Let's DO get pedantic and post definitions .... http://dictionary.re...rowse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   

[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–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.

2. And 3. are perfect descriptions of the Army dispersal of last year's protests. There we have it then: The CRES a terrorist organisation.

Yes, that is the view that Thaksin and his sycophants wish to put forward. It falls down badly in the harsh light of reality given the legal authority of all 3, and the restraint shown before force was applied.

It is impossible to hold a debate on this forum; people are so biased one way or the other that their minds are not open to discussion or difference of opinion.

The IRA, where fighting against the BRITISH an Alien occupier of their territory, in their minds. They were each also killing other Irishmen in the name of Religion, Religious hatred. They called themselves liberators the British called them terrorist,

The acts in London where based on religious and political motive

Sirs Terrorist do not gather 100,000 people on to the streets to perform their act, So Los Angeles was terrorism, each country has had mass civil unrest where people have died. No one to my knowledge proclaimed it Terrorism

The man that holds a child hostage whilst making demands could be labeled terrorist according to his motives and demands. If the demands were of a selfish nature then it would be murder not terrorism, and if he were not backed by a politically or religious motivated sect then he would be labeled crazy.

Every act that creates terror is not in itself terrorism; if it were then we could do away with a multitude of charges against criminal and just label them all terrorist

It is impossible to hold a debate on this forum; people are so biased one way or the other that their minds are not open to discussion or difference of opinion.

The IRA, where fighting against the BRITISH an Alien occupier of their territory, in their minds. They were each also killing other Irishmen in the name of Religion, Religious hatred. They called themselves liberators the British called them terrorist,

The acts in London where based on religious and political motive

Sirs Terrorist do not gather 100,000 people on to the streets to perform their act, So Los Angeles was terrorism, each country has had mass civil unrest where people have died. No one to my knowledge proclaimed it Terrorism

The man that holds a child hostage whilst making demands could be labeled terrorist according to his motives and demands. If the demands were of a selfish nature then it would be murder not terrorism, and if he were not backed by a politically or religious motivated sect then he would be labeled crazy.

Every act that creates terror is not in itself terrorism; if it were then we could do away with a multitude of charges against criminal and just label them all terrorist

You comments dissemble, obfuscate and are mostly irrelevant. 100.000 (your figure, which I don't believe) people were fed propaganda to believe they had been deprived of their democratic rights, then urged to protest even after they were offered early elections, to the point of unreasonably affecting other peoples lives and incomes, and this was used as a shield for terrorist activities in full knowledge and by design of their mercenary terrorist leaders. Sufficient evidence has been found to warrant charges of terrorism, but you find the charge unjustified because they were allowed bail.

The mass of protesters have not faced these charges because they were, in the large part, dupes of Thaksin and the UDD leaders, and the propaganda machine that they have set up in Isaan.

As all societies as we know them were established at one time or the other through mostly violent civil unrest, which we now define as terrorism, then we can un-contradictory confirm that we are all descendants of terrorist. And that our righteous societies owes terrorism thanks for establishing democracy, Is that right?

America’s civil unrest against the British tea tax

Cromwell’s civil unrest and Napoleons and Martin Luther Kings, and Gandhi’s and Nelson Mandela’s shall we go on?

At the risk of being called once again a religious nut, I suggest some forms of intellect on this forum should indeed try a little insight meditation, to investigate where your thoughts come from, thereafter you could practice discrimination meditation (discriminating between right and wrong thinking)

What about the charges on the army members who give a"fire at will" inside temple,, what about the investigation of the reuters reporter shot dead with all his belongings (camera, flash drives..) stolen? what about the videos and pictures showing the army shot unarmed people? Strange one more time this does not work in the both sides and only one side is charged...strange that the democrat party which ruled the country at this time is not charged for what Human Right Watch called a bloody repression with live fire bullets?

If red leaders are cherged then it s normal army responsibles are charged too, and government too.

But in Thailand army is never worried, just to remember that some army top brass still have key positions even if they shot students in the Thammasat University long time ago....

When it becomes proven that millions of baht have changed hands so that the accused would incite their followers to terrorism, they become mercenaries in one man's political war. Hopefully he also will be convicted of terrorism and share their fate.

The death toll in BKK was very low compared to what COULD have happened if the govt and army had not been so restrained, if the RPG attack on the fuel-tank farm had been successful, or the fires in BKK had gotten out of control. And all for the political and financial gain of one man, who still claims to be a patriot.

He is a proven liar, thief on a monumental scale, abuser of power and position, and corrupter of others - yet millions of Thais believe that he is a great man, blinded by their poverty, greed, and lack of education. Even stranger to me is that supposedly democratically educated foreigners can swallow his propaganda.

That last sentence says it all Mick. Amazing foreigners!!

What about the charges on the army members who give a"fire at will" inside temple,, what about the investigation of the reuters reporter shot dead with all his belongings (camera, flash drives..) stolen? what about the videos and pictures showing the army shot unarmed people? Strange one more time this does not work in the both sides and only one side is charged...strange that the democrat party which ruled the country at this time is not charged for what Human Right Watch called a bloody repression with live fire bullets?

If red leaders are cherged then it s normal army responsibles are charged too, and government too.

But in Thailand army is never worried, just to remember that some army top brass still have key positions even if they shot students in the Thammasat University long time ago....

Sorry, but if you accept that the reds were in fact either actively terrorists, had leaders calling for terrorism, consorting with terrorists, or allowing terrorists to operate with impunity within their ranks then you have to accept that any and all deaths are a result of their actions with the exception of the possibility of some members of the military operating outside of the RoE.

Most of your post isn't factual and is solely opinion. Any and all deaths should be investigated and if they can be laid firmly at the feet of individuals (or the Rules of Engagement being illegal) the people involved on either side should be prosecuted. Your claim to a "fire at will" command "inside temple" has never been substantiated. The government at the time should be charged IF there was a command to fire on unarmed civilians. If there was no such command given by the government ......

Investigations should proceed and yes I would say that almost everyone would like to see it be a thorough investigation that compels the military to answer.

I would define terrorism as an indiscriminate act to cause harm injury or death against an alien society, that the perpetrators self justify their act on political or a religious basis.

So the term "home-grown terrorists" can be thrown out the window, and Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist.

ETA and the IRA and all the other fringe terrorist organizations as well ....

The simple answer is it doesn't matter how Britannia would change the definition of terrorist to meet his own political agenda. It is defined how it is defined, and nowhere I know of fails to recognize that terrorists are often domestic.

What about the charges on the army members who give a"fire at will" inside temple,, what about the investigation of the reuters reporter shot dead with all his belongings (camera, flash drives..) stolen? what about the videos and pictures showing the army shot unarmed people? Strange one more time this does not work in the both sides and only one side is charged...strange that the democrat party which ruled the country at this time is not charged for what Human Right Watch called a bloody repression with live fire bullets?

If red leaders are cherged then it s normal army responsibles are charged too, and government too.

But in Thailand army is never worried, just to remember that some army top brass still have key positions even if they shot students in the Thammasat University long time ago....

Sorry, but if you accept that the reds were in fact either actively terrorists, had leaders calling for terrorism, consorting with terrorists, or allowing terrorists to operate with impunity within their ranks then you have to accept that any and all deaths are a result of their actions with the exception of the possibility of some members of the military operating outside of the RoE.

Most of your post isn't factual and is solely opinion. Any and all deaths should be investigated and if they can be laid firmly at the feet of individuals (or the Rules of Engagement being illegal) the people involved on either side should be prosecuted. Your claim to a "fire at will" command "inside temple" has never been substantiated. The government at the time should be charged IF there was a command to fire on unarmed civilians. If there was no such command given by the government ......

Investigations should proceed and yes I would say that almost everyone would like to see it be a thorough investigation that compels the military to answer.

Only opinion and not factual? maybe you should read more about international news about the events, videos, pictures and eyewitness (which are not involved in one side or another)...if you want to go on websites with such informations of course most of the time you have to use a proxy, as the last government censored most of them...for the good of all thais of course...

Only opinion and not factual? maybe you should read more about international news about the events, videos, pictures and eyewitness (which are not involved in one side or another)...if you want to go on websites with such informations of course most of the time you have to use a proxy, as the last government censored most of them...for the good of all thais of course...

Yes. Your opinions and certainly not factual. I have access to the internet and it isn't restricted.

By which time a new law which gives immunity will be in place.

Next.

By which time a new law which gives immunity will be in place.

Next.

Or all indicted MP's will have been impeached .. or, or, or, or ....

They have a year to prepare their defenses, which could be an amnesty, or living in Dubai, or or or ...

It is impossible to hold a debate on this forum; people are so biased one way or the other that their minds are not open to discussion or difference of opinion.

The IRA, where fighting against the BRITISH an Alien occupier of their territory, in their minds. They were each also killing other Irishmen in the name of Religion, Religious hatred. They called themselves liberators the British called them terrorist,

The acts in London where based on religious and political motive

Sirs Terrorist do not gather 100,000 people on to the streets to perform their act, So Los Angeles was terrorism, each country has had mass civil unrest where people have died. No one to my knowledge proclaimed it Terrorism

The man that holds a child hostage whilst making demands could be labeled terrorist according to his motives and demands. If the demands were of a selfish nature then it would be murder not terrorism, and if he were not backed by a politically or religious motivated sect then he would be labeled crazy.

Every act that creates terror is not in itself terrorism; if it were then we could do away with a multitude of charges against criminal and just label them all terrorist

I echo your statement "It is impossible to hold a debate on this forum; people are so biased one way or the other that their minds are not open to discussion or difference of opinion" This thread is no different from any other, with the same rehash time after time. I do admire your patience and stamina to try and present an opposite (and in my opinion, a reasonable and logical) point of view. I think a lot of non anti-Reds couldn't be bothered anymore.

Let's DO get pedantic and post definitions .... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   

[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–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.

2. And 3. are perfect descriptions of the Army dispersal of last year's protests. There we have it then: The CRES a terrorist organisation.

So the behavior of the reds last year should be tolerated? Dangerous precedent, when part of a government's duty is to serve and protect the people. Amazingly small number of dead and injured, all things considered. It's called damage limitation, and when, if handled unsuitably, we could have seen a civil war start to take shape, my personal opinion, whether you agree with me or not, is that the government & CRES handled the situation with suitable restraint & subtlety (image if a G W Bush or a Khun_T had be faced with the same situation: I belive the toll would have been multiples higher!)

Sirs Terrorist do not gather 100,000 people on to the streets to perform their act, So Los Angeles was terrorism, each country has had mass civil unrest where people have died. No one to my knowledge proclaimed it Terrorism

Every act that creates terror is not in itself terrorism; if it were then we could do away with a multitude of charges against criminal and just label them all terrorist

I agree with you. Though I believe there have beeen some acts of terrorism here in Thailand, instigated by Thaksin, ie: Din Daeng LPG tankers. I would call most of the actions treasonous, seditious, civil insurrection and of course pre meditated murder. I'm pretty sure that's still enough not to want to welcome back our offshore instigator and still prosecute those who fomented and carried out these horrible deeds.

Sirs Terrorist do not gather 100,000 people on to the streets to perform their act, So Los Angeles was terrorism, each country has had mass civil unrest where people have died. No one to my knowledge proclaimed it Terrorism

Every act that creates terror is not in itself terrorism; if it were then we could do away with a multitude of charges against criminal and just label them all terrorist

I agree with you. Though I believe there have beeen some acts of terrorism here in Thailand, instigated by Thaksin, ie: Din Daeng LPG tankers. I would call most of the actions treasonous, seditious, civil insurrection and of course pre meditated murder. I'm pretty sure that's still enough not to want to welcome back our offshore instigator and still prosecute those who fomented and carried out these horrible deeds.

Nobody that I know of has suggested that the vast majority of the paid protestors were terrorists, they were the camouflage for the terrorists walking and working and yes speaking and leading within their ranks

I believe most are missing the point, and have anything but an open mind, which incidentally works better like a parachute when open

All this is about trying to topple the proposed government,make the life of those who brought about change as uncomfortable as possible

The whole world has been unstable with people voicing their discent by rioting and using violence to bring down undemocratic governments, I doubt if when they are sucessful if they will be held in jail and branded terorists

Thailand had a government not democratically elected, and the people wanted change, they were not acknowledged so they resorted to other ways

An election was held showing the highest ever turn out in thailand history and I believe the propsed new government has 300 out of 500 seats in the new regime

So democracy shows what the people want, no hung parliament no requirement for coalition

There is a small minority of powerful families in BKK who thrive on the two tear system, low wages, and poverty of the people

This minority is maybe now using it money power and influence in the high echelions of BKK to try and destabilise what the people want

This is only doing what Mr T and the redshirts did, the very significent difference is that they do not have a democratic mandate and majority to implement their desires and wishes

I love Thailand, long live the King, may his health recover so he can exert his wisdom to bring peace and prosperity

Al007

I believe most are missing the point, and have anything but an open mind, which incidentally works better like a parachute when open

All this is about trying to topple the proposed government,make the life of those who brought about change as uncomfortable as possible

The whole world has been unstable with people voicing their discent by rioting and using violence to bring down undemocratic governments, I doubt if when they are sucessful if they will be held in jail and branded terorists

Thailand had a government not democratically elected, and the people wanted change, they were not acknowledged so they resorted to other ways

An election was held showing the highest ever turn out in thailand history and I believe the propsed new government has 300 out of 500 seats in the new regime

So democracy shows what the people want, no hung parliament no requirement for coalition

There is a small minority of powerful families in BKK who thrive on the two tear system, low wages, and poverty of the people

This minority is maybe now using it money power and influence in the high echelions of BKK to try and destabilise what the people want

This is only doing what Mr T and the redshirts did, the very significent difference is that they do not have a democratic mandate and majority to implement their desires and wishes

I love Thailand, long live the King, may his health recover so he can exert his wisdom to bring peace and prosperity

Al007

I think you've completely missed the point. This is about charges against people who tried to topple a legally elected government and has nothing to do with the new PTP government to be.

The red shirts were offered elections - twice. And they rejected them. Then they proceeded to use their militia to cause destruction and havoc. They weren't successful and so have been charged accordingly.

Let's DO get pedantic and post definitions .... http://dictionary.re...rowse/terrorism

ter·ror·ism   

[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

–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.

2. And 3. are perfect descriptions of the Army dispersal of last year's protests. There we have it then: The CRES a terrorist organisation.

Except the CRES was not trying to create terror, but stop a group creating terror in downtown Bangkok.

An election was held showing the highest ever turn out in thailand history and I believe the propsed new government has 300 out of 500 seats in the new regime

Assuming that you're referring to the 2011-election just held, the turnout was about 75%, AOT the December-2007 election which was 85%. So perhaps not "showing the highest ever turn out in thailand history" after all ?

And the proposed new government on current plans, only has about 300 seats because it has brought-in some minor-parties to form a coalition, the lead-party PTP has 265 seats, which is still a narrow majority. I believe this clarification gives a slightly more-balanced view of its level-of-support.