Naming Of Thailand On New US Terror Risk List Worrying

[Thaddeus]

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.

Deck of Cards by Wink Martindale?

[SteeleJoe]

And if we are going to be pedantic, to be classed as warfare, war needs to be declared.

While I am otherwise in agreement with you, I have to point out that the above is simply not so (though oft-stated); most wars are not "declared". (For example the last time the US issued a declaration of war was in 1941 -- and there had been wars before that that were undecalred: In the US, it simply is not a legal requirment and I think most historians would agree --as certainly the dictionary does -- that what happened in Korea or Southeast Asia, for example, is called "war".)

Sorry -- but you were the one who went for pedantry!

EDIT:

Can't believe I forgot to write this: I believe the last time the UK declared was in 1942. They declared it against...

Thailand.

Edited July 16, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Nisa]

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)

Bottom line is MANY Thais saw the Red Shirts as freedom fighters in their fight while others saw them as terrorists. Again to the point ... one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Your (and my) not viewing them as freedom fighters only helps to confirm this point. The vast majority of people across the world will usually find ways to excuse behaviors of those who they support especially if they feel they are standing up to an enemy. http://www.google.co...51&pf=p&pdl=300

But again, it all comes down to what side you are on and what you believe is just and right. I certainly don't believe I will ever see the Reds as freedom fighters but I want be so closed minded to see how they and their supporters do see themselves this way. It is generally no different when it comes to terrorism even in terms of Al Qaeda. They have their ideas of what is right and wrong and have chose to use force, violence and intimidation to spread or achieve their goals using what weapons they can. Lets face it, the US "Shock and Awe" campaign against Iraq was nothing less then to incite terror there of what was to come but the huge difference is that we are more understanding and trusting of the US than Al Quada regardless of the fact 9/11 resulted in less than 3,000 civilian deaths and the Iraq war resulted in more than 800,000.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Nisa

[Thaddeus]

And if we are going to be pedantic, to be classed as warfare, war needs to be declared.

While I am otherwise in agreement with you, I have to point out that the above is simply not so (though oft-stated); most wars are not "declared". (For example the last time the US issued a declaration of war was in 1941 -- and there had been wars before that that were undecalred: In the US, it simply is not a legal requirment and I think most historians would agree --as certainly the dictionary does -- that what happened in Korea or Southeast Asia, for example, is called "war".)

Sorry -- but you were the one who went for pedantry!

No problem SJ.

Therefore, the last group of people, time-wise historically, that could be classed as 'Freedom Fighters' are the likes of The French Resistance'.... in an organised fashion anyway.

All other non-uniformed citizens of countries like Korea and Vietnam who have picked up a gun during times of strife have done so to defend their own and their families lives, not actively sought out involvement, just defended themselves.

All other non-uniformed citizens (army surplus fatigues don't count) that have picked up a gun and have actively sought out non military targets, pick a couple at random, N Ireland, Spain, are terrorists.

Thank you for making my point.

[Nisa]

And if we are going to be pedantic, to be classed as warfare, war needs to be declared.

While I am otherwise in agreement with you, I have to point out that the above is simply not so (though oft-stated); most wars are not "declared". (For example the last time the US issued a declaration of war was in 1941 -- and there had been wars before that that were undecalred: In the US, it simply is not a legal requirment and I think most historians would agree --as certainly the dictionary does -- that what happened in Korea or Southeast Asia, for example, is called "war".)

Sorry -- but you were the one who went for pedantry!

No problem SJ.

Therefore, the last group of people, time-wise historically, that could be classed as 'Freedom Fighters' are the likes of The French Resistance'.... in an organised fashion anyway.

All other non-uniformed citizens of countries like Korea and Vietnam who have picked up a gun during times of strife have done so to defend their own and their families lives, not actively sought out involvement, just defended themselves.

All other non-uniformed citizens (army surplus fatigues don't count) that have picked up a gun and have actively sought out non military targets, pick a couple at random, N Ireland, Spain, are terrorists.

Thank you for making my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement#Freedom_fighter

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Freedom%20Fighter?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Freedom%20Fighter&sa=Search#922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Pejorative_use

[SteeleJoe]

On my way out the door but shall leave with this for those who think al Qaeda had no choice but to attack civilian targets using civilian aircraft with civilian passengers (and apparently believe that their reasons for an attack of some kind were sufficient):

Prior to 9/11 it was not difficult to get on many US military bases. It is not difficult to build an explosive device or acquire high-powered weapons. It is not difficult to go to base towns and find dozens of soldiers gathered. 4 separate hijackings were coordinated -- no small feat, I assure you ; if al Qaeda had cause to attack the US (debatable I should think) and were interested in legitimate warfare, several attacks against soldiers could have been coordinated. I can assure you dozen of US troops shot dead and/or blown up would have made a massive impact on US sentiment (and to a lesser degree) the world. It would not, however, achieved what an act of terrorism would -- and that's why they used terrorism. It is a recognized tactic that has been employed for thousands of years and is seen as an effective component of their strategy.

I will say as I have already on this board long ago: "terrorism" doesn't have to be pejorative. It is simply a means of achieving something and whether it's use is ever a justifiable is another issue. If one thinks that 1) al Q were justified in attacking the US and 2) there overall strategy and goals (which are not confined to or primarily concerned with hurting the US) are legitimate and 3) the use of terrorism is justifiable in a struggle -- then go ahead and declare they did nothing wrong gievne the circumstances

But this "they had no choice because they don';t have fighter jets and missiles" stuff is just the worst sort of apologism and hypocrisy. They chose terrorism for tactical and strategic reasons. And, many would argue, out of hatred and malice. Not because they had no choice in a war they have to fight.

[SteeleJoe]

And if we are going to be pedantic, to be classed as warfare, war needs to be declared.

While I am otherwise in agreement with you, I have to point out that the above is simply not so (though oft-stated); most wars are not "declared". (For example the last time the US issued a declaration of war was in 1941 -- and there had been wars before that that were undecalred: In the US, it simply is not a legal requirment and I think most historians would agree --as certainly the dictionary does -- that what happened in Korea or Southeast Asia, for example, is called "war".)

Sorry -- but you were the one who went for pedantry!

No problem SJ.

Therefore, the last group of people, time-wise historically, that could be classed as 'Freedom Fighters' are the likes of The French Resistance'.... in an organised fashion anyway.

All other non-uniformed citizens of countries like Korea and Vietnam who have picked up a gun during times of strife have done so to defend their own and their families lives, not actively sought out involvement, just defended themselves.

All other non-uniformed citizens (army surplus fatigues don't count) that have picked up a gun and have actively sought out non military targets, pick a couple at random, N Ireland, Spain, are terrorists.

Thank you for making my point.

I've not made anyone's point but my own (minor pedantic one).

"Freedom Fighter" is just political rhetoric. It's all subjective. Romantic cliche but nothing more.

Armed combatants. Insurgents. Organized resistance militias. These have meanings that have nothing to do with what side you are on.

Terrorism is a definable tactic. People who use it exclusively are by definition "terrorists" regardless of whether you agree with them (the South Africans or the Vietnamese or the Irish) and/or their use of the tactic or not.

[Thaddeus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement#Freedom_fighter

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Freedom%20Fighter?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Freedom%20Fighter&sa=Search#922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#Pejorative_use

Thank you.

Just curious, did you understand any of it?

[Thaddeus]

"Freedom Fighter" is just political rhetoric. It's all subjective. Romantic cliche but nothing more.

Armed combatants. Insurgents. Organized resistance militias. These have meanings that have nothing to do with what side you are on.

Terrorism is a definable tactic. People who use it exclusively are by definition "terrorists" regardless of whether you agree with them (the South Africans or the Vietnamese or the Irish) and/or their use of the tactic or not.

Exactly, I understand that, so do you apparently.

That is why it irks me whenever someone uses the term 'Freedom Fighter' and then tries to justify using it.

[maidu]

I read the first page of this thread, but not further. The original premise of this thread appears to be false, as shown by the following letter from a US embassy spokesman.

I tend to believe the spokesman rather than the Opinion writer from the Nation. If the Nation's writer was wrong, then it reflects badly on that person and the Nation newspaper. There are already plenty of US bashers, and now to give them ammunition based on false claim in a major newspaper is inexcusable. The Nation should print a front page apology for their mistake. I, for one, am less inclined to get the Nation newspaper, if this reflects their level of journalism.

letter to Nation, Published on July 12, 2011

Thailand not on US terror list

Published on July 12, 2011 <br class="clear-all">

Re: "Naming of Thailand on new US terror risk list worrying", Editorial, July 10

We'd like to take the opportunity to correct some confusing statements that have been reported in the media recently. Thailand has not been placed on a new "terror risk list" of any kind. In fact, as President Obama highlighted in his June 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the US considers Thailand a key ally in fighting global terrorism.

In addition, we would like to emphasise that there has been no change in the processing of visas or security checks for Thai citizens travelling to the United States. As has been the case for many years, the overwhelming majority of Thai who apply for US visas receive them, and we're proud of the robust exchange of travellers between the US and Thailand for tourism, business, education and many other fields. For more information on travelling to the United States, we encourage everyone to visit our web page at http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/.

Walter Braunohler

Spokesman,

Embassy of the United States of America, Bangkok

[SteeleJoe]

I read the first page of this thread, but not further. The original premise of this thread appears to be false, as shown by the following letter from a US embassy spokesman.

I tend to believe the spokesman rather than the Opinion writer from the Nation. If the Nation's writer was wrong, then it reflects badly on that person and the Nation newspaper. There are already plenty of US bashers, and now to give them ammunition based on false claim in a major newspaper is inexcusable. The Nation should print a front page apology for their mistake. I, for one, am less inclined to get the Nation newspaper, if this reflects their level of journalism.

letter to Nation, Published on July 12, 2011

Thailand not on US terror list

Published on July 12, 2011 <br class="clear-all">

Re: "Naming of Thailand on new US terror risk list worrying", Editorial, July 10

We'd like to take the opportunity to correct some confusing statements that have been reported in the media recently. Thailand has not been placed on a new "terror risk list" of any kind. In fact, as President Obama highlighted in his June 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the US considers Thailand a key ally in fighting global terrorism.

In addition, we would like to emphasise that there has been no change in the processing of visas or security checks for Thai citizens travelling to the United States. As has been the case for many years, the overwhelming majority of Thai who apply for US visas receive them, and we're proud of the robust exchange of travellers between the US and Thailand for tourism, business, education and many other fields. For more information on travelling to the United States, we encourage everyone to visit our web page at http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/.

Walter Braunohler

Spokesman,

Embassy of the United States of America, Bangkok

Classic. I said early on in the thread that all the fevered and partisan straining to blame the (non-existant) listing on the PAD or Red Shirts was ridiculous as was the efforts to point a some sort of US collusion or support for one or the other side.

And this should also be noted by some:

As has been the case for many years, the overwhelming majority of Thai who apply for US visas receive them...

Crow on the menu for lunch?

Edited July 16, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[elcent]

I read the first page of this thread, but not further. The original premise of this thread appears to be false, as shown by the following letter from a US embassy spokesman.

I tend to believe the spokesman rather than the Opinion writer from the Nation. If the Nation's writer was wrong, then it reflects badly on that person and the Nation newspaper. There are already plenty of US bashers, and now to give them ammunition based on false claim in a major newspaper is inexcusable. The Nation should print a front page apology for their mistake. I, for one, am less inclined to get the Nation newspaper, if this reflects their level of journalism.

letter to Nation, Published on July 12, 2011

Thailand not on US terror list

Published on July 12, 2011 <br class="clear-all">

Re: "Naming of Thailand on new US terror risk list worrying", Editorial, July 10

We'd like to take the opportunity to correct some confusing statements that have been reported in the media recently. Thailand has not been placed on a new "terror risk list" of any kind. In fact, as President Obama highlighted in his June 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the US considers Thailand a key ally in fighting global terrorism.

In addition, we would like to emphasise that there has been no change in the processing of visas or security checks for Thai citizens travelling to the United States. As has been the case for many years, the overwhelming majority of Thai who apply for US visas receive them, and we're proud of the robust exchange of travellers between the US and Thailand for tourism, business, education and many other fields. For more information on travelling to the United States, we encourage everyone to visit our web page at http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/.

Walter Braunohler

Spokesman,

Embassy of the United States of America, Bangkok

Classic. I said early on in the thread that all the fevered and partisan straining to blame the (non-existant) listing on the PAD or Red Shirts was ridiculous as was the efforts to point a some sort of US collusion or support for one or the other side.

And this should also be noted by some:

As has been the case for many years, the overwhelming majority of Thai who apply for US visas receive them...

Crow on the menu for lunch?

... looks like a correction of a former statement to me.

[Nisa]

How much you want to bet old Walter gets his a@@ handed to him for this. I can see the lines now at the embassy for visa's now that he is dispelling the myth of getting a visa to the US.

I assume it will not be much different than the Deputy Chief of Homeland Security who issues this original memo that was meant for Customs Agents and not some broad public decree of who the US is concerned with in regards to being terrorists.

I read the first page of this thread, but not further. The original premise of this thread appears to be false, as shown by the following letter from a US embassy spokesman.

I tend to believe the spokesman rather than the Opinion writer from the Nation. If the Nation's writer was wrong, then it reflects badly on that person and the Nation newspaper. There are already plenty of US bashers, and now to give them ammunition based on false claim in a major newspaper is inexcusable. The Nation should print a front page apology for their mistake. I, for one, am less inclined to get the Nation newspaper, if this reflects their level of journalism.

letter to Nation, Published on July 12, 2011

Thailand not on US terror list

Published on July 12, 2011 <br class="clear-all">

Re: "Naming of Thailand on new US terror risk list worrying", Editorial, July 10

We'd like to take the opportunity to correct some confusing statements that have been reported in the media recently. Thailand has not been placed on a new "terror risk list" of any kind. In fact, as President Obama highlighted in his June 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the US considers Thailand a key ally in fighting global terrorism.

In addition, we would like to emphasise that there has been no change in the processing of visas or security checks for Thai citizens travelling to the United States. As has been the case for many years, the overwhelming majority of Thai who apply for US visas receive them, and we're proud of the robust exchange of travellers between the US and Thailand for tourism, business, education and many other fields. For more information on travelling to the United States, we encourage everyone to visit our web page at http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/.

Walter Braunohler

Spokesman,

Embassy of the United States of America, Bangkok

[bendejo]

Methinks this is the US State Dept's indirect way of expressing disapproval of the potentially puppet gov't.

[SteeleJoe]

Methinks this is the US State Dept's indirect way of expressing disapproval of the potentially puppet gov't.

Methinks you don't really know what you are talking about. (I meant to express that indirectly, of course).

[hanuman1]

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?

The evidence on this thread should hopefully convince you that the answer to your question is quite clearly 'No'.

[Nisa]

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?

The evidence on this thread should hopefully convince you that the answer to your question is quite clearly 'No'.

I personally believe the US would rather deal with a corrupt government as well as an inexperienced one (both to certain degrees). The US has its own interests in mind. Red Shirts regardless if they are terrorists in Thailand pose no threat to the US. What the US has a problem with is defending leaders who were not voted into power since the US constantly waives the flag of democracy. Having Red Shirts out there reminding people of the coups is not good for America, especially for its own people because most don't even understand how a parliamentary government works. But who better than the US to deal with than a person who is willing to sell out their countries natural resources or technologies to line their own pockets? However, I think the US does need to worry about the possibilities of Thailand turning communist but then again ... the US has come to terms with communism not being the great evil it once was, especially if the communist nation can benefit the US.

[RusticCharm]

I think the US does need to worry about the possibilities of Thailand turning communist but then again ... the US has come to terms with communism not being the great evil it once was,

Oh dear! You weren't doing too badly (in an overly PC, brainwashed lefty kind of way) up till you wrote that.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.