Thai Yellow Shirts Face Court Over Airport Rallies

[whybother]

You are of course right, occupying the airport was a benign act intended not to damage the government of the time and wholly altruistic in it's motives.

Harmless fun in the mode of "sanuck"

Of course it wasn't.

That doesn't mean it was terrorism.

Sent from my Phone.

[whybother]

Terrorists are planning to blockade Melbourne airport.

Taxi drivers threaten mass blockade

May 3, 2013 - 9:30AM

Melbourne Airport is at risk of being blockaded by taxi drivers unhappy with changes to queuing arrangements at the airport taxi rank.

The blockade is scheduled for 10am, according to a text message being circulated among some drivers. It is aimed at the airport's entrances.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/taxi-drivers-threaten-mass-blockade-20130503-2iwqy.html#ixzz2SBQKvSZ2

Well, aren't you a terrorist if you blockade an airport???

[OzMick]

Under international law in regards to international airports, which Thailand is a signatory of, it clearly states that any occupation or interference with the normal operation of an internatiol airport is considerd an "act of terrorism" under international law.

I have found a few references that state that interference of normal operation of an international airport is a "criminal offence". I haven't found anything that states that it's an "act of terrorism".

Can you please point me to your reference?

"The UN Conventions on the Prevention and Suppresion of International Terrorism"

the international community has adopted the following sectoral counter-terrorism conventions, open to the ratification of all states:

• The 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft
• The 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft
• The 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation
• The 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation
• The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
• The 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf
• The 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Identification
• The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.
• The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
• The 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism

These conventions – all of which are described by the United Nations as part of its panoply of anti-terrorist measures – share three principal characteristics:

(a) they all adopted an "operational definition" of a specific type of terrorist act that was defined without reference to the underlying political or ideological purpose or motivation of the perpetrator of the act - this reflected a consensus that there were some acts that were such a serious threat to the interests of all that they could not be justified by reference to such motives;

( they all focused on actions by non-State actors (individuals and organisations) and the State was seen as an active ally in the struggle against terrorism - the question of the State itself as terrorist actor was left largely to one side; and

© they all adopted a criminal law enforcement model to address the problem, under which States would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those alleged to have committed these crimes

Could you check your protocols and let me know how you would describe the RPG attack on the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in 2010, which the convicted criminal described as an attempt to instil fear and apprehension in the populace? Does the fact that he was a mercenary paid by red shirt leaders affect your view at all?