Abhisit Cancels Trip To Australia To Handle Potential Violence

[Scott]

Just to assist in keeping the thread on topic, I will warn posters that referring to either of the two major color groups as a terrorist movement will result in your post being deleted and warnings. This is defamatory.

At no time has either group--as a group advocated the use of terrorism. Individual actions may be seen by some as an act of terrorism, but that is not the topic at hand.

We want to have a fair and open discussion, but let's exercise some care since the situation already appears to be tense.

Thanks in advance.

[Jingthing]

A protest is a mess? Every European capital sees a couple dozen protests every year. On occasion they include traffic disruptions or even clashes with the riot police. That's what riot police is for. How does a coup make any sense at all as a mechanism to deal with this?

A peaceful protest is not a mess. A violent revolutionary movement is a mess. A country in politically divisive gridlock which doesn't have energy to actually tackle the real problems is a mess. A coup if it happens will most likely happen if Abhisit is perceived as too weak by the military to handle the violent chaos, should it not be suppressed by the new security measures. Not sure that makes sense, but that is the justification they will probably use, if it comes to that.

[anotherpeter]

the yellows took of the seat of government, they attacked policemen trying to defend parliament, they attacked tv stations and radio stations, they forced the closure of an international airport.

These can all easily be construed as acts of terrorism.

let me ask you this, if these acts had been committed by the reds would you call them acts of terrorism, of if the yellows had comitted the reds acts would you call them acts of terrorism.

Try and be balanced mate or you just end up looking to be biased and ignoring the obvious. The yellows are just as bad as the reds if not worse.

I try to be balanced ... really.

I don't agree with the reds tactics now, as I didn't agree with the yellow tactics then (although I wasn't posting on TV then).

I do think that the reds are more violent than the yellows were. I think the reds threatening to blow up a gas tanker was bad move on their part, and the fact that locals were killed doesn't help them either. The yellows taking over the airport was bad for Thailand.

I am anti-Thaksin. If the reds weren't such staunch supporters of Thaksin I might have a bit more time for them.

Corruption is problem on both sides, as it at all levels of Thai society. But Thaksin pushed it too far.

If the reds really want democracy, then wait until the next election and make sure they get some non-corrupt politicians that actually help the poor into power. Bringing back Thaksin will not fix any problems.

[tonywebster]

The reds actions were politically motivated this is true but I still see them as an act of civil disobedience, that said you have a good point with the truck, providing people suspected they had the means to detonate it.

However taking over the seat of government and effectively forcing the closure of an airport by making it impossible for the airport to operate safely can not really be seen as anything other than terrorist acts.

OK. let's take the 'terrorism' out of it and talk about 'civil disobedience' and 'violence'.

The yellows took over the airport. No one was injured. For the couple of weeks that they were there, there was only one cracked window. That is disobedient, not violent.

The reds protested last Songkran. Two people were killed (not reds). They threatened to blow up a gas tanker. That is violent, and way more than disobedient.

Do you really think the yellows didnt kill or injure anyone during their siege? This is a serious question I am asking you.

did you not witness them giving beatings? did you not witness them firing a gun in broad daylight? Do you think they were invited into the tv station or do you think the forced their way in? Did you not see them attacking police whilst trying to storm parliament? Are you aware that one policeman was stabbed at this, are you aware that another policeman was run over, are you aware that a red supporter was shot and killed near the police headquarters, an act admitted by the yellows I recall. Do you not remember them putting tarpulin up so the cameras could not witness a beating near Rama 5 statue?

It seems your memory is either jaded or you were not here for all those acts.

Seriously Peter, come on. Both sides have committed acts of violence

[tonywebster]

Violent terrorist movement? I thought the yellows had quietened down.

People want to make their voices heard in a peaceful way and you have them hung, drawn and quartered as terrorists

Another "balanced" post by "not-a-red" tonywebster. Tony is not obfuscating at all he has just forgotten why Samak had to call a SoE, Sae Daeng's threatened grenade attacks that happened at Gov't house and the airport, various minor scuffles, the man savagely beaten then killed in Chiang Mai, the events in Udon, Songkran 2009, Sae Daeng's recent threats, the Youtube video by K Thong. the recent grenade attacks, etc etc. I am sure that not recalling that the reds have a very real and prolonged history of violence and are still threatening more just escaped toneywebster's memory.

Again my favourite fruit vendor tries to distort my posts, I refer you to the post above. Maybe you should just ignore me since I seem to annoy you so much by pointing out when you distort my posts, as I say, if I keep seeing one sides arguments full of inaccuracies then i will highlight so other posters get a balanced view.

ignore me, I won't lose slep over it

[tonywebster]

the yellows took of the seat of government, they attacked policemen trying to defend parliament, they attacked tv stations and radio stations, they forced the closure of an international airport.

These can all easily be construed as acts of terrorism.

let me ask you this, if these acts had been committed by the reds would you call them acts of terrorism, of if the yellows had comitted the reds acts would you call them acts of terrorism.

Try and be balanced mate or you just end up looking to be biased and ignoring the obvious. The yellows are just as bad as the reds if not worse.

I try to be balanced ... really.

I don't agree with the reds tactics now, as I didn't agree with the yellow tactics then (although I wasn't posting on TV then).

I do think that the reds are more violent than the yellows were. I think the reds threatening to blow up a gas tanker was bad move on their part, and the fact that locals were killed doesn't help them either. The yellows taking over the airport was bad for Thailand.

I am anti-Thaksin. If the reds weren't such staunch supporters of Thaksin I might have a bit more time for them.

Corruption is problem on both sides, as it at all levels of Thai society. But Thaksin pushed it too far.

If the reds really want democracy, then wait until the next election and make sure they get some non-corrupt politicians that actually help the poor into power. Bringing back Thaksin will not fix any problems.

this is where we differ then peter, i don't see them purely as Thaksins foot soldiers, I try to see the bigger picture and wonder if they are latching onto thaksin or whether it is the other way around. Sure there are links but putting to Thaksin to one side they do have a point.

[Jingthing]

The yellows are not active now. Why humor the red sympathizers by even discussing them now? Currently, the country is under the threat of red shirt violence. That is the topic of the day. Arguments about double standards are always there, but bottom line, some day Thailand must begin to stop being ruled by the MOB. Abhisit is trying to make that stand now, and it is a very reasonable and supportable stand.

[tonywebster]

Just to assist in keeping the thread on topic, I will warn posters that referring to either of the two major color groups as a terrorist movement will result in your post being deleted and warnings. This is defamatory.

At no time has either group--as a group advocated the use of terrorism. Individual actions may be seen by some as an act of terrorism, but that is not the topic at hand.

We want to have a fair and open discussion, but let's exercise some care since the situation already appears to be tense.

Thanks in advance.

just seen this

[tonywebster]

The yellows are not active now. Why humor the red sympathizers by even discussing them now? Currently, the country is under the threat of red shirt violence. That is the topic of the day. Arguments about double standards are always there, but bottom line, some day Thailand must begin to stop being ruled by the MOB. Abhisit is trying to make that stand now, and it is a very reasonable and supportable stand.

Were they not active recently when Hun Sen visited the border? Did they not travel to the border recently and violence occurred with locals?

What do you consider to be active? sitting in an airport or government house? of course they are still active.

Also what is this threat of violence, the reds have said they want a peaceful demonstration, it is only people scaremongering that are creating a threat of violence, it is all in your mind that is being warped by the propaganda such as staged bombings and 6000 rifles going missing

Edited March 8, 2010 by tonywebster

[NADTATIDA1]

the yellows took of the seat of government, they attacked policemen trying to defend parliament, they attacked tv stations and radio stations, they forced the closure of an international airport.

These can all easily be construed as acts of terrorism.

let me ask you this, if these acts had been committed by the reds would you call them acts of terrorism, of if the yellows had comitted the reds acts would you call them acts of terrorism.

Try and be balanced mate or you just end up looking to be biased and ignoring the obvious. The yellows are just as bad as the reds if not worse.

I try to be balanced ... really.

I don't agree with the reds tactics now, as I didn't agree with the yellow tactics then (although I wasn't posting on TV then).

I do think that the reds are more violent than the yellows were. I think the reds threatening to blow up a gas tanker was bad move on their part, and the fact that locals were killed doesn't help them either. The yellows taking over the airport was bad for Thailand.

I am anti-Thaksin. If the reds weren't such staunch supporters of Thaksin I might have a bit more time for them.

Corruption is problem on both sides, as it at all levels of Thai society. But Thaksin pushed it too far.

If the reds really want democracy, then wait until the next election and make sure they get some non-corrupt politicians that actually help the poor into power. Bringing back Thaksin will not fix any problems.

this is where we differ then peter, i don't see them purely as Thaksins foot soldiers, I try to see the bigger picture and wonder if they are latching onto thaksin or whether it is the other way around. Sure there are links but putting to Thaksin to one side they do have a point.

Yes they have a democratic point.Don't they

All the party is missing at the moment is a leader to take over from Mr Thaksin,soon they will have and the puppet master will be long gone.

Edited March 8, 2010 by NADTATIDA1

[rreddin]

"He warned that a confrontation between the parties may lead to another coup d'etat."

That decision has almost certainly already been made. We now know the event that would trigger the coup and we also know when that event is likely to happen. Watch out for foreign embassies raising the level of their security warnings.

Of course, it will do nothing to solve the problems facing the country or help to bring about peaceful social change. If anything, it could make the mess the country is in even worse than it is now - and a lot more difficult to resolve.

[hammered]

The yellows are not active now. Why humor the red sympathizers by even discussing them now? Currently, the country is under the threat of red shirt violence. That is the topic of the day. Arguments about double standards are always there, but bottom line, some day Thailand must begin to stop being ruled by the MOB. Abhisit is trying to make that stand now, and it is a very reasonable and supportable stand.

Were they not active recently when Hun Sen visited the border? Did they not travel to the border recently and violence occurred with locals?

What do you consider to be active? sitting in an airport or government house? of course they are still active.

Also what is this threat of violence, the reds have said they want a peaceful demonstration, it is only people scaremongering that are creating a threat of violence, it is all in your mind that is being warped by the propaganda such as staged bombings and 6000 rifles going missing

My take on this after talking to quite a wide cross section is that the vast majority of the reds and the government want it to be peaceful. However, there are extreme groupings who wouldnt mind it going a bit further

Any big demo also carries the risk of violence occuring. We see that the world over and some who attend demos are thrill seekers etc.

What Arisaman was caught on video sayign was also not very peaceful.

A big demo in a hot city with flared tempers, rousing speeches, tired authorities and locals who have put up with god knows how many colour coded demos in the past four years is a volatile mix. It is not necessarily that a planned riot or planned attack by the whole army is a worry so much as a silly incident triggers god knows what or some extremist group or agent provocateur sets things off which is a concern

Then fianlly there is the Thaksin thing. He cant afford to sit around and wait or his assets are gone, spent and court cases stack up. That is different from pro-democracy groups who can afford to wait.

All in all a risky combination but hopefully it goes peacefully for everyone

[webfact]

Thai PM cancels Australia trip during 'Red Shirt' protest

BANGKOK (AFP) -- Thailand's Prime Minister said Monday he had canceled a trip to Australia after authorities called for a harsh security act to be invoked to deal with mass anti-government rallies this weekend.

Security chiefs have warned of possible violence when supporters of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra gather in Bangkok on March 14, just over two weeks after a court seized 1.4 billion dollars of the tycoon's fortune.

Current premier Abhisit Vejjajiva had planned to push ahead with an Australia visit from March 13 to 17, but told reporters his presence was needed while the Internal Security Act was invoked from March 11 to 23.

The government earlier announced plans to invoke the tough law for the so-called "Red Shirt" protests as it permits the army to help the police and gives the authorities powers to impose curfews and ban gatherings.

"As head of the administrative side, I will have to be here," Abhisit said.

"It is bad because Australia is Thailand's friend and important trading partner."

The rally promises to be the biggest since last April, when up to 100,000 Red Shirts protested against Abhisit and ensuing riots left two people dead and derailed a major Asian summit.

The Reds have held a string of protests since another court decision removed Thaksin's allies from government and brought Abhisit to power in December 2008, after a blockade of Bangkok's airports by rival, royalist "Yellow Shirts".

Thaksin, who was toppled in a coup in 2006 and is living in exile to avoid a two-year jail term for graft, continues to split Thai society, largely between his mainly rural supporters and those among the Bangkok elites who loathe him.

-- ©Copyright AFP 2010-03-08

Published with written approval from AFP.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[khunjamespittman]

I did find it an odd sign to hear Abhisit wasn't going to be here during the protest times. It sounded like a hint that a coup was coming.

Personally think he wanted to send a message he wouldn't be held to ransom. With all the coup comparisons being made it would galvanise his position if he returned and continued as normal after the demonstrations.

Completely off topic, but (and don't laugh) you wouldn't also happen to be Dr PP? Just a mutual forum friend of ours PM'd me with this accusation over the weekend.

I disagree. I think not being here would be seen by the people as being cowardly in the face of danger and not in control of the situation. He does have good reason to fear for his own safety, sadly, that's the situation when you are dealing with a violent terrorist movement.

Your outrageous personal accusation deserves no response at all. Cheers.

It's your right to disagree! Noone should disagree with that, but then you turn radical and start calling people terrorists.

That's outrageous to most rational people. Chill baby Chill!

[chantorn]

I have a 2-way jacket. It can switch from RED to YELLOW in 3 seconds. Just turn it inside out.

[anotherpeter]

this is where we differ then peter, i don't see them purely as Thaksins foot soldiers, I try to see the bigger picture and wonder if they are latching onto thaksin or whether it is the other way around. Sure there are links but putting to Thaksin to one side they do have a point.

I don't see any red leaders coming out and saying we don't support Thaksin, so I think overall they are latching on to the pay packet.