what side you are on and of course both side believe they are right. Sadly believing you are right is usually when people are most dangerous because they believe their actions are justified in terms of the ends justifying the needs. Because of what I have been constantly told in the US, I will not argue with the way the US took out BinLaden but clearly by all definitions the US not only committed an act of war but in all likely executed an unarmed man who had yet to be convicted of any crime. But again, the end justifies the means in terms of ignoring the laws in the US we say we hold so sacred, such as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as well as respecting the sovereignty of another nation.

[warfie]

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.

What a load of crap. Have you nothing better to do with your time, rather than posting utter rubbish. Get a life you sad person

Pot, kettle, black... any bells ringing yet?

[noahvail]

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.

What a load of crap. Have you nothing better to do with your time, rather than posting utter rubbish. Get a life you sad person

Pot, kettle, black... any bells ringing yet?

Indeed. I know several women here in Issan who have next to no assets, but they were granted visas to the US to visit b/fs or husbands, with no trouble. The only one I know who was rejected has a criminal record.

[elcent]

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.

—Brian Jenkins

Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.

—Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.

—James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.

—Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

—FBI Definition

Definition of TERRORISM Function: noun

According to the description above the USA got five stars. Even without considering 911 yet. 911 will be dealt with surprise findings coming pretty soon. It will probably be awarded with the David star too. Just last week there was a prominent terror analyst, with 13 years experience, sacked for claiming that it was an insider job.

Below a list you may find interesting.

The Jamaat Ul Fuqra camps, Hezbollah and Hamas offices were listed in latitude and longitude.

These are the last known and suspected Terrorist camps and offices in the USA. "Last known" due to the fact that the map and updates of these places "disappeared off the internet (about 3.5 years ago)" as well as the other sites that posted them. Resources used to confirm camp locations are no longer available. "Confirmed" is posted next to the location of that camp or office. Confirmed means "confirmed" at that time. If not listed as "confirmed", it is the last known address.IMPORTANT! Some of these office locations might have moved. Some offices are located in buildings with a different name. If any one has an update to where "relocations" have been made, please keep us informed. The "training camps" are still located where they are listed according to the last report. Most of the rural locations are obscure because the Muslims live in trailers and house communities grouped together on either a loop or a single fed road.

———————————————————————-

1. Boston Mass. Al Qaeda Center: In Town on Congress Street between and Exchange Place and State street.

Lat: 42.35817130045408n

Long: 71.05664670467376w "Confirmed"

2. Deposit NY: MOA Center: CR 315 or second street just east of Cranes Restaurant

Lat: 42.06068428381363n

Long: 75.42914628982544w "Confirmed"

3. NY: MOA training camp 4.41 miles east of Deposit on Moslem RD.(loop)

Lat: 42.05407259873013n

Long: 75.33466815948486w "Confirmed"

4. Hancock NY: On CR 17 and Readburn Rd. Buildings are just to the North side of CR17. The training area is on the east side of Readburn Rd. at the top of the mountain. You may be able to see two drives that lead to the top where training is conducted. This is a heavily forested area. This means that the buildings are well hidden. Coordinates are for the training area.

Lat: 42.01410106690003

Long: 75.15901565551758w "Confirmed"

5. NY, NY Hezbollah Headquarters. On Chambers Street, between Church Street And Broadway

in downtown Manhattan.

Lat: 40.71468771978163n

Long:74.00701761245727w "Confirmed"

6. Philadelphia, PA. Hamas Headquarters: On East Penn Square and Market Street.

Lat:39.952466513065495n

Long: 75.16241401433944w "Confirmed"

7. Laurel MD Just north of DC Al Qaeda; Greenhill Ave. and 5Th street there is no 6th street. It has the appearance of a real nice quiet suburb.

Lat: 39.097736469452784n

Long: 76.85857057571411w "Confirmed"

8. Hyattsville, MD MOA off of Queens Chapel Rd on 39th Place between Oliver St and Queensbury Rd. Another "real nice quiet "hood"

Lat:38.96261229874328n

Long: 76.95017337799072w "Confirmed

9. Potomac MD. Hezbollah at the corner of Falls rd and River Rd(SR 190) at the "mall" conveniently located for your personal terrorist organization.

Lat: 39.01699555867987n

Long: 77.20856130123138w "Confirmed"

10. Springfield, VA. Hamas; at SR 789 Commerce St and Montecello Large building

Lat: 38.779526282880376n

Long: 77.19186723232269w "Confirmed"

11. Herndon, VA. Islamic Jihad. On SR 228 or 606 east of Spring street.

Lat: 38.96947348823921n

Long:77.38559782505035w Confirmed

12. Red House VA. Jamaat Ul Fuqra On SR 615 at Sheik Gilani ln.

Lat: 37.18599737265778n

Long: 78.76070737838745w

13. Jamaat Ul Fuqra camp. Meherrin VA. Whippoorwill Trail Rd.

Lat: 36.65292718593854n

Long: 77.97268509864807w

14. MOA on Ladysmith rd. Va.

Lat: 38.02696579292646n

Long: 77.48189449310303w

15. Raleigh NC, Islamic Jihad. Dawson St. and McDowell st come together

Lat: 35.78526046497648n

Long: 78.64223957061768w

16. Jamaat Ul Fuqra York, SC On Islamville Way Rd.

Lat: 35.05793770994537n

Long: 81.17496371269226w confirmed

17. Charlotte SC. Hezbollah at East Trade St. and North Myers

Lat: 35.22146718748899n

Long: 80.83600759506226w

18. Lake Becky SC. At the end of Lake Becky Rd.

Lat. 34.84912663399294n

Long: 83.11235547065735w

19. SE of Dover Tn. on Deep Wood Ln.

Lat. 36.4087114753392n

Long: 87.79329299926758w Confirmed

20. Commerce Ga. Jamaat Ul Fuqra On Medinah RD

Lat: 34.27071182546568n

Long:83.32666397094727w Confirmed

21. Macon, Ga. at the end of Riverwood International Wy SE of Macon by the river.

Lat:32.76842158255672n

Long: 83.59821081161499w Confirmed

22. Between Glenville and Surrency Ga. off 169 hwy. on Mecca Circle

Lat:31.816860419973068n

Long: 82.07692623138428w Confirmed

23. Al-Qaeda Orlando Fl. On 527 across from City Hall called "Impact Movement"

Lat: 28.537410272596226n

Long:81.37828588485718n Confirmed

24. Islamic Jihad Tampa Bay On N. Ashley and Jackson St. In a High Rise bld. across from the Post Office.

Lat:27.94713727789887n

Long: 82.45925098657608w Possibly moved

25.AL-Qaedia Boca Raton Fl. East Palmetto Park rd. and S. Dixie Hwy.

Lat:26.350805800022847n

Long: 80.08703291416168w Confirmed

26. Al-Qaeda Ft. Lauderdale at the corner of NW 1st Ave and NW 7th Ave.

Lat: 26.122909779177277n

Long: 80.15065222978592w Possibly has been moved.

27.Jamaat Ul Fuqra Marion Alabama where Washington St and Clements meet

Lat: 32.63504269761637n

Long: 87.31886386871338w NOT Confirmed

28.Islamic Jihad Cleveland OH. St. Clair and East 9th St.

Lat: 41.50310566790007n

Long: 81.68959379196167w Confirmed

29.Hezbollah Detroit Mich. US 12 or Michigan Ave. and Griswald St.

Lat: 42.33190416160633n

Long:83.04928600788116w

30. MOA Coldwater Mich. S Jefferson and Perkins st.

Lat: 41.93583048548881n

Long: 84.99515354633331w

31.Columbia, Mo. Hamas

Lat:38.95235264247775n

Long:92.33431309461594w

32. Hamas; Kansas City, Mo. On Main St. South of West 9th

Lat: 39.102719609024774n

Long: 94.58282768726349w

33. Talihina OK. Jamaat Ul Fuqra has/had an office on Emmert St. Last known location.

Lat: 34.753804418092514n

Long: 95.047767162323w

34. The following cities in TX. have/had Islamic offices. The exact locations have changed in the last year. Dallas and Houston, have/had Hamas offices. Arlington has/had an Al-Qaeda office. We waited to hear on a confirmation of these locations. There is no further info at this time. We cannot confirm any known addresses.

35. Denver, CO. has/had an Al-Qaeda office. We do not have the exact location as it has been moved.

36. Buena Vista, CO. Former camp and training center, was closed by the FBI, ATF due to explosives and full automatic weapons being found there.

Lat: 38.85914270848422n

Long: 105.99514961242676w

37. Tucson, AZ. Hamas on N. Scott Ave.

Lat: 32.22147863897135n

Long: 110.9699285030365w

38. Onalaska, WA. MOA Training camp. On Burchette Rd.

Lat: 46.56182587438755n

Long: 122.7006447315216w

39. SE of Diamond Springs, Cal. On Oak Hill Rd. MOA camp.

Lat: 38.632460840074735n

Long:120.79697370529175w

40. Abu Saayef San Francisco, Cal. Franklin St. and Linden St.

Lat: 37.77670194336603n

Long: 122.42127120494843w We believe this site has moved. No Activity.

41. San Jose, Cal. Hamas on Warburton Ave. and Fillmore St.

Lat: 37.355918647699916n

Long: 121.95373803377151w This location has moved also according to our last report.

42. Badger, Cal. MOA outlet. Exact location not known. No Further info.

43. Los Angeles has a reported Hamas office. We do not have any info as to the location.

44. San Diego, Cal. Islamic Jihad office……….relocated. No new info.

—————————————————————————————

Do you have anything that you can add? This doesn't mean that they are terrorists, but are carefully watched.

REMARK:

Some were/are used as training camps.

In regards to Thailand:

This is an attempt to discredit this country to take away freedom from its people, like it happens right now in the US and to pave way for the corporative globalists to take over. This is not going to be funny.

Anyway, throughout history we know that Thailand is skillful enough to look through and defend it's country from these kind of corporative-corporate take-overs.

[SteeleJoe]

The key in this is that the acts need to be "unlawful" and guess who defines what is lawful?

The law. As always. Obviously different countries have different ones. How could it be otherwise?

Please cite under which countries laws was the attack on the WTC legal? Who has claimed a s much? Certainly not the international court or the UN (which are the only entities that can try and declare with any credibility at all the war in Iraq illegal). Not even ObL claims it was "legal".

If you take away the words "unlawful" then clearly the US is a terrorist nation.

Clear to you (and lots of US haters) not nearly so clear to more objective observers who generally recognize that there is such a thing as "state terrorism" and the US may or may not be guilty of it. There is a legitimate debate there but it is a debate, not a an absolute given the way you claim.

And I don't even know what a "terrorist nation" is.

But even leaving those words in, the Iraq war was questionably illegal by some international standards and this ongoing attack resulted in the death of more than 800,000 civilians for what was purely social and political change.

So the war in Iraq was a terrorist act? So you plan to render the word meaningless by applying it to all uses of violence that result in the death of civilians (exclusively and deliberate seems to not matter) to effect change? All war is terrorism? Or only if it is he UN says it is "questionably illegal by some international standards"?

I certainly do not in any way shape or form condone the attacks of 9/11 but...

Oh, dear. That phrase never leads to anything but apologist ugliness...

If one would step back from our typically brainwashed minds then one could view this as an attack against the US government and military by a group who didn't posses the resources to use standard military weapons (fighter jets & bombs). Both the Pentagon and the World Trade Center housed personal and resources for the government intelligence and military making them perfectly legit military targets.

There it is. A classic example. To a tee.

If one of our countries cheated in warfare against a much superior force in order to preserve our way of life and did something similar to using civilian airliners (we've shot them down before) while sacrificing their own lives to harm the enemy then I think they would be considered (incorrectly) heroes.

"Cheated"? In war? How ridiculous can you be? That was just silly...oh, wait: you call mass murder "cheating"? Not so silly now. Ugly.

If US troops took over civilian airliners in Germany (for example -- a good one I think as most would recognize the fight against Nazi germany as necessary and just), murdered the crew and passengers and flew the planes into a massive civilian complex in Berlin, you think it would be seen as heroic then or now?

You're cracked.

I will not argue with the way the US took out BinLaden but clearly by all definitions the US not only committed an act of war but in all likely executed an unarmed man who had yet to be convicted of any crime.

It was an act of war. Against a declared combatant (do you deny ObL was at war with the US? he never did) who if we are told the truth was a threat to troops there and a legitimate target according to the ROE. (If it is was not as we are told then maybe it was illegal. But that is speculation.) Moreover, what is your point?

But again, the end justifies the means in terms of ignoring the laws in the US we say we hold so sacred, such as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as well as respecting the sovereignty of another nation.

It wasn't law enforcement, it was war. It wasn't an arrest, it was a firefight.

EDIT:

This is exactly the kind of thread dispute I try not to get into anymore (used to have them years ago on a far more intense forum) because it is so hard to keep it civil and invariably people who take the position that I find so reprehensible and ill-founded have no ability to have an objective argument or they wouldn't have such a bigoted view...and it's just odious to me to even read this stuff.

Ugh.

Edited July 15, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Nisa]

Bottom line is that usually one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Whenever that line is trotted out, the response to it should be.

Freedom Fighters are fighting against armed oppressors, a la French Resistance.

Terrorists kill innocent unarmed civilians.

There is a large difference.

According to many posters here who love to complain, Thailand can be considered an oppressive nation as can so many others. I guess that makes the Reds, who took siege of the city and burned down buildings, freedom fighters.

Absolutely not, innocent unarmed civilians were in those buildings.

Lots of innocent people die in all warfare .... as I mentioned before 800,000 in Iraq alone.

As for the French Resistance, they were considered terrorists by the Nazis in part because (among other things) they would not take prisoners and would kill all German soldiers who surrendered (or they kidnapped) and then often mutilated their bodies. There is no doubt at all had Germany won the war that Resistance would have gone down as a terrorist movement that in fact were responsible for civilian deaths, violated rules of war, were not part of an organized army and loved to blow sh@t up. Again, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

And as for the Reds, lets see how they are viewed in the coming years if Thaksin's people stay in power.

[Nisa]

<snip>

You need to read more and not state opinion as fact .. especially when those opinions contradict fact and/or the opinions of many experts. You should also try to open your eyes to history and your mind to the thoughts of others ... especially those you disagree with or don't understand. Your comments are all the typical ones we here from the hawks and war mongers who believe they can do what they want if they are right.

Do you not even recall the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan? Do you not believe this was an intentional act to kill civilians?

Do you not find it strange that weapons of mass destruction were used against a country because it was claimed they had (not using just had) weapons of mass destruction? And this attack/war resulted in the death of 800,000 civilians that we were supposedly there to free but yet whose vast majority didn't want us there???

As long as groups and countries believe there way is the right way and are willing to kill because of their beliefs then there will always be terrorist and so called freedom fighters and the way you can tell which is which is by what side you are on and/or what side wins the conflict..

Edited July 15, 2011 by Nisa

[SteeleJoe]

<snip>

You need to read more and not state opinion as fact .. especially when those opinions contradict fact and/or the opinions of many experts.

My aren't we presumptuous and superior? (And I clearly know something about being pompous...).

For example? Read about what? Cite for me the opinions that I have represented as fact. Especially the ones contradict fact and/or the opinions of many experts. (And you complain about me presenting opinions as if they were fact; is that deliberate irony?)

Your rebuttal wasn't one, was it? Just a snide swipe but how about some substance? (The whole "snip" thing is so puerile and passive aggressive, don't you think?)

Let's not just slam each other. If you can rebut or refute, then do so. (Otherwise....well, it is easy to get caught into a cycle ofgratuitous and pointless hostility but isn't going to do anyone any good or serve the interests of the forum).

[SteeleJoe]

Ah, you added this (even you could see that you hadn't actually said anything beyond a swipe; I was in fact surprised as I know you to be a poster who doesn't typically do that: you present an argument flawed though it may be) so I'll reply to it:

You should also try to open your eyes to history and your mind to the thoughts of others ... especially those you disagree with or don't understand.

I actually have a failry good knowldge of history. Please feel free to point out where it is shown to be otherwise in my posts. My mind is quite open to the thoughts of others -- that doesn't mean I have to find them agreeable or sometimes anything less than repulsive.

Your comments are all the typical ones we here (sic) from the hawks and war mongers who believe they can do what they want if they are right.

You are like some sort of cartoon caricature -- I'm a warmonger and a Hawk (redundant, isn't it)? Show me where that is evident in what I posted.

Do you not even recall the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan? Do you not believe this was an intentional act to kill civilians?

Yes, and yes. (No need to insult my intelligence with such stupid questions).

As long as groups and countries believe there (sic) way is the right way and are willing to kill because of their beliefs...

Simplistic and meaningless rhetoric. War is not waged because a country believes "their way is the right way". Not in WWII and not in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are waged for a myriad of reasons geopolitical reasons or in the name of or response to other causes -- not all of them just or admirable by any means, but some of them arguably so.

(Hmmm...still no real substance. Ad hominem attack, completely unfounded claims, and banal cliches. Alas...)

EDIT for Format and missing line and typos

EDIT to ADD: For the record -- I am NOT trying to perpetuate a slanging match. But if someone makes comments about ME and things I allegedly said, then I'd like to see them backed up.

Edited July 15, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[elcent]

lets talk frank about it all.

Terrorism exists, but they all have handlers and not always those they want us make to believe in. There's an agenda behind it. Bin Laden had handlers from the CIA and other agencies. Some of them dealt directly with him. Some of them go against the official versions of the story and they were in high positions.

Being alert is fine. But I resist to be led around like an ox, as they (I know them) try to do to justify their own greed. Americans are slowely getting aware of these facts.

Many have checked various holy books, but forgotten to read the holy book of the Z. - the Talmud. - There are answers if you look for it.

Edited July 15, 2011 by elcent

[elcent]

lets talk frank about it all.

Terrorism exists, but they all have handlers and not always those they want us make to believe in. There's an agenda behind it. Bin Laden had handlers from the CIA and other agencies. Some of them dealt directly with him. Some of them go against the official versions of the story and they were in high positions.

Being alert is fine. But I resist to be led around like an ox, as they (I know them) try to do to justify their own greed. Americans are slowely getting aware of these facts.

Many have checked various holy books, but forgotten to read the holy book of the Z. - the Talmud. - There are answers if you look for it.

forgot to explain more dee-tails

The terroists' handlers are not from the Middle East or other suspected places.

It's in da Mean Time duh Rocky Feller’s police see (policy).

[metisdead]

A post quoting material from an uncited source has been removed.

The topic of this thread is "Naming of Thailand on new US terror risk list worrying", lets keep the discussion to that.

[Thaddeus]

Lots of innocent people die in all warfare

Yes, but generally speaking it is usually the chaps in the uniforms that are the main target.

And if we are going to be pedantic, to be classed as warfare, war needs to be declared. I don't remember anyone declaring war on Central World. ('cept maybe King Power in a fit of pique)