Worsening Crisis Pushes Thailand Towards Anarchy

[jdinasia]

Chula hospital is according to TAN moving patients to inner buildings

Time for them to clear the protesters from any area around a hospital.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Seagate is mulling relocating to China, Western Digital to Malaysia. These are all rumours of course, but only a couple of months after similar rumours from Sony started popping up from the same sources, Sony announced they are moving to Malaysia.

Investors do not like risks and uncertainty. It is the interests of ALL thais to solve in depth the issue of the Northern population. A crackdown will bring -at the best- only a temporary solution, because sooner or later the Thai 2 speed development consequences will re-surface. bangkokians have to invest in Northern Thailand: it is their well understood interest

Investors will avoid Thailand until they have a certainty of stability.

What you fail to realize is that there are many many wealthy rural people. Why do you not take your arguments to them first? I agree the central government should do what it can, but you must remember the financial and business districts are in Bangkok. This is the center of investment. This is where the jobs are. This is where the taxes come from. And this is where the largest portion of the tax money will be spent. If it is not this way then the country of Thailand will become not be competitive. The factories are scattered around the country, but the ones geared toward the export market need to be near the coast. These are the basic facts.

I'm not sure Jerry travels around the North much. For the past ten years there has been an unending string of investment, in agricultural, industrial, commercial and residential development here in Chiang Mai. Meanwhile the population has nearly tripled. Government, investors and individuals are making decisions to improve the status quo. I'm sorry Jerry isn't seeing that.

I know Chiangmai area has developed but ISSAN, from Kalasin to Nakhon Phanom -Nong Khai = peanuts

[Jingthing]

Calling this (currently) a civil war is far beyond naive ... it is irresponsible. It would barely qualify as an insurgency or rebellion ... however, should things continue without stopping the threat of the reds setting up roadblocks and searching people, and preventing governent officials from doing their jobs then it could certainly move into a full scale insurrection quickly.

Since there have been no real actions on either side aimed at taking territory and controlling the population it just doesn't come close to being a "war" in any way.

Personally I do not think many of us would choose to live in a country that was actually actively involved in a civil war.

The reds haven't taken territory? I see. Interesting interpretation.

[jcbangkok]

Its a terrorist movement, disguised as a protest. Nothing more, nothing less. More than 99 percent of the population are not involved. Its not a war.

We have multiple political factions fighting each other. All sides are armed and using the arms to a certain degree. Its a war. There are different kinds of civil wars. Don't expect a battle of Antietam here.

civil war definition

civil war

war between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation

When people argue verbally it can be called war ... as in a war of words.

Call it what you want but it is what it is and the bottom line that is a group of folks with their own agenda causing chaos, intimidation, violence and lawlessness, infringement of people's rights as well as provoking armed people legally appointed to uphold the law ... just to name a few things of what it is.

[OzMick]

The yellows where aloud to protest so why should the red not be able to. I am married to a Thai lady living in the uk and my mother in law is 76 years old, she protested in Bangkok wearing a red shirt but she's not a terrorist or terrorizing law abiding citizens, she simply wants a fair democratic elected Prime minister.

Please don't judge all Red's as terrorist, a lot of them just want fairness.

If you MIL is participating in an illegal protest that has an armed militia, leaders calling for violence, and doesn't understand the basics of "democratically elected", then she deserves to be labeled with the rest.

Many of us that are very "anti-red" and particularly "anti-Thaksin" certainly feel that the poor in ALL of Thailand are under-represented. That does not mean that their participation in an anti-democratic series of rallies that damage the entire country needs to be excused.

Currently there is an elected PM in Thailand, if you doubt this please contact the government of the UK and ask them. The current PM was elected the same way that Samak and Somchai were........

Hey, give the old girl a break. Where else can she B500/day.

[jcbangkok]

Calling this (currently) a civil war is far beyond naive ... it is irresponsible. It would barely qualify as an insurgency or rebellion ... however, should things continue without stopping the threat of the reds setting up roadblocks and searching people, and preventing governent officials from doing their jobs then it could certainly move into a full scale insurrection quickly.

Since there have been no real actions on either side aimed at taking territory and controlling the population it just doesn't come close to being a "war" in any way.

Personally I do not think many of us would choose to live in a country that was actually actively involved in a civil war.

The reds haven't taken territory? I see. Interesting interpretation.

Every time there is an armed stand off with police would be a Civil War too then. It is beyond irrational and illogical to call this a civil war at this point ... it is actually subversive and instigating to do so as well as a way to rationalize violence from a group that claims it is peaceful. On this note, since the reds claim this is just a peaceful protest, even they have not stopped this low to calling it a civil war.

[Jingthing]

Some weeks ago, a red leader declared war on the government, yes? So how can you say the reds would not stoop so low? I am just describing the reality I see now in Thailand. If you want to set a high bar for calling it civil war, so be it. I am merely saying there are different kinds of civil war, and the current situation meets the basic definition.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[jcbangkok]

Some weeks ago, a red leader declared war on the government, yes? So how can you say the reds would not stoop so low? I am just describing the reality I see now in Thailand. If you want to set a high bar for calling it civil war, so be it. I am merely saying there are different kinds of civil war, and the current situation meets the basic definition.

Bin Laden also declared war on the USA years before the 911 attack. Since we are defining what the red shirts are by what their leaders say then it would make more sense to call them terrorists since they have threatened and encouraged numerous terrorist attacks (not even getting into all the things they have actually done)

Unless there is a dramatic turn of events there will be no historians who will ever describe this as a civil war ... well unless it becomes one.

[NCFC]

A friend working at Chulalongkorn hospital has informed me that all non-urgent surgery has been cancelled at the hospital from today. It looks like they are making room for guests without prior reservations?

[Jingthing]

Some weeks ago, a red leader declared war on the government, yes? So how can you say the reds would not stoop so low? I am just describing the reality I see now in Thailand. If you want to set a high bar for calling it civil war, so be it. I am merely saying there are different kinds of civil war, and the current situation meets the basic definition.

Bin Laden also declared war on the USA years before the 911 attack. Since we are defining what the red shirts are by what their leaders say then it would make more sense to call them terrorists since they have threatened and encouraged numerous terrorist attacks (not even getting into all the things they have actually done)

Unless there is a dramatic turn of events there will be no historians who will ever describe this as a civil war ... well unless it becomes one.

Al Queda is at war with the US and vice versa, so I don't get your meaning. I get your point though about historians. If peace broke out right now, it wouldn't be described as a civil war. But seriously, what do you reckon are the chances that this mess won't escalate more and last quite a long time?

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[jcbangkok]

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1] It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources.[3]

End of silly discussion. This is neither wide spread or a high intensity conflict as defined by war.

[Jerrytheyoung]

What I see is that both sides are good typical Thais quite stubborn and nobody want seriously open discussions.

The Government obviously want to pass its Budget and is not ready to amend it.

The Red Shirts stand for the dissolution of Parliament.

This afternoon has been a skirmish not decisive but one more dead (poor guy, Rest In Peace)....and the day is apparently not finished....

Where are we going like that from provocation to provocation? The Civil war when Army will split in 2 parts ?

My personal interpretation of the Civil war: when you have organised Military Units on boths sides...

But in Asia we also knows that everything may end in a very surprising way for westerners: let us hope that this will happen with a minimum of deaths/injuries and rapidly

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[RickBradford]

I think the thread title is out of date; it already is anarchy when these Red Shirts can roam the country at will, setting up roadblocks, commandeering vehicles and beating people who don't follow their instructions, while the forces of law and order do nothing to stop them.

[jcbangkok]

Some weeks ago, a red leader declared war on the government, yes? So how can you say the reds would not stoop so low? I am just describing the reality I see now in Thailand. If you want to set a high bar for calling it civil war, so be it. I am merely saying there are different kinds of civil war, and the current situation meets the basic definition.

Bin Laden also declared war on the USA years before the 911 attack. Since we are defining what the red shirts are by what their leaders say then it would make more sense to call them terrorists since they have threatened and encouraged numerous terrorist attacks (not even getting into all the things they have actually done)

Unless there is a dramatic turn of events there will be no historians who will ever describe this as a civil war ... well unless it becomes one.

Al Queda is at war with the US and vice versa, so I don't get your meaning. I get your point though about historians. If peace broke out right now, it wouldn't be described as a civil war. But seriously, what do you reckon are the chances that this mess won't escalate more and last quite a long time?

US is currently fighting a war on terrorism as well as the never ending war on drugs.

As far as how long this mess will last ...

THE NATION: Rajprasong reds r almost in panic. Rumours buzzing about imminent crackdown. "What's our leaders doing?" many shouted

[jdinasia]

Whatever may or may not happen in the future this isn't a civil war at the present time (and in my personal opinion is not likely to become one). The events in the South with 3000+ deaths isn't even called a civil war.

Would you live in a country that was experiencing a civil war?

[Jerrytheyoung]

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1] It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources.[3]

End of silly discussion. This is neither wide spread or a high intensity conflict as defined by war.

WAR = a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or groups (Oxford Dictionnary)

I deduct for civil war that we must have organised armed units on each side

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[jdinasia]

A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state.[2] The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.[1] It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources.[3]

End of silly discussion. This is neither wide spread or a high intensity conflict as defined by war.

Agreed .... just silliness!

[kissdani]

The yellows where aloud to protest so why should the red not be able to. I am married to a Thai lady living in the uk and my mother in law is 76 years old, she protested in Bangkok wearing a red shirt but she's not a terrorist or terrorizing law abiding citizens, she simply wants a fair democratic elected Prime minister.

Please don't judge all Red's as terrorist, a lot of them just want fairness.

If you MIL is participating in an illegal protest that has an armed militia, leaders calling for violence, and doesn't understand the basics of "democratically elected", then she deserves to be labeled with the rest.

Many of us that are very "anti-red" and particularly "anti-Thaksin" certainly feel that the poor in ALL of Thailand are under-represented. That does not mean that their participation in an anti-democratic series of rallies that damage the entire country needs to be excused.

Currently there is an elected PM in Thailand, if you doubt this please contact the government of the UK and ask them. The current PM was elected the same way that Samak and Somchai were........

Who are the "many of us"?

I guess you are a Farang. News for you: you don't have much to say here, actually nothing. You also cannot vote. You can have your talk about Thaksins prostate if that gives you a kick.

But this 76 years old Thai has the right to protest, she is Thai, it is her country.

You are not in the position to decide what that 76 years old Thai lady is allowed to do and what not.

[Jingthing]

The yellows where aloud to protest so why should the red not be able to. I am married to a Thai lady living in the uk and my mother in law is 76 years old, she protested in Bangkok wearing a red shirt but she's not a terrorist or terrorizing law abiding citizens, she simply wants a fair democratic elected Prime minister.

Please don't judge all Red's as terrorist, a lot of them just want fairness.

If you MIL is participating in an illegal protest that has an armed militia, leaders calling for violence, and doesn't understand the basics of "democratically elected", then she deserves to be labeled with the rest.

Many of us that are very "anti-red" and particularly "anti-Thaksin" certainly feel that the poor in ALL of Thailand are under-represented. That does not mean that their participation in an anti-democratic series of rallies that damage the entire country needs to be excused.

Currently there is an elected PM in Thailand, if you doubt this please contact the government of the UK and ask them. The current PM was elected the same way that Samak and Somchai were........

Who are the "many of us"?

I guess you are a Farang. News for you: you don't have much to say here, actually nothing. You also cannot vote. You can have your talk about Thaksins prostate if that gives you a kick.

But this 76 years old Thai has the right to protest, she is Thai, it is her country.

You are not in the position to decide what that 76 years old Thai lady is allowed to do and what not.

Sir, the vast majority of people using this forum are NOT Thai. If that offends you, there are many Thai language forums for you to vent against us "useless" foreigners.

[Jingthing]

and I agreed that the reds should not bring the city to a stand still and cause billions of damage to the economy of Thailand but is this not what the yellows did when they blockaded the airport???..I am not pro Red or Yellow I just want the people of Thailand to get a fair deal..As I can see it the rich get richer and the poorer get poorer in Thailand.

Glad you raised this question. In my estimation the damage done ALREADY by the red insurgency to Thailand is easily 100 times greater than the damage done by the yellow airport incident. And the reds have only just gotten started! BTW, do you seriously believe anyone believes you are not pro red? Be honest.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[WinnieTheKhwai]

And this passes for a newspaper! No comment required!

[jdinasia]

The yellows where aloud to protest so why should the red not be able to. I am married to a Thai lady living in the uk and my mother in law is 76 years old, she protested in Bangkok wearing a red shirt but she's not a terrorist or terrorizing law abiding citizens, she simply wants a fair democratic elected Prime minister.

Please don't judge all Red's as terrorist, a lot of them just want fairness.

If you MIL is participating in an illegal protest that has an armed militia, leaders calling for violence, and doesn't understand the basics of "democratically elected", then she deserves to be labeled with the rest.

Many of us that are very "anti-red" and particularly "anti-Thaksin" certainly feel that the poor in ALL of Thailand are under-represented. That does not mean that their participation in an anti-democratic series of rallies that damage the entire country needs to be excused.

Currently there is an elected PM in Thailand, if you doubt this please contact the government of the UK and ask them. The current PM was elected the same way that Samak and Somchai were........

Who are the "many of us"?

I guess you are a Farang. News for you: you don't have much to say here, actually nothing. You also cannot vote. You can have your talk about Thaksins prostate if that gives you a kick.

But this 76 years old Thai has the right to protest, she is Thai, it is her country.

You are not in the position to decide what that 76 years old Thai lady is allowed to do and what not.

I am guessing that

1) I have as much right to comment as you.

2) Having family that CAN vote and having lived here and invested in a life here might make that more of a right to comment than you.

3) You are right ... I cannot vote here (yet).

4) The MIL in question has every right to do whatever is LEGAL and the right to break the law and suffer the consequences of her decisions just like any other adult. She chose to participate in an illegal gathering that has terrorist elements ... so she has earned the right to be painted with the same brush.

[OzMick]

The yellows where aloud to protest so why should the red not be able to. I am married to a Thai lady living in the uk and my mother in law is 76 years old, she protested in Bangkok wearing a red shirt but she's not a terrorist or terrorizing law abiding citizens, she simply wants a fair democratic elected Prime minister.

Please don't judge all Red's as terrorist, a lot of them just want fairness.

If you MIL is participating in an illegal protest that has an armed militia, leaders calling for violence, and doesn't understand the basics of "democratically elected", then she deserves to be labeled with the rest.

Many of us that are very "anti-red" and particularly "anti-Thaksin" certainly feel that the poor in ALL of Thailand are under-represented. That does not mean that their participation in an anti-democratic series of rallies that damage the entire country needs to be excused.

Currently there is an elected PM in Thailand, if you doubt this please contact the government of the UK and ask them. The current PM was elected the same way that Samak and Somchai were........

Who are the "many of us"?

I guess you are a Farang. News for you: you don't have much to say here, actually nothing. You also cannot vote. You can have your talk about Thaksins prostate if that gives you a kick.

But this 76 years old Thai has the right to protest, she is Thai, it is her country.

You are not in the position to decide what that 76 years old Thai lady is allowed to do and what not.

You are quite correct. But when she gets trampled to death by a herd of buffaloes who suddenly decide that B500/d isn't worth dying for,

you and the other red apologists will use her to vilify the actions of the govt. Surprise! It won't work.

[kissdani]

When will the international press start reporting the truth, that the red shirt insurgents are in no way INNOCENT victims of government violence? The red shirts are the trouble makers; the government is only trying to restore order.

OMG, International press reporting all wrong. How can that be allowed, they have a different opinion like you and Abhisit

Hurry up, if its online you can report the crime here http://www.mict.go.th/re_complaint.php

If you lucky it will get banned.

[kissdani]

The yellows where aloud to protest so why should the red not be able to. I am married to a Thai lady living in the uk and my mother in law is 76 years old, she protested in Bangkok wearing a red shirt but she's not a terrorist or terrorizing law abiding citizens, she simply wants a fair democratic elected Prime minister.

Please don't judge all Red's as terrorist, a lot of them just want fairness.

If you MIL is participating in an illegal protest that has an armed militia, leaders calling for violence, and doesn't understand the basics of "democratically elected", then she deserves to be labeled with the rest.

Many of us that are very "anti-red" and particularly "anti-Thaksin" certainly feel that the poor in ALL of Thailand are under-represented. That does not mean that their participation in an anti-democratic series of rallies that damage the entire country needs to be excused.

Currently there is an elected PM in Thailand, if you doubt this please contact the government of the UK and ask them. The current PM was elected the same way that Samak and Somchai were........

Who are the "many of us"?

I guess you are a Farang. News for you: you don't have much to say here, actually nothing. You also cannot vote. You can have your talk about Thaksins prostate if that gives you a kick.

But this 76 years old Thai has the right to protest, she is Thai, it is her country.

You are not in the position to decide what that 76 years old Thai lady is allowed to do and what not.

You are quite correct. But when she gets trampled to death by a herd of buffaloes who suddenly decide that B500/d isn't worth dying for,

you and the other red apologists will use her to vilify the actions of the govt. Surprise! It won't work.

You are a sad person. One day you will have just your hateful minds and nothing else.

[Jingthing]

When will the international press start reporting the truth, that the red shirt insurgents are in no way INNOCENT victims of government violence? The red shirts are the trouble makers; the government is only trying to restore order.

OMG, International press reporting all wrong. How can that be allowed, they have a different opinion like you and Abhisit

Hurry up, if its online you can report the crime here http://www.mict.go.th/re_complaint.php

If you lucky it will get banned.

Funny, but seriously, if the world press simply reported the translated words of the red shirt leaders in detail, overnight there would absolutely no international sympathy for the red shirt terrorist movement. I think they have failed. They don't need to take sides, just print the actual red leaders WORDS! Not the polished English propaganda version. The actual direct translations from Thai told directly to the red shirt followers. Those words are the real truth about what the red shirts really are.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[lazurus]

Well this isn't the UK so what does it matter, Gordon Brown isn't in charge. In Canada the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP tried to engineer a change in government by aligning to unseat the conservative government. It is possible for it to happen in any parliamentary system. Maybe the democrats should have called an election when the PPP was disbanded and tried to get re-elected with no opposition party in place. I'm sure you would have disapproved of that too. If a party gets tossed out due to electoral fraud is their opposition obligated to immediately call an election to give them a second chance to manipulate the electoral process? It isn't a case of a couple ministers switching sides, it was a case of a government coming to power through fraud. The constitution did not require the democrats to call an election, the other parties agreed to support them. That's what happens in democracy sometimes.

[kissdani]

When will the international press start reporting the truth, that the red shirt insurgents are in no way INNOCENT victims of government violence? The red shirts are the trouble makers; the government is only trying to restore order.

OMG, International press reporting all wrong. How can that be allowed, they have a different opinion like you and Abhisit

Hurry up, if its online you can report the crime here http://www.mict.go.th/re_complaint.php

If you lucky it will get banned.

Funny, but seriously, if the world press simply reported the translated words of the red shirt leaders in detail, overnight there would absolutely no international sympathy for the red shirt terrorist movement. I think they have failed. They don't need to take sides, just print the actual red leaders WORDS! Not the polished English propaganda version. The actual direct translations from Thai told directly to the red shirt followers. Those words are the real truth about what the red shirts really are.

I have doubt that you understand the language and understand the context.

You prefer to talk about Thaksin prostate, a side-note that the international press maybe missed, but honestly Thaksin prostate is only relevant for people with very special interest.

[ryguy]

Whatever may or may not happen in the future this isn't a civil war at the present time (and in my personal opinion is not likely to become one). The events in the South with 3000+ deaths isn't even called a civil war.

Would you live in a country that was experiencing a civil war?

CIVIL WAR

"What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Some men you just can't reach...

So, you get what we had here last week,

which is the way he wants it!

Well, he gets it!

N' I don't like it any more than you men." *

Look at your young men fighting

Look at your women crying

Look at your young men dying

The way they've always done before

Look at the hate we're breeding

Look at the fear we're feeding

Look at the lives we're leading

The way we've always done before

My hands are tied

The billions shift from side to side

And the wars go on with brainwashed pride

For the love of God and our human rights

And all these things are swept aside

By bloody hands time can't deny

And are washed away by your genocide

And history hides the lies of our civil wars

D'you wear a black armband

When they shot the man

Who said "Peace could last forever"

And in my first memories

They shot Kennedy

I went numb when I learned to see

So I never fell for Vietnam

We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all

That you can't trust freedom

When it's not in your hands

When everybody's fightin'

For their promised land

And

I don't need your civil war

It feeds the rich while it buries the poor

Your power hungry sellin' soldiers

In a human grocery store

Ain't that fresh

I don't need your civil war

Look at the shoes your filling

Look at the blood we're spilling

Look at the world we're killing

The way we've always done before

Look in the doubt we've wallowed

Look at the leaders we've followed

Look at the lies we've swallowed

And I don't want to hear no more

My hands are tied

For all I've seen has changed my mind

But still the wars go on as the years go by

With no love of God or human rights

'Cause all these dreams are swept aside

By bloody hands of the hypnotized

Who carry the cross of homicide

And history bears the scars of our civil wars

"We practice selective annihilation of mayors

And government officials

For example to create a vacuum

Then we fill that vacuum

As popular war advances

Peace is closer" **

I don't need your civil war

It feeds the rich while it buries the poor

Your power hungry sellin' soldiers

In a human grocery store

Ain't that fresh

And I don't need your civil war

I don't need your civil war

I don't need your civil war

Your power hungry sellin' soldiers

In a human grocery store

Ain't that fresh

I don't need your civil war

I don't need one more war

I don't need one more war

Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway

[LevelHead]

Independent reports into todays action :

http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=18336

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8648109.stm

.

Soldier killed by government security force firing it seems, looks like only the government is using live ammo, again, as per April 10th ??