micksterbs Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's crap like this that finally tipped me over the edge into coming home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mipen Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Is confirm in the Thai dictionary? If it is, I don't believe the meaning is understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micksterbs Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 So, not terrorism, then. Youthful high spirits? Boys, 'eh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostmebike Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 That`s right. This sure wasn`t `terroism`. Terrorism - the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. or Terrorism- the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaywalker Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Is confirm in the Thai dictionary? If it is, I don't believe the meaning is understood. It's right next the definition of planning. The "P" in Thailand stands for planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantiSuk Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 "ter·ror·ism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" [Google search 24-Sep-15] "China’s official Xinhua agency said late on Saturday that the 109 illegal immigrants {deported by Thailand} had been on their way “to join jihad”, and that 13 of them had fled China after being implicated in terrorist activities. Another two had escaped detention, Xinhua said, citing the ministry of public security" [theGuardian Online 12 Jul 15] "Thailand: Royal Thai Police confirmed today that those responsible for the bombing of the Erewan shrine were all friends and relatives of 2 Uighurs deported by Thailand and confirmed as "criminals that evaded detention from China a year ago" by Chinese authorities [Reuters 30-Sep-15] Not terrorism - easy peasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a99az Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 To clarify this and act of terrorism as defined in the Oxford dictionary: "The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". So I guess this was ether not authorised or in the permute of political aims. Amazing !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
how241 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 In general, IMHO they would not call this an act of terrorisme as to give victims and or their relatives the chance to collect help and financial pay outs from their insurance companies as where with a act of terrorism most would not give any compensation as it it is widely known as an exclusion. +1...Maybe your right about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daiwill60 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's the assumption that the police think that they can get away with anything they choose to say that is so annoying. Those days are GONE, sirs, at least until you start to censor internet as do China and get rid of the social media. Take it you haven't read this bit of news then ? http://www.telecomasia.net/blog/content/general-happiness-orders-great-firewall-thailand#.VgK4q5bMQKc.facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
off road pat Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I can imagine the diplomatic cables sent back to the various foreign ministries will contain some very pointed, unflattering language. LoS seems oblivious to the ease with which they make fools of themselves. Yes, so right, they never miss a chance of ridiculing them selves.......!!...So predictable....!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOTIRIOS Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 ...what good does it do to withhold the real reason then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
727Sky Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's the assumption that the police think that they can get away with anything they choose to say that is so annoying. Those days are GONE, sirs, at least until you start to censor internet as do China and get rid of the social media. Unfortunately that is what usually happens under authoritarian rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectrumisgreen Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It wasn't terrorism. Just some (allegedly) p1ssed off Uighurs that decided to maim and kill innocent folks. Definitely NOT terrorism though. I wonder if they did a survey. Were you terrified when the bomb went off? Nah. Not me. I wasn't terrified = it wasn't terrorism. Clearly doesn't know - or just won't accept - what 'terrorism' even means. Not like you have to be a 'gang' with 'Terrorist/ Terrorists' amongst your name and job-titles, is it??? Ridiculous that its somehow believed that making such ridiculous statements somehow makes everyone ELSE believe. He/ they might think it works on Thais, such disrespect guys like this treat even their own people with, but.. come on.. get a grip!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozyjon Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Are they children playing in a kindergarden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carter1882 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I hope this idiotic official is moved to an inactive post somewhere far away. Not only is it an absurd thing to say, it is highly disrespectful to the victims who have suffered in this despicable act. Prayut needs to call him in immediately for reeducation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalf12 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 "not acts of terrorism but was just a vengeful attack" and the difference is what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBlue72 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's the assumption that the police think that they can get away with anything they choose to say that is so annoying. Those days are GONE, sirs, at least until you start to censor internet as do China and get rid of the social media. http://prachatai.com/english/node/5485 The cabinet under the junta has ordered relevant agencies to speed up the process to reduce multiple internet gateways to a single one in order to increase the efficiency of the state’s surveillance system.... before the end of September 2015.... The plan to reduce internet gateways was initially proposed by Pol Gen Somyos Pumpanmuang, the chief of the Royal Thai Police, in June 2015. He reasoned that through a single gateway system, it will be much easier for the state authorities to monitor, filter, delete, and intercept information on the internet that could be deemed inappropriate.... Arthit Suriyawongkul, coordinator of the Thai Netizen Network (TNN), an Internet freedom advocacy group, told Prachatai that the idea to reduce the internet gateways to a single one was proposed only a few days after the 2014 coup d’état by the ex-MICT permanent secretary. He mentioned that the idea was formulated under the logic that Thai people in present use social media inappropriately without control. The TNN coordinator added that the MICT then even proposed the idea of creating a special version of Facebook for Thailand and to require people to fill in their ID numbers before using the internet. “We can see that this sort of idea came together with the coup d’état,” said Arthit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travelman868 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 My "rocking Horse" has more brains. Bomb goes off and kills 20 people injures 120, I'm terrified, therefore it's an act of terror. It's the same in the Southern Provinces, with on average 500+ people killed each year by Islamises. How can Thailand say they do not have terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooked Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It's the assumption that the police think that they can get away with anything they choose to say that is so annoying. Those days are GONE, sirs, at least until you start to censor internet as do China and get rid of the social media. http://prachatai.com/english/node/5485 The cabinet under the junta has ordered relevant agencies to speed up the process to reduce multiple internet gateways to a single one in order to increase the efficiency of the state’s surveillance system.... before the end of September 2015.... The plan to reduce internet gateways was initially proposed by Pol Gen Somyos Pumpanmuang, the chief of the Royal Thai Police, in June 2015. He reasoned that through a single gateway system, it will be much easier for the state authorities to monitor, filter, delete, and intercept information on the internet that could be deemed inappropriate.... Arthit Suriyawongkul, coordinator of the Thai Netizen Network (TNN), an Internet freedom advocacy group, told Prachatai that the idea to reduce the internet gateways to a single one was proposed only a few days after the 2014 coup d’état by the ex-MICT permanent secretary. He mentioned that the idea was formulated under the logic that Thai people in present use social media inappropriately without control. The TNN coordinator added that the MICT then even proposed the idea of creating a special version of Facebook for Thailand and to require people to fill in their ID numbers before using the internet. “We can see that this sort of idea came together with the coup d’état,” said Arthit. Yes, yes at least 6 people have pointed this out. I didn't think it was necessary to go down that path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Maybe not so strange. Most Insurance policies don't pay out if the cause is terrorism. I like the pragmatic approach even if it isn't honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soalbundy Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 ...what good does it do to withhold the real reason then... Apart from concerns about tourism see post 64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookee68 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Yeah and the man in a yellow shirt was a friendly Monk, Full of Shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianf Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Just unbelievable that the Thai authorities are ignoring the obvious: many little details point to what this is all about. Ask Joanthan Head (BBC) how he knew this would happen in advance of the explosion? What were the Uyghurs that were deported doing here anyway? On the way to Turkey? Why? I've posted elsewhere about the NATO/USA/Uyghur connection and the China/Thailand connection. If you want to dig deeper, do so. But don't get fobbed off by the Thai regime's simple parodying of Jonathan Head's theories (he was the first to mention the Uyghurs - because he knows the connection). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enufsaid Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Well if you're taking the reward money, it must all be over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redline Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 I understand. A bomb killing inocent people is most certainly not terrorism. I have no idea what you call it, but it sure isn't terrorism. A mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attento Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 (edited) Is there a Thai Lawyer in the house? Maybe they could remind us if there is a specific offence of Terrorism under Thai law. If so, how is Terrorism defined under this statute. Edited September 24, 2015 by attento Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown239 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 This is ludicrous. 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 1. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 1. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawati Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 The three ring circus ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaywalker Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 It wasn't terrorism. Just some (allegedly) p1ssed off Uighurs that decided to maim and kill innocent folks. Definitely NOT terrorism though. I wonder if they did a survey. Were you terrified when the bomb went off? Nah. Not me. I wasn't terrified = it wasn't terrorism. Clearly doesn't know - or just won't accept - what 'terrorism' even means. Not like you have to be a 'gang' with 'Terrorist/ Terrorists' amongst your name and job-titles, is it??? Ridiculous that its somehow believed that making such ridiculous statements somehow makes everyone ELSE believe. He/ they might think it works on Thais, such disrespect guys like this treat even their own people with, but.. come on.. get a grip!!! I had to go into an interview with what I can only guess was a CIA officer once in Kuwait, to get my "Installation Access Pass" to get on the US Army Base......Same place I had been working at for 2 years till they changed the rules. I had far too many stamps in my passport. The PRC and the Algeria, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Oman and Yemen stamps had them really hopping though. The lady asked me, with a straight face "Do you know, or have you ever had any associations with any terrorist groups?"......... Like I was going to say yes to that????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard W Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Of course everyone knows the definition of "terrorism"? - or maybe not I strongly doubt it. The official definitions make ordinary armed rebellion into 'terrorism'. Technically, the Russian separatists in the Ukraine are 'terrorists'. Sooo....Because it is not an act of terrorism...next time the Thai govt. have to consider kicking out a bunch of Uighurs, they will not at all consider this act of "vengeance" when making their decision..... It may not have that effect. Perhaps it will make the Thai government more likely to kick out the next awkward bunch of Uighurs. If the bomb was not intended to change the policy of the Thai government, but merely to make the Uighurs feel better, then, ludicrously, it is not terrorism by the legal definitions! Motive is key to the definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now