Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,579

    May not post attachments

    At present I may post up the link, but not the written attachment...Why is that? what must I do to post up the article in total and not simply the link?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Online
    22-06-2019 @ 08:32 PM
    Posts
    556
    Copy and paste.

  3. #3
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,873
    I'm pretty sure nobody can post attachments. Six years and 11K posts and I can't. I think it's residual from DD's fear of malware being introduced via attachment.

  4. #4
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,579
    ^^I've done that as well cut and paste, but only the link comes up.

    ^Don't know about that Davis seems to be a lot of articles being presented in their full spread.

  5. #5
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,873
    Go to "How to use stuff on the Board". Scroll down to Patsycat's 2013 Thread titled "May not Post attachments". She got the same answer I gave you, but from posters who know more about tech shit than I do.

  6. #6
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,005
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnt
    I've done that as well cut and paste, but only the link comes up
    Sometimes, the site will not allow copy/paste. So when you paste you get link.
    For example, Bangkok Post does not on their main site but does on it's Lite version (mobile) site.

  7. #7
    Thailand Expat Boon Mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 06:08 PM
    Location
    Samui
    Posts
    44,718
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnt View Post
    ^^I've done that as well cut and paste, but only the link comes up.

    ^Don't know about that Davis seems to be a lot of articles being presented in their full spread.
    What browser are you using?

  8. #8
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    30,005
    From the lite site:

    A plan to replace martial law with sweeping new powers for Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has prompted fears it will promote human rights abuses.

    • Published: 29/03/2015 at 06:54 AM
    • Newspaper section: topstories
    Critics of the plan are concerned that Gen Prayut will use a new order issued under Section 44 of the interim charter to give himself absolute power over executive, legislative and judicial decisions.
    Yodpol Thepsitthar, a law lecturer at Naresuan University, described Section 44 as a "dictatorial law" and said it would be no better than leaving martial law in place.
    Section 44 is modelled on Section 17 of the 1959 constitution, brought in by the regime of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat. Mr Yodpol said the regime used its power to execute about 10 people tied to drug cases.
    He said while martial law granted military authorities power over civil authorities in security operations, Section 44 would grant absolute power to the junta chief.
    Gen Prayut would have the power to order the arrest, imprisonment or execution of any individual without any criminal investigation process, Mr Yodpol said.
    He said the prime minister had exercised his executive powers under Section 44 once before, but only to issue an order allowing executives and members of local bodies to continue working.
    “That was a use of administrative power which doesn’t cause any problem. But we don’t know how far he will go,” Mr Yodpol said.


    From the Main site:


    Thirteen former leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) face bankruptcy after the Appeals Court ordered them to pay around 600 million baht in compensation to Airports of Thailand for the...

    Please credit and share this article with others using this link:Ex-PAD leaders 'on road to bankruptcy' | Bangkok Post: news. View our policies at Bangkok Post: Terms and conditions of use and Bangkok Post: Republishing policy. Post Publishing PCL. All rights reserved.

  9. #9
    Custom user Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Behind a rhododendron bush
    Posts
    17,315
    ^ That's due to the Bangkok Post (and other sites) trying to restrict people from copying and pasting wholesale from their websites. It doesn't actually prevent it, it just makes it more difficult or annoying to do it. Some sites also disable right click. (They use some java script I believe). It's not actually a function of or restriction by Teak Door.

    What kind of file or text are you trying to post up, ltnt? PDF? Something else?
    signature

  10. #10
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,579
    I'm using Mozilla and Google...but I don't think that's the reason as once I was able to post a script thread doing the cut and paste bit.

    Yes, Davis, but as you can see by looking at all the threads there are volumns of cut and paste script. I can only paste links. My "posting rules," says "You may not post attachments." "HTML code is off? All others "On."

    I can edit, I can post replies, I can post new threads...but I cannot post attachments. I can post pictures and transfer pictures from random sites as well or within TD...

  11. #11
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,873
    Quote Originally Posted by ltnt View Post
    . My "posting rules," says "You may not post attachments." "HTML code is off? All others "On."

    ...
    Same thing mine says.

  12. #12
    TD Fat Club VP Dillinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    27,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna
    What kind of file or text are you trying to post up, ltnt? PDF? Something else?
    Will u fucking answer that ?

  13. #13
    The Pikey Hunter
    Gerbil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Roasting a Hedgehog
    Posts
    12,356
    Nobody, except admin possibly, can post attachments. End of story.

  14. #14
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,579
    Pick a story from any site and left click on it copy, then go to post on TD only the link is pasted...have tried to highlight the article and left click copy or cut then go to paste site and still all that comes up is link...

  15. #15
    Custom user Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Behind a rhododendron bush
    Posts
    17,315
    British intelligence agency GCHQ is facing fresh calls to reveal the extent of its involvement in the US targeted killing programme after details of a fatal drone strike in Yemen were included in a top secret memo circulated to agency staff.

    A leading barrister asked by the Guardian to review a number of classified GCHQ documents said they raised questions about British complicity in US strikes outside recognised war zones and demonstrated the need for the government to come clean about the UK’s role.

    The documents, provided to the Guardian by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in partnership with the New York Times, discuss how a joint US, UK and Australian programme codenamed Overhead supported the strike in Yemen in 2012.

    The files also show GCHQ and Overhead developed their ability to track the location of individuals – essential for the targeted killing programme – in both Yemen and Pakistan. The legality of the US’s lethal operations in both countries has been questioned by international lawyers and human rights groups.

    Jemima Stratford QC, who reviewed the Snowden documents for the Guardian, said: “Assuming that the documents which I have seen are genuine, in my view they raise questions about the extent to which UK officials may have had knowledge of, or helped to facilitate, certain US drone strikes which were not carried out in the context of an international armed conflict,” she said.

    “These documents underline why greater transparency as to UK official policies would help to ensure legality from a domestic and international law perspective.”

    Stratford published a legal opinion last year warning that UK intelligence support for lethal strikes outside traditional battlefields – such as Iraq and Afghanistan – was likely to be illegal. “In our view, if GCHQ transferred data to the NSA in the knowledge that it would or might be used for targeting drone strikes that transfer is probably unlawful,” she wrote.
    British officials and ministers follow a strict policy of refusing to confirm or deny any support to the targeted killing programme, and evidence has been so scant that legal challenges have been launched on the basis of single paragraphs in news stories.

    Even a former head of GCHQ has objected to Britain’s continuing secrecy over the issue. David Omand joined MPs Tom Watson and David Davis in signing a letter last November calling on the government to disclose its guidance on intelligence-sharing where individuals may be targeted by covert strikes.

    The release of the information, they wrote, would “underline the distinction between Reaper strikes by our armed forces in Afghanistan, and now Iraq, and those of other states elsewhere”.

    Watson told the Guardian: “The government has always maintained we are not complicit in targeted extra-judicial killings. Any note of ambiguity identified by these documents has to be thoroughly investigated.”

    The new documents include a regular series of newsletters – titled Comet News – which are used to update GCHQ personnel on the work of Overhead, an operation based on satellite, radio and some phone collection of intelligence. Overhead began as a US operation but has operated for decades as a partnership with GCHQ and, more recently, Australian intelligence.

    The GCHQ memos, which span a two-year period, set out how Yemen became a surveillance priority for Overhead in 2010, in part at the urging of the NSA, shortly after the failed 2009 Christmas Day bomb plot in which Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his underpants on a transatlantic flight.

    Ten months later a sophisticated plot to smuggle explosives on to aircraft concealed in printer cartridges was foiled at East Midlands airport. Both plots were the work of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Yemen-based al-Qaida offshoot.

    GCHQ noted in the memos that the NSA’s focus on Yemen was a “great opportunity” for UK agents to focus on any leads they had in the country. Given the domestic terror threat to the UK as well as internal conflicts in the country, GCHQ has multiple reasons to be monitoring individuals in the country.

    One Comet News update reveals how Overhead’s surveillance networks supported an air strike in Yemen that killed two men on 30 March 2012. The men are both described as AQAP members.

    In the memo, one of the dead men is identified as Khalid Usama – who has never before been publicly named – a “doctor who pioneered using surgically implanted explosives”. The other is not identified.

    In the two years of memos seen by the Guardian, this was the only specific strike detailed, raising questions as to why GCHQ’s team decided to notify staff about this particular strike among hundreds.

    The Guardian asked GCHQ whether this was because UK personnel or bases were involved in the operation. The agency declined to comment, and offered no explanation as to why British staff were briefed on this particular strike.

    US officials confirmed to Reuters in 2012 that there had been a single drone strike in Yemen on 30 March of that year. According to a database of drone strikes maintained by the not-for-profit Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the only incident in Yemen on that date targeted AQAP militants, causing between six and nine civilian casualties, including six children wounded by shrapnel.

    Asked whether the strike described in the GCHQ documents was the same one as recorded in the Bureau’s database, GCHQ declined to comment.

    The incident is one of more than 500 covert drone strikes and other attacks launched by the CIA and US special forces since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – which are not internationally recognised battlefields.

    The GCHQ documents also suggest the UK was working to build similar location-tracking capabilities in Pakistan, the country that has seen the majority of covert strikes, to support military operations “in-theatre”.

    A June 2009 document indicates that GCHQ appeared to accept the expanded US definition of combat zones, referring to the agency’s ability to provide “tactical and strategic SIGINT [signals intelligence] support to military operations in-theatre, notably Iraq and Afghanistan, but increasingly Pakistan”. The document adds that in Pakistan, “new requirements are yet to be confirmed, but are both imminent and high priority”.

    The note was written months after Barack Obama entered the White House and escalated the use of drones in Pakistan, conducting more strikes in his first year in office than George W Bush had in the previous four years.

    By this point NSA and GCHQ staff working within the UK had already prioritised surveillance of Pakistan’s tribal areas, where the majority of US covert drone strikes have been carried out. A 2008 memo lists surveillance of two specific sites and an overview of satellite-phone communications of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, in which nearly all Pakistan drone strikes have taken place, among its key projects.

    British intelligence-gathering in Pakistan is likely to have taken place for a number of reasons, not least because UK troops in Afghanistan were based in Helmand, on the Pakistani border.

    One of the teams involved in the geo-location of surveillance targets was codenamed “Widowmaker”, whose task was to “discover communications intelligence gaps in support of the global war on terror”, a note explains.

    Illustrating the close links between the UK, US and Australian intelligence services, Widowmaker personnel are based at Menwith Hill in the north of England, in Denver, Colorado, and in Alice Springs in Australia’s Northern Territory.

    Other Snowden documents discuss the difficult legal issues raised by intelligence sharing with the US.

    A secret 2009 legal briefing suggests that British military lawyers believe that some US operations beyond traditional battlefields may be unlawful – a document that also highlights GCHQ’s efforts to operate within the bounds of the law in a complex and challenging environment.

    The briefing prepared for GCHQ personnel sharing target intelligence in Afghanistan instructed them to refer to senior compliance staff before sharing information with the US if they believed it may be used for a “detention or cross-border operation”.

    This, the documents states, was because the US forces were operating under Operation Enduring Freedom rules, which are less restrictive than the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force rules governing UK personnel. As a result, sharing intelligence “may result in unlawful activity” by GCHQ staff.

    The Guardian contacted GCHQ with the information contained in this article, and asked a series of questions on the extent of intelligence sharing with the US in connection with targeted killing, and the legal framework for any such activities. The agency declined to comment on specifics, but provided the following statement.

    “It is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters,” said a spokesman. “Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the parliamentary intelligence and security committee.

    “All our operational processes rigorously support this position. In addition, the UK’s interception regime is entirely compatible with the European convention on human rights.”

    The Guardian asked Downing Street why it refused to clarify any UK role in US drone strikes. A government spokesperson said: “It is the longstanding policy of successive UK governments not to comment on intelligence operations. We expect all states concerned to act in accordance with international law and take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties when conducting any form of military or counter-terrorist operations.”

    Asked last year about the Britain’s role in US operations outside traditional war zones, defence minister Mark Francois told parliament that “strikes against terrorist targets in Yemen are a matter for the Yemeni and US governments”. Ministers including Sayeeda Warsi have used similar language when discussing drone strikes in Pakistan.

    The UK has faced previous legal challenges over the issue. In 2012, the family of a tribal elder killed in Pakistan, Noor Khan, launched a court case in England in which barristers claimed GCHQ agents who shared targeting intelligence for covert strikes could be “accessory to murder”. Judges twice refused to rule on the issue on the grounds it could harm the UK’s international relations.

    • Alice Ross formerly worked on The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s drones team.

  16. #16
    Custom user Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Behind a rhododendron bush
    Posts
    17,315
    ^^ Must just be you, ltnt. I can certainly copy and paste into a post on TD.

  17. #17
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,579
    ^Guess so Never-mind...whats your secret?

  18. #18
    Custom user Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Behind a rhododendron bush
    Posts
    17,315
    No secret. Standard stuff, just as you described in your post.

    Are you using a computer/laptop or a mobile device?

    Have you tried using a different computer or other device?

    Have you tried using another mouse?

  19. #19
    Custom Title Changer
    CSFFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    8,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna
    Have you tried using another mouse?
    I like using mice, they're kind of squirmy...

  20. #20
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    14-08-2015 @ 05:39 PM
    Location
    Ex-Pat Refugee in Thailand
    Posts
    9,579
    ^^Lap top, nothing special as I can cut and paste on other locations at will.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •