US: Too early to consider bomb attack an act of terrorism

[Puwa]

Reading the comments about international help in the investigation, I just want to clarify something.

In the actual day-to-day diplomatic contact and cooperation between the U.S. and Thailand, personnel and agencies are deeply intertwined. Investigators already work side by side every day, and have for decades. It's institutionalized. They exchange intelligence, track persons of interest, aid and observe each other's operations. These guys drink beer and play golf together. And in the case of a suspected terrorist attack, you can bet the joint investigation started within 15 minutes of the blast.

Not saying that there aren't some ups and downs, or that each side always gets what it wants, but I want to dispel the idea created by the press that a formal request is needed to invite cooperation. Nor am I painting a cloak-and-dagger, spy thriller, or barstool-SAS fantasy. Quite the opposite, it's completely mundane, bureaucratic cooperation. And the agents aren't necessarily anything special, either. Most are average guys, maybe some are exceptionally sharp.

Naturally, it's not just the Americans. Any number of influential nations has the same kind of relationship with Bangkok. They help each other when feasible, and keep tabs on each other as needed. This has always been the function of diplomatic missions. Most of us, thankfully, only ever have to deal with the consular sections, but there is much, much more going on.

History always shows, when someone writes it years later, that more was known about major events than was immediately shared with all and sundry. Wikileaks taught us all this, right?

.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Puwa

[MrTee]

The US statement is a complete idiocy. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions ...It appears that those idiots don't know what an act of terror means. Unless the US officials view the perpetrators as freedom fighters. Don't get me wrong, but sometimes U.S foreign policy makers do support terrorists in order to achieve their geostrategic goals.

The idiocy is all yours, for taking anything verbatim from the Thai news.

Following is from a daily press briefing on August 17 (use a calendar is you need help with that) shortly after the attack.

QUESTION: A follow-up on Thailand. So you said you express your sympathy for the Bangkok explosion. So so far you dont see that as a terror attack?

MR KIRBY: I think its too soon to tell, honestly, and Thai authorities are investigating this. We dont have any information right now that would lead us to be able to describe the cause here, or if and if an entity is responsible and who that entity might be. Were just not there yet.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/08/246157.htm

For heaven's sake., then there is no any difference between them and you. Let me break it down into very simple terms. The moment the bomb explodes in the public place killing innocent people it's an act of terrorism. Do I need to draw a diagram?

And in the few minutes after an explosion, especially so in a country with such poor press, no one knew if it was a bomb, or a gas explosion..

The first report I read were of a gas explosion..

Please feel free to demonstrate your intellectual superiority with a diagram..

[redsox44]

Maybe it's not a USA problem so why make a comment.

[Usernames]

Maybe it's not a USA problem so why make a comment.

Because then you would probably be criticizing the US for not commenting.

[StasD]

I will be not surpised if USA is the boss of present horror in Thailand

[kamahele]

If you look at the quote in its entirety which was taken right after the bombing on Monday, Kirby said "it was too early to tell" and that the US really didn't know anything as they weren't involved in the investigation. However, news outlets ran with a snippet of the quote. Basically, it's early yet and we don't have enough information to comment on it.

QUESTION: A follow-up on Thailand. So you said you express your sympathy for the Bangkok explosion. So so far you don’t see that as a terror attack?

MR KIRBY: I think it’s too soon to tell, honestly, and Thai authorities are investigating this. We don’t have any information right now that would lead us to be able to describe the cause here, or if – and if an entity is responsible and who that entity might be. We’re just not there yet.

[ianf]

Do the USA have a different definition for terrorists to everyone else?

Yes!

In America if an American blows things up and kills innocent people it is not terrorism.

Terrorist are always foreigners in America.

By their way of thinking, if A Thai person did this...it is not terrorism???

There is a theory (amongst others) that implicate US policy in this terrorist atrocity. Given the US' dubious involvement in the Middle East and their support for the Dictator-in-Exile it is a theory that has some currency. World politics and everything that happens behind the scenes is beyond the comprehension of most of us posting here. I think that there are people within the current Thai administration who have an understanding of the USA's strategy in South East Asia which s why the current government is visibly shifting it's allegiance to China rather than America. I don't know any more than most other expats who post here but I wouldn't trust America, Thaksin or the new US ambassador Glyn Davies. There may be something in all this, there may not. But it's worth discussing n'est-ce pas?

[MrTee]

Do the USA have a different definition for terrorists to everyone else?

Yes!

In America if an American blows things up and kills innocent people it is not terrorism.

Terrorist are always foreigners in America.

By their way of thinking, if A Thai person did this...it is not terrorism???

There is a theory (amongst others) that implicate US policy in this terrorist atrocity. Given the US' dubious involvement in the Middle East and their support for the Dictator-in-Exile it is a theory that has some currency. World politics and everything that happens behind the scenes is beyond the comprehension of most of us posting here. I think that there are people within the current Thai administration who have an understanding of the USA's strategy in South East Asia which s why the current government is visibly shifting it's allegiance to China rather than America. I don't know any more than most other expats who post here but I wouldn't trust America, Thaksin or the new US ambassador Glyn Davies. There may be something in all this, there may not. But it's worth discussing n'est-ce pas?

PILLS - keep taking them!

[Skeptic7]

IDIOT AMERICA. I'm an American and they just try to be soooooooo PC. Political Correctness has gotten to the point where the US government won't actually call something it actually is. They are paranoid they will offend a minority or stupid-stition (aka religion) or race...even when it is crystal clear that the this type of person or group is responsible.

It has gotten so bad in the USA that it is politically incorrect to call black coffee...BLACK COFFEE! Hell, the president won't even use the term Islamic Extremism even when that is clearly the case. He prefers "violent extremism", for fear of offending "the stupid-stition of peace".

[Mackie]

Do the USA have a different definition for terrorists to everyone else?

Yes!

In America if an American blows things up and kills innocent people it is not terrorism.

Terrorist are always foreigners in America.

By their way of thinking, if A Thai person did this...it is not terrorism???

There is a theory (amongst others) that implicate US policy in this terrorist atrocity. Given the US' dubious involvement in the Middle East and their support for the Dictator-in-Exile it is a theory that has some currency. World politics and everything that happens behind the scenes is beyond the comprehension of most of us posting here. I think that there are people within the current Thai administration who have an understanding of the USA's strategy in South East Asia which s why the current government is visibly shifting it's allegiance to China rather than America. I don't know any more than most other expats who post here but I wouldn't trust America, Thaksin or the new US ambassador Glyn Davies. There may be something in all this, there may not. But it's worth discussing n'est-ce pas?

PILLS - keep taking them!

I would advise you to do the same. Come to think of it, double the dose mate.

[ianf]

Do the USA have a different definition for terrorists to everyone else?

Yes!

In America if an American blows things up and kills innocent people it is not terrorism.

Terrorist are always foreigners in America.

By their way of thinking, if A Thai person did this...it is not terrorism???

There is a theory (amongst others) that implicate US policy in this terrorist atrocity. Given the US' dubious involvement in the Middle East and their support for the Dictator-in-Exile it is a theory that has some currency. World politics and everything that happens behind the scenes is beyond the comprehension of most of us posting here. I think that there are people within the current Thai administration who have an understanding of the USA's strategy in South East Asia which s why the current government is visibly shifting it's allegiance to China rather than America. I don't know any more than most other expats who post here but I wouldn't trust America, Thaksin or the new US ambassador Glyn Davies. There may be something in all this, there may not. But it's worth discussing n'est-ce pas?

PILLS - keep taking them!

Pills? Do you think it is wrong to raise questions Mr Tee? Is there a difference between posting something as fact versus raising a scenario for discussion? Or do you not have the intellect to see the difference? Bahh!

Edited August 20, 2015 by ianf

[MrTee]

PILLS - keep taking them!

I would advise you to do the same. Come to think of it, double the dose mate.

Great discussion - thanks.

[AZBill]

So what kind of act was it? An act of friendship and goodwill?

[MrTee]

There is a theory (amongst others) that implicate US policy in this terrorist atrocity. Given the US' dubious involvement in the Middle East and their support for the Dictator-in-Exile it is a theory that has some currency. I think that there are people within the current Thai administration who have an understanding of the USA's strategy in South East Asia which s why the current government is visibly shifting it's allegiance to China rather than America. I don't know any more than most other expatWorld politics and everything that happens behind the scenes is beyond the comprehension of most of us posting here.s who post here but I wouldn't trust America, Thaksin or the new US ambassador Glyn Davies. There may be something in all this, there may not. But it's worth discussing n'est-ce pas?

PILLS - keep taking them!

Pills? Do you think it is wrong to raise questions Mr Tee? Is there a difference between posting something as fact versus raising a scenario for discussion? Or do you not have the intellect to see the difference? Bahh!

Well you are stating "there is a theory" but no indication was given to where, or indeed what, said theory is. For ANY theory to be considered valid there'd need to be some evidence to support it. Somehow, in your mind, you have created a tenuous link between US, Middle east, A "Dictator-in-Exile" (you don't say which), Thaksin, Glyn Davies, the Chinese and motive that involves the US being jealous of Thailand's economic ties with China, and therefore a bomb in Erawin? So lets not be sheepish about it.. if you had a theory and some credible evidence to back it up there may be something worth discussing, other than that you just appear to be suffering deep paranoiac issue centred on the USA.

BTW. You had me at "World politics and everything that happens behind the scenes is beyond the comprehension of most of us posting here." ;-)

[hawker9000]

I will be not surpised if USA is the boss of present horror in Thailand

I would not be surprised if some who are posting here haven't escaped from their padded cells.

[geriatrickid]

A bomb that is planted in an area full of people going about their lives, killing 20 and injuring many, many more.

What else needs to happen for it to be considered terrorism?

Evidence.

Remember the Koh Samui bombing? It was described as domestic terror. We were treated to accusations that Redshirts were responsible, then we were told that it was Islamic terrorists from the south. The army promised to name the responsible party(s) and to go after them. Then it turned out that there had been a labour quarrel and everything went quiet. All the fancy claims and explanations fell by the wayside suffocated by the army and police inaction.

Please tell me what is different with this bombing? We have lots of entertaining claims, but nothing has been established. What is missing is conclusive evidence. This may very well be an act of terror, but it could just as easily be a local turf war between competing criminal gangs, or it could have been an extortion attempt or a local political dispute. I don't know. Do you? All that we do know for now is that it was a disgusting evil deed.

[mojorison]

The ruling Junta clearly have the most to gain from this situation. Another 10 years of dictatorial rule. Anywhere in the (semi) civilized world Prayut would need to be answering many difficult questions. Simply saying "I told you 5 times I am not drunk" will not suffice. He is responsible in one way or another. Either directly for complicit and tacit approval or organization, or for his obstinate refusal to hold elections - (this probably would not have happened if a democratic government was in place), and at very least for the total lack of security that has been a hallmark of Bangkok for several years, that he should be protecting, and that he solely has taken upon himself to manage and administer To bring peace law and order... MY BIG FAT AR$E. He protects nothing other than his interests. No doubt this will be deleted by the mods. This forum has become a tool for the regime and nothing more This has gone on too long.

A tinfoil hatter.

Puts a whole new meaning on the expression "mad as a hatter".

History will be the judge... and not a kind one.

[JimGant]

Words and definitions evolve. This is the realm of semantics. The defintion of "terrorism" has evolved since 9/11, where standing alone without adjectives (e.g., "domestic"), its meaning is now semantically understood to be related to radical muslims. Sorry, apologists, this is reality. And these monsters don't separate religion from politics -- it's all one evil wrap.

So, when the Yanks said they didn't know whether the Bangkok blast was "terrorism" related, well, they meant they didn't know whether it was jihadist related.

Now, with the Paris-Amsterdam train episode, the French have said: "French officials have so far refused to confirm whether the attack was a terror related incident, claiming it is 'too early' in the investigation."

What might you think their defnintion of "terror" is?

We live in interesting -- and evolving -- times.

[NongKhaiKid]

Without commenting on the reason for the bomb I will ask if this is the same US that said the military takeover in Egypt wasn't a coup but the same issue here was ?

[T_Dog]

One thing that has not been discussed much is a personal vendetta from an individual (red or yellow) with deep pockets and nothing to lose. Could be a les majeste sentence, assassination attempt, or some other loss of face, but there are plenty of motivations that are not terrorism as currently defined. Don't forget this is Thailand we are talking about here.

[simple1]

<snip>

So, when the Yanks said they didn't know whether the Bangkok blast was "terrorism" related, well, they meant they didn't know whether it was jihadist related.

Read the US State Department report on terrorism by country (e.g. UK) & you will soon understand your proposition is a fallacy.

Edited August 21, 2015 by simple1

[NovaBlue05]

^{The Obama Administration has stifled the word "terrorism" if they think there might be one scintilla of a chance that the perpetrator was muslim. If they determine that the bomber was not muslim, then the US State Dept rep will call it terrorism}

[simple1]

^{The Obama Administration has stifled the word "terrorism" if they think there might be one scintilla of a chance that the perpetrator was muslim. If they determine that the bomber was not muslim, then the US State Dept rep will call it terrorism}

Nonsense

[JimGant]

No, the US uses its adjectives specifically, as it too has evolved to today's defnintion of "terrorism" as that from RADICAL muslims. This is pretty defining, in that the Obama administration has gone to extra lengths not to tar brush the majority of muslims as radical. And this is fair -- just wish this majority "good" muslim community would be more vocal against their radical fellow believers.

Read the US State Department report on terrorism by country (e.g. UK) & you will soon understand your proposition is a fallacy.

I think the concept of semantics re "terrorisim" have moved on from historical activities in Northern Ireland.

[simple1]

No, the US uses its adjectives specifically, as it too has evolved to today's defnintion of "terrorism" as that from RADICAL muslims. This is pretty defining, in that the Obama administration has gone to extra lengths not to tar brush the majority of muslims as radical. And this is fair -- just wish this majority "good" muslim community would be more vocal against their radical fellow believers.

Read the US State Department report on terrorism by country (e.g. UK) & you will soon understand your proposition is a fallacy.

I think the concept of semantics re "terrorisim" have moved on from historical activities in Northern Ireland.

It was just an example of one among a number of countries. However, terrorism attacks in N. Ireland are ongoing

[Michael8511]

A to. If that's your believe, why did you post it in the first place. To say" Thais are idiots but I don't think so" it's a very bad way of accusing others for that believe. Just a bad comment in my view.

[JemJem]

Without commenting on the reason for the bomb I will ask if this is the same US that said the military takeover in Egypt wasn't a coup but the same issue here was ?

I personally think that what happened in Egypt was NOT a coup. It was definitely not a coup in the sense of common coups of the 20 th century in S.America and Africa, where the military staged a coup without any significant people's uprising beforehand.

In Egypt, there was massive uprising against Morsi's oppressive government. Tens of thousands were in the streets for an extended period of time, but Morsi wouldn't resign; and there was risk of bloodshed from shootings between the demonstrators and the police; and also, the economy was getting to be in ruins; and so, the military took over. Of course, the Islamists (in Egypt and in some other countries) and some of their liberal friends call it a coup.

In this case, I am surprised at the 'extremely cautious' attitude of the US. After a few hours, it was obvious that this was an act of terror. Why they said what said, I have no idea.