Terrorism In Thailand, What Can We Do?

[StreetCowboy]

"Often we can see Thai news on TV and papers, YET another bomb attact or shooting or mindless killing by terroist groups mostly in the south of Thailand, I'm confused as to why Police, military, govenment and the people themselvs (NOT militia groups) doing more to find the guilty and bring them too justice?

A friend of mine works in a hospital and never wears her uniform out in public for fear as this will make her a target,

They bomb schools, and when people come to help they bomb those who come too the aid of others, such as fire fighters, ambulance officers police, sodiers, doctors nurces ect, and yet if thier (Terrorist )family members are in need of medical help they use the hospitals and then turn and bomb and kill those that give that help the next day, this is insanity..."

The main trouble here, as in many other parts of the world, IMHO, is that the governments and security/police forces have their hands tied by political correctness, which is the globally accepted flavour.

In no way is this a "Hang em' High" or "Destroy the lot of em'" attitude on my part; it is simple fact. The security forces probably know who the ring leaders, financial backers, foot soldiers, etc. are, but without concrete proof, ie, for them to be caught in the act, they are powerless to act.

Give the guys some latitude, based on sound intelligence, and let them do their jobs! Hard fast action and less pussy-footing about. But that won't happen until something tragic happens to the PC brigade who will remain seeing the world through tinted glasses from their ivory towers.

Just like they did with the 2,000 drug dealers.

Certainly solved the drug problem...

SC

[StreetCowboy]

...

Fight fear with fear. It may not be considered PC in these days, but it works!

Only as a recruiting tool. And sadly, not for us

SC

[StreetCowboy]

Fighting terrorism with disproportionate and generalized violence, and changing laws giving up our treasured individual liberties allowing governments more and more oversight over our lives - bottom line is they've already won.

We accept thousands and thousands of people dying every year in order to have private cars, legal alcohol and tobacco, all kinds of risks we accept in our daily lives.

Fight terrorists the same way we fight other ordinary criminals, accept a few skyscrapers being knocked down every once in a while as the price of freedom.

Do our best to ignore them - anything else and they've already won.

Johnny, while it is true that the media is the second biggest part of the terrorist's arsenal, if they can use their primary weapon of terror freely, then what?

The need for a functional intelligence network, inter-departmental, is essential. To also have the authority to act on this intelligence is essential also.

Nip it in the bud!

Its the same crime whether a terrorist blows up a skyscraper or if anyone else does it. We don't have a "War on casual gun violence", locking suspects up without trial etc. What difference does it make if a murdering gunman belongs to Al Qaeda, the IRA, the National Front, the Republican Party or the Tufty Club?

What we can do, as individuals, is refuse to personally support and endorse terrorism in other countries (this is aimed particularly at people from Boston) and we can live our lives despite our fears, and as if we did not have them. And we can accept the measures taken by way of deterrence (the bag searches, the parking restrictions, whatever) in good grace. And refrain from bigotted hysteria, and practice tolerance and compassion. You and I are the velvet glove, not the iron guantlet. But they must both show restraint and courage.

SC

Edited June 10, 2012 by StreetCowboy

[Galong]

Fighting fire with fires results in a bigger fire.

[chrisinth]

"Often we can see Thai news on TV and papers, YET another bomb attact or shooting or mindless killing by terroist groups mostly in the south of Thailand, I'm confused as to why Police, military, govenment and the people themselvs (NOT militia groups) doing more to find the guilty and bring them too justice?

A friend of mine works in a hospital and never wears her uniform out in public for fear as this will make her a target,

They bomb schools, and when people come to help they bomb those who come too the aid of others, such as fire fighters, ambulance officers police, sodiers, doctors nurces ect, and yet if thier (Terrorist )family members are in need of medical help they use the hospitals and then turn and bomb and kill those that give that help the next day, this is insanity..."

The main trouble here, as in many other parts of the world, IMHO, is that the governments and security/police forces have their hands tied by political correctness, which is the globally accepted flavour.

In no way is this a "Hang em' High" or "Destroy the lot of em'" attitude on my part; it is simple fact. The security forces probably know who the ring leaders, financial backers, foot soldiers, etc. are, but without concrete proof, ie, for them to be caught in the act, they are powerless to act.

Give the guys some latitude, based on sound intelligence, and let them do their jobs! Hard fast action and less pussy-footing about. But that won't happen until something tragic happens to the PC brigade who will remain seeing the world through tinted glasses from their ivory towers.

Just like they did with the 2,000 drug dealers.

Certainly solved the drug problem...

SC

Did it? These figures are what happen when quotas to be met were put on the different provinces; if the quotas weren't met, then the head honcho would get canned. Totally the wrong approach. Idea was good, application of said idea sucked and a lot of innocent people died because of it.

However, we regress; drugs are a completely different matter as this is about supply & demand and not blatant disregard of human life by acts of violence...................

[chrisinth]

Fighting fire with fires results in a bigger fire.

It's also a method of stopping fires, as in bush fires.....................

[brit1984]

As explained in the "Thailand Needs Cricket" thread, a local cross-border cricket league in the southern border region (and also on the Eastern border with Cambodia) will help to reduce tension, and promote more gentlemanly conduct.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[StreetCowboy]

As explained in the "Thailand Needs Cricket" thread, a local cross-border cricket league in the southern border region (and also on the Eastern border with Cambodia) will help to reduce tension, and promote more gentlemanly conduct.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

That's the first sensible suggestion so far.

Perhaps Pakistan could be prevailed upon to offer some moral support

Pakistan cheerleaders...

SC

TV Cricket

The team with two knees

Edit: Link added

Edited June 10, 2012 by StreetCowboy

[chrisinth]

Fighting terrorism with disproportionate and generalized violence, and changing laws giving up our treasured individual liberties allowing governments more and more oversight over our lives - bottom line is they've already won.

We accept thousands and thousands of people dying every year in order to have private cars, legal alcohol and tobacco, all kinds of risks we accept in our daily lives.

Fight terrorists the same way we fight other ordinary criminals, accept a few skyscrapers being knocked down every once in a while as the price of freedom.

Do our best to ignore them - anything else and they've already won.

Johnny, while it is true that the media is the second biggest part of the terrorist's arsenal, if they can use their primary weapon of terror freely, then what?

The need for a functional intelligence network, inter-departmental, is essential. To also have the authority to act on this intelligence is essential also.

Nip it in the bud!

Its the same crime whether a terrorist blows up a skyscraper or if anyone else does it. We don't have a "War on casual gun violence", locking suspects up without trial etc. What difference does it make if a murdering gunman belongs to Al Qaeda, the IRA, the National Front, the Republican Party or the Tufty Club?

What we can do, as individuals, is refuse to personally support and endorse terrorism in other countries (this is aimed particularly at people from Boston) and we can live our lives despite our fears, and as if we did not have them. And we can accept the measures taken by way of deterrence (the bag searches, the parking restrictions, whatever) in good grace. And refrain from bigotted hysteria, and practice tolerance and compassion. You and I are the velvet glove, not the iron guantlet. But they must both show restraint and courage.

SC

Yep, its getting round that word "terrorist" isn't it? Prevention is better than cure every time. Anyone who sets there goal at blowing up a skyscraper (or any occupied building) to cause death and injury should be put in the same category.

Your reference to a "War on casual gun violence" is interesting but I think irrelevant, as the OP's statement is addressing terrorist groups. Casual gun violence is mostly random spontaneous actions which cannot be predicted.

As to your last paragraph SC, I'm in total agreement that individuals should refuse to personally support and endorse terrorism. However, it is not that simple. We would all like to think that humans are individuals, in that we all make personal choices. But the truth is that mankind is a bovine race, in that it relies on leaders to make decisions for them (thats democracy for you). Most "individuals" will take the path of least resistance, in that they will go with the main flow. Get a good enough story teller, then you will have converts!

Your reference to Boston (unless I am getting this totally wrong) is a prime example of this, where people were willingly donating to terrorism through organizations like Noraid becuse they were told/ believed the IRA were justified in their actions.

Still, one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter! Nightmare or what?

[rott]

Following is the URL for an article in the Econmist that provides some food for thought as well as another commentary from the Council on Foreign Relationships, both sources are held in high regard by many observers.

http://www.economist.com/node/21554246

http://www.cfr.org/t.../southeast_asia

These articles don't tell us anything that is not commonly known simple1, I still don't see how any of it justifies the individual acts of murder committed by these poor, ''alienated'' souls.

For instance a month or so ago 5 ladies (buddhists) were chatting outside a house in the south one evening when a motor bike pulled up alongside, the pillion passenger produced a firearm and sprayed them with bullets. 3 died. Their ages were 87, 73 and 59. How does this help the motor cycle pair's sense of alienation?? Just one incident quoted from thousands.

You blithely (and sanctimoniously if you will excuse me for saying) call people bigots, but excuse murderers.

There are too many in the world who think that their opinions are so important they are prepared to see others die to prove their point.

And too many (like yourself) prepared to condone them.

[Berkshire]

This thread is rather odd. While governments do have a duty to protect its citizens from all manners of crime, it's rather pointless to worry about things that we have no control over. So while certain people may stay up nights worrying about terrorists...or being car-jacked, or being hit by a drunk driver, or being kidnapped, or being fleeced by a BG, or dengue fever, or dying in a plane crash, or being hit by a bolt of lightning...I prefer to just use a dose of common sense and enjoy my life to the fullest. You have as much chance of being a killed by a terrorist as an over-40 year old woman has of getting married. Or is it the other way around?

[Rsquared]

This thread is rather odd. While governments do have a duty to protect its citizens from all manners of crime, it's rather pointless to worry about things that we have no control over. So while certain people may stay up nights worrying about terrorists...or being car-jacked, or being hit by a drunk driver, or being kidnapped, or being fleeced by a BG, or dengue fever, or dying in a plane crash, or being hit by a bolt of lightning...I prefer to just use a dose of common sense and enjoy my life to the fullest. You have as much chance of being a killed by a terrorist as an over-40 year old woman has of getting married. Or is it the other way around?

Yes it is an unfortunate world we live in and I agree with other posters in that as individuals there is buggar all we can do.....best just to get on with our short and precious lives.

My wife is 42 so does that mean I have a good chance that she will kill me????

[Time Traveller]

I agree with beano2274.

In the UK with have home grown terrorists (blow up the London underground). We also have people standing at the side of the road shouting child killers at are returning military, as they march through the streets. We also have people burning poppies and the Union Jack during rememberance parades.

Well poppies are a symbol of British state sanctioned drug dealing in China 150 years ago.

Poppy symbol in the U.K. actually originated from the poppy fields in Western Europe in WW1

Maybe, but what your country thinks is some noble symbol, is considered by other countries to be insulting and disgraceful. Consider the damage that the British did in China 150 years ago and ask why are you surprised about their resentment towards Britain today?

[thaibeachlovers]

i had a load of terrorist trying to build my house,until i kicked them off

Just curious why you didn't report the terrorists to the security forces. Or are you saying the workers came from a particular religious group and you're yet another bigot?

I think you missed the humour!

[Berkshire]

This thread is rather odd. While governments do have a duty to protect its citizens from all manners of crime, it's rather pointless to worry about things that we have no control over. So while certain people may stay up nights worrying about terrorists...or being car-jacked, or being hit by a drunk driver, or being kidnapped, or being fleeced by a BG, or dengue fever, or dying in a plane crash, or being hit by a bolt of lightning...I prefer to just use a dose of common sense and enjoy my life to the fullest. You have as much chance of being a killed by a terrorist as an over-40 year old woman has of getting married. Or is it the other way around?

Yes it is an unfortunate world we live in and I agree with other posters in that as individuals there is buggar all we can do.....best just to get on with our short and precious lives.

My wife is 42 so does that mean I have a good chance that she will kill me????

Perhaps my little humor was a bit dated. I was referring to a Newsweek article way back, to wit:

"In the mid-1980s, a now infamous Newsweek article declared that a single, college-educated 40-year-old woman was more likely to die in a terrorist attack than ever walk down the aisle."

My understanding is that the article has since been debunked. It's actually much more unlikely that one would die in a terrorist attack.

[thaibeachlovers]

I agree with beano2274.

In the UK with have home grown terrorists (blow up the London underground). We also have people standing at the side of the road shouting child killers at are returning military, as they march through the streets. We also have people burning poppies and the Union Jack during rememberance parades.

Well poppies are a symbol of British state sanctioned drug dealing in China 150 years ago.

Poppy symbol in the U.K. actually originated from the poppy fields in Western Europe in WW1

Maybe, but what your country thinks is some noble symbol, is considered by other countries to be insulting and disgraceful. Consider the damage that the British did in China 150 years ago and ask why are you surprised about their resentment towards Britain today?

For goodness sake, they should move on. Too many people living in the past.

The English did terrible things in Ireland for centuries, but the Irish ( in the vast majority ) don't go around complaining about it now. In fact, thousands of them live and work in England.

The Japanese did horrible atrocities against allied soldiers, but they're all good friends now!

If you go back far enough, every country did bad things to other people.

[thaibeachlovers]

This thread is rather odd. While governments do have a duty to protect its citizens from all manners of crime, it's rather pointless to worry about things that we have no control over. So while certain people may stay up nights worrying about terrorists...or being car-jacked, or being hit by a drunk driver, or being kidnapped, or being fleeced by a BG, or dengue fever, or dying in a plane crash, or being hit by a bolt of lightning...I prefer to just use a dose of common sense and enjoy my life to the fullest. You have as much chance of being a killed by a terrorist as an over-40 year old woman has of getting married. Or is it the other way around?

Yes it is an unfortunate world we live in and I agree with other posters in that as individuals there is buggar all we can do.....best just to get on with our short and precious lives.

My wife is 42 so does that mean I have a good chance that she will kill me????

Perhaps my little humor was a bit dated. I was referring to a Newsweek article way back, to wit:

"In the mid-1980s, a now infamous Newsweek article declared that a single, college-educated 40-year-old woman was more likely to die in a terrorist attack than ever walk down the aisle."

My understanding is that the article has since been debunked. It's actually much more unlikely that one would die in a terrorist attack.

That would have to be specified to be a WESTERN woman, as many thousands of people in other regions die in terrorist attacks- over 10,000 civilians killed in Syria so far.

[thaibeachlovers]

Johnny, while it is true that the media is the second biggest part of the terrorist's arsenal, if they can use their primary weapon of terror freely, then what?

The need for a functional intelligence network, inter-departmental, is essential. To also have the authority to act on this intelligence is essential also.

Nip it in the bud!

I'm not saying "let them" do anything freely, just don't change the whole relationship between individual rights and government powers to try to fight them. If we used the same tactics to prevent say road accidents the average joe would never tolerate it.

I think their "weapon of terror" would be a lot less effective if government agencies didn't amplify the threat for their own purposes. The founding fathers of the US are spinning in their graves.

Certainly wasn't suggesting any change to anyone's individual rights, except the people responsible for the acts of terror. I am not talking about carpet-bombing and mass troop deployment, used in the name of anti-terrorism for political or commercial gain as we have seen over the last decade or so.

If the present approach doesn't work (which it doesn't) organize your intelligence, and give the people who are trained for it the latitude to conduct surgical strikes against the targets.

Fight fear with fear. It may not be considered PC in these days, but it works!

You can't be serious. Intelligence when it comes to the military etc is sadly lacking. How many innocent people have ended up being arrested- lots, that's how many. Many of those incarcerated in Guantanamo had to released for lack of ANY evidence, and probably went on to become terrorists, or at least sympathisers.

The only solution to terrorism is to remove the causes, and there's fat chance of that happening.

[simple1]

Following is the URL for an article in the Econmist that provides some food for thought as well as another commentary from the Council on Foreign Relationships, both sources are held in high regard by many observers.

http://www.economist.com/node/21554246

http://www.cfr.org/t.../southeast_asia

These articles don't tell us anything that is not commonly known simple1, I still don't see how any of it justifies the individual acts of murder committed by these poor, ''alienated'' souls.

For instance a month or so ago 5 ladies (buddhists) were chatting outside a house in the south one evening when a motor bike pulled up alongside, the pillion passenger produced a firearm and sprayed them with bullets. 3 died. Their ages were 87, 73 and 59. How does this help the motor cycle pair's sense of alienation?? Just one incident quoted from thousands.

You blithely (and sanctimoniously if you will excuse me for saying) call people bigots, but excuse murderers.

There are too many in the world who think that their opinions are so important they are prepared to see others die to prove their point.

And too many (like yourself) prepared to condone them.

Absolute rubbish. Where have I indicated support or condoned terrorism. Your comments are insulting. I pointed to some articles that provide some analysis/background, for ease of access for TV members to the current situation in the southern provinces of Thailand. Are you saying that your takeaway from reading these articles from the Economist and Council for Foreign Relationships are in fact supporting terrorism?

In reference to sharking post, I apologise if I misunderstood the intent of his/her post. However you will see that I did comment on why he had not reported the 'terrorists" to the security forces; hardly condoning or supporting terrorism.

I suggest an apology from you is in order.

Edited June 10, 2012 by simple1

[TommoPhysicist]

they were told/ believed the IRA were justified in their actions.

Britain occupied Ireland by force, therefore the IRA were justified in their actions as freedom fighters, and eventually their campaign of violence won.

Now if American forces would just leave the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and stop supplying Israel with money and arms, that might stop the current problems with Muslims.

Western countries have created all their current terrorist problems by using their might to oppress other countries.

Edited June 10, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[Berkshire]

This thread is rather odd. While governments do have a duty to protect its citizens from all manners of crime, it's rather pointless to worry about things that we have no control over. So while certain people may stay up nights worrying about terrorists...or being car-jacked, or being hit by a drunk driver, or being kidnapped, or being fleeced by a BG, or dengue fever, or dying in a plane crash, or being hit by a bolt of lightning...I prefer to just use a dose of common sense and enjoy my life to the fullest. You have as much chance of being a killed by a terrorist as an over-40 year old woman has of getting married. Or is it the other way around?

Yes it is an unfortunate world we live in and I agree with other posters in that as individuals there is buggar all we can do.....best just to get on with our short and precious lives.

My wife is 42 so does that mean I have a good chance that she will kill me????

Perhaps my little humor was a bit dated. I was referring to a Newsweek article way back, to wit:

"In the mid-1980s, a now infamous Newsweek article declared that a single, college-educated 40-year-old woman was more likely to die in a terrorist attack than ever walk down the aisle."

My understanding is that the article has since been debunked. It's actually much more unlikely that one would die in a terrorist attack.

That would have to be specified to be a WESTERN woman, as many thousands of people in other regions die in terrorist attacks- over 10,000 civilians killed in Syria so far.

So you believe that what's going on in Syria constitutes terrorism? Mass murder, maybe. Perhaps even genocide. But terrorism? Debatable.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes it is an unfortunate world we live in and I agree with other posters in that as individuals there is buggar all we can do.....best just to get on with our short and precious lives.

My wife is 42 so does that mean I have a good chance that she will kill me????

Perhaps my little humor was a bit dated. I was referring to a Newsweek article way back, to wit:

"In the mid-1980s, a now infamous Newsweek article declared that a single, college-educated 40-year-old woman was more likely to die in a terrorist attack than ever walk down the aisle."

My understanding is that the article has since been debunked. It's actually much more unlikely that one would die in a terrorist attack.

That would have to be specified to be a WESTERN woman, as many thousands of people in other regions die in terrorist attacks- over 10,000 civilians killed in Syria so far.

So you believe that what's going on in Syria constitutes terrorism? Mass murder, maybe. Perhaps even genocide. But terrorism? Debatable.

Yes.

IMO, killing people indiscriminately in search of a political outcome is terrorism.

[Thongkorn]

It depends on how you look at it . I have been in South Thailand, I have lived with the local people, they call them freedom fighters, I don't agree with any killing of people.in any way, The people do not see themselves as Thai or Malaysian.Both Governments are poking each other with big sticks steering things up. neither Country wants to let go of the Area.

[StreetCowboy]

...

So you believe that what's going on in Syria constitutes terrorism? Mass murder, maybe. Perhaps even genocide. But terrorism? Debatable.

Yes.

IMO, killing people indiscriminately in search of a political outcome is terrorism.

For the purposes of debate, its useful to have a common language and shared definitions.

Terrorism:

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

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I was surprised that neither of the definitions I could find within the space of 30 seconds highlighted the most important aspect of terrorism: that the attacks are against non-military targets in order to induce political change in the target population through fear and demoralisation, rather than through destroying one's opponent's ability to function and defend themselves.

SC

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Fighting terrorism with disproportionate and generalized violence, and changing laws giving up our treasured individual liberties allowing governments more and more oversight over our lives - bottom line is they've already won.

We accept thousands and thousands of people dying every year in order to have private cars, legal alcohol and tobacco, all kinds of risks we accept in our daily lives.

Fight terrorists the same way we fight other ordinary criminals, accept a few skyscrapers being knocked down every once in a while as the price of freedom.

Do our best to ignore them - anything else and they've already won.

Its the same crime whether a terrorist blows up a skyscraper or if anyone else does it. We don't have a "War on casual gun violence", locking suspects up without trial etc. What difference does it make if a murdering gunman belongs to Al Qaeda, the IRA, the National Front, the Republican Party or the Tufty Club?

Exactly, or a white-supremist wacko or whatever.

What we can do, as individuals, is refuse to personally support and endorse terrorism in other countries (this is aimed particularly at people from Boston) and we can live our lives despite our fears, and as if we did not have them. And we can accept the measures taken by way of deterrence (the bag searches, the parking restrictions, whatever) in good grace. And refrain from bigotted hysteria, and practice tolerance and compassion. You and I are the velvet glove, not the iron guantlet. But they must both show restraint and courage.

Of course I agree with trivial stuff like being inconvenienced at airports (but poor example, read/watch Bruce Scheier on just what a joke that is, brilliant debates on the BBC).

But letting the three-letter agencies spy without warrants on US citizens, the ability to bulk-hoover and storing indefinitely all our emails, phone conversations and browsing histories, indefinite detention without trial, assassination all based on the assumption that we trust our government officials to do the right thing and not use their powers to repress free speech - hah! What if OWS were to become a full-on armed revolution? One can only dream. . .

Like I said the terrorists have already won, biggest beneficiaries the most regressive elites, financial industry and military-industrial complex. Biggest losers, the ordinary citizens of what used to be a relatively free and fair society.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

I'm not saying "let them" do anything freely, just don't change the whole relationship between individual rights and government powers to try to fight them. If we used the same tactics to prevent say road accidents the average joe would never tolerate it.

I think their "weapon of terror" would be a lot less effective if government agencies didn't amplify the threat for their own purposes. The founding fathers of the US are spinning in their graves.

Certainly wasn't suggesting any change to anyone's individual rights, except the people responsible for the acts of terror. I am not talking about carpet-bombing and mass troop deployment, used in the name of anti-terrorism for political or commercial gain as we have seen over the last decade or so.

If the present approach doesn't work (which it doesn't) organize your intelligence, and give the people who are trained for it the latitude to conduct surgical strikes against the targets.

Fight fear with fear. It may not be considered PC in these days, but it works!

I'm saying the goal shouldn't be trying to "win", stop fighting it as if it's a war and treat it as normal crime.

Restore all the significant individual liberties taken away since 9/11, stop all extraordinary intelligence gathering capabilties unilaterally withdraw from all foreign conflicts as quickly as possible.

Use the pre 9/11 laws and fighting capacities to do our best to prevent and punish, but otherwise just ignore them, accept a few thousand fatalities a year as a price of our liberty.

Obviously too late, the genie is out of the bottle and the fox is guarding the henhouse. Real pity that.

[Berkshire]

...

So you believe that what's going on in Syria constitutes terrorism? Mass murder, maybe. Perhaps even genocide. But terrorism? Debatable.

Yes.

IMO, killing people indiscriminately in search of a political outcome is terrorism.

For the purposes of debate, its useful to have a common language and shared definitions.

Terrorism:

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

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I was surprised that neither of the definitions I could find within the space of 30 seconds highlighted the most important aspect of terrorism: that the attacks are against non-military targets in order to induce political change in the target population through fear and demoralisation, rather than through destroying one's opponent's ability to function and defend themselves.

SC

I guess my point is that the likelihood of being the victim of terrorism in Thailand is rather small, or negligible. Unless, of course, you live in the deep south. Farangs in Thailand have a much better chance of injury/death from traffic accidents, alcohol poisoning, HIV, lung cancer, or any number of other causes. So the question is...why in <deleted>'s name are we even talking about this?

[StreetCowboy]

...

So you believe that what's going on in Syria constitutes terrorism? Mass murder, maybe. Perhaps even genocide. But terrorism? Debatable.

Yes.

IMO, killing people indiscriminately in search of a political outcome is terrorism.

For the purposes of debate, its useful to have a common language and shared definitions.

Terrorism:

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

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I was surprised that neither of the definitions I could find within the space of 30 seconds highlighted the most important aspect of terrorism: that the attacks are against non-military targets in order to induce political change in the target population through fear and demoralisation, rather than through destroying one's opponent's ability to function and defend themselves.

SC

I guess my point is that the likelihood of being the victim of terrorism in Thailand is rather small, or negligible. Unless, of course, you live in the deep south. Farangs in Thailand have a much better chance of injury/death from traffic accidents, alcohol poisoning, HIV, lung cancer, or any number of other causes. So the question is...why in <deleted>'s name are we even talking about this?

There are plenty of threads on this forum regarding topics that are perhaps of limited interest to more than a minority of posters (for example, the pitfalls of dating bar-girls, intimate discussions of the credibility of a poster's particular current squeeze, Formula 1 racing, notarising documents, current rugby league) so I don't see why this topic should be singled out.

Like you, I would be far more interested in something more positively constructive, like where to get coverage of the MacTavish Cup, but that is no reason to criticse the interests of others. Some people are genuinely concerned about terrorism, and no doubt see the possibility of existing problems escalating, and I suppose it is credible that those of us that live in Bangkok could see some consequence if Middle Eastern countries try again to extend their parochial conflicts to this city.

SC

[Berkshire]

Like you, I would be far more interested in something more positively constructive, like where to get coverage of the MacTavish Cup, but that is no reason to criticse the interests of others. Some people are genuinely concerned about terrorism, and no doubt see the possibility of existing problems escalating, and I suppose it is credible that those of us that live in Bangkok could see some consequence if Middle Eastern countries try again to extend their parochial conflicts to this city.

SC

I'm not dismissing this topic, but rather, making fun of it. I think that the possibility of being a victim of terrorism is greater in most western countries than in Thailand. Again, we're not talking about southern Thailand. But if people want to lose sleep over this, more power to them.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes.

IMO, killing people indiscriminately in search of a political outcome is terrorism.

For the purposes of debate, its useful to have a common language and shared definitions.

Terrorism:

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

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I was surprised that neither of the definitions I could find within the space of 30 seconds highlighted the most important aspect of terrorism: that the attacks are against non-military targets in order to induce political change in the target population through fear and demoralisation, rather than through destroying one's opponent's ability to function and defend themselves.

SC

I guess my point is that the likelihood of being the victim of terrorism in Thailand is rather small, or negligible. Unless, of course, you live in the deep south. Farangs in Thailand have a much better chance of injury/death from traffic accidents, alcohol poisoning, HIV, lung cancer, or any number of other causes. So the question is...why in <deleted>'s name are we even talking about this?

There are plenty of threads on this forum regarding topics that are perhaps of limited interest to more than a minority of posters (for example, the pitfalls of dating bar-girls, intimate discussions of the credibility of a poster's particular current squeeze, Formula 1 racing, notarising documents, current rugby league) so I don't see why this topic should be singled out.

Like you, I would be far more interested in something more positively constructive, like where to get coverage of the MacTavish Cup, but that is no reason to criticse the interests of others. Some people are genuinely concerned about terrorism, and no doubt see the possibility of existing problems escalating, and I suppose it is credible that those of us that live in Bangkok could see some consequence if Middle Eastern countries try again to extend their parochial conflicts to this city.

SC

Excellent response.

I fail to see why posters continue to criticise other people for what they write about, when it is so easy to use the back button to exit the thread, and there is no restriction on the number of threads that can be posted on TV.