Pm Abhisit Says New Army Unit In Chiang Mai Unrelated To Red Shirts

[george]

PM says new army unit in North unrelated to Red Shirts

BANGKOK: -- Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said Saturday he had few details on an army plan to establish a new army unit in the northern province of Chiang Mai which critics charge as intended to obstruct activities of anti-government protesters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) loyal to fugitive, ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Emphasing that he had no details on the Army bid to set up the 7th Infantry Division in Chiang Mai province, Mr Abhisit said he believed the idea for a new army unit in the North must have come some time ago and has nothing to do with the current political situation.

Chiang Mai is the birthplace and hometown of Mr Thaksin, who was ousted in a bloodless coup in September 2006. Many people in the region still support him.

Consideration must be taken cautiously if the unit is to be established, Mr Abhisit cautioned, adding that he must study previous Cabinet decisions on setting up the unit as well as its personnel and operations.

Local newspapers have reported that Army chief Gen Anupong Paochinda ordered the 3rd Army region, responsible for security affairs in the North, to study the establishment of the 7th Infantry Division in Chiang Mai. Establishment of the unit will cost an estimated Bt10 billion over five years, starting in 2011.

On lifting the emergency decree now imposed in 16 provinces, including Bangkok, raised earlier by several academics by reasoning that it violated

human rights, Mr.Abhisit said his government is probing whether the decree affected human rights.

The law does not empower authorities to permanently imprison those who have broken the decree, he said, adding that some elements still want to create confusion in the country.

Mr Abhisit has said revoking the emergency decree, imposed since April 7 during intensified anti-government protests in Bangkok and some other provinces, could be done gradually.

-- TNA 2010-07-24

[SomTumTiger]

We all know that's not true. But the BKK Post article made ti sound like there was a need. Over 1000 km of border with Laos, and few military units in the area.

[Pib]

Thailand already has approx 306,000 active duty military. A Bangkok Post article says this new army unit/division would be 25,000 troops.

The military is already the 800 pound guerrilla in Thailand; if these 25,000 troops are "additive/new" troops and takes the active duty strength to 331,000, this will make the Thai military (especially the Army) the 1,000 pound guerrilla. One would think a military should be sized to defend itself from outside aggressors, but I don't see hordes massing on the Thai border. Maybe the military is sizing itself to defend itself from perceived inside aggressors.

[SomTumTiger]

Thailand already has approx 306,000 active duty military. A Bangkok Post article says this new army unit/division would be 25,000 troops.

The military is already the 800 pound guerrilla in Thailand; if these 25,000 troops are "additive/new" troops and takes the active duty strength to 331,000, this will make the Thai military (especially the Army) the 1,000 pound guerrilla. One would think a military should be sized to defend itself from outside aggressors, but I don't see hordes massing on the Thai border. Maybe the military is sizing itself to defend itself from perceived inside aggressors.

Check on the Central World building, then say "Perceived" again....

[Pib]

More troops will make the periodic military coups more efficient.

[craigt3365]

If there was an effective and non-biased police force up there, this would probably not be necessary. If it does happen, I see plenty of police losing "tea" money from the local drug lords and smugglers from across the border.

[rich54321]

Who is responsible for setting up these units - do they not have to gain approval from the government - who are saying its not them, it must have happend before - ( even though they are in power)

[Pib]

I expect the military proposes it and the Cabinet/Parliament approves/disapproves it, especially if significant funds are required and it's a major force structure change. But for small changes, I expect the military just does it, realigns some of its own yearly budget to fund the change, and notifies the government/populace.

[SomTumTiger]

Just take it out of the funds that Thaksin donated for the good of the order

[sbk]

One would think a military should be sized to defend itself from outside aggressors, but I don't see hordes massing on the Thai border. Maybe the military is sizing itself to defend itself from perceived inside aggressors.

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LG13Ae01.html

[david555]

One would think a military should be sized to defend itself from outside aggressors, but I don't see hordes massing on the Thai border. Maybe the military is sizing itself to defend itself from perceived inside aggressors.

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.co...a/LG13Ae01.html

And where are the "related to red stripes" soldiers gone........?, vanished , spread ? TH. a country doubt about his own army , says enough by itself or not?

[mazeltov]

One would think a military should be sized to defend itself from outside aggressors, but I don't see hordes massing on the Thai border. Maybe the military is sizing itself to defend itself from perceived inside aggressors.

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LG13Ae01.html

Curious if you know what is allowed at this board and what not?

I got an extended suspension of my posting rights for linking to an Asia Times article by Shawn Crispin, since them i ignore that source as illegal for Thailand for that forum.

[whybother]

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.co...a/LG13Ae01.html

Curious if you know what is allowed at this board and what not?

I got an extended suspension of my posting rights for linking to an Asia Times article by Shawn Crispin, since them i ignore that source as illegal for Thailand for that forum.

Maybe it was the content of the article, and not the location of it that was the problem.

Did the article that you linked to discuss things that shouldn't be discussed on here?

[lannarebirth]

I wouldn't think of it so much as the Army expanding as finding a place for thousands of young men that otherwise would not have a job in this society. Same like the monkhood.

[mazeltov]

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.co...a/LG13Ae01.html

Curious if you know what is allowed at this board and what not?

I got an extended suspension of my posting rights for linking to an Asia Times article by Shawn Crispin, since them i ignore that source as illegal for Thailand for that forum.

Maybe it was the content of the article, and not the location of it that was the problem.

Did the article that you linked to discuss things that shouldn't be discussed on here?

I didn't quote any objectionable content i just posted the link to the 'location'. The article and its content was also republished by TAN network. So i guess nothing wrong with the content but posting links to Shawn Crispin aricles in Asia Times Online is not allowed at this board.

I got even articles from The Nation deleted here. So the argument 'Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article? ' is a little bit strange. There isn't every news allowed in the Thaivisa cosmos.

[PoorSucker]

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.co...a/LG13Ae01.html

Curious if you know what is allowed at this board and what not?

I got an extended suspension of my posting rights for linking to an Asia Times article by Shawn Crispin, since them i ignore that source as illegal for Thailand for that forum.

Maybe it was the content of the article, and not the location of it that was the problem.

Did the article that you linked to discuss things that shouldn't be discussed on here?

I didn't quote any objectionable content i just posted the link to the 'location'. The article and its content was also republished by TAN network. So i guess nothing wrong with the content but posting links to Shawn Crispin aricles in Asia Times Online is not allowed at this board.

I got even articles from The Nation deleted here. So the argument 'Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article? ' is a little bit strange. There isn't every news allowed in the Thaivisa cosmos.

Read the rules:

10) Not to post commercial spam or to post any promotional links, URLs or addresses to a member's own business or that would lead people to your site. Not to post URL links to other forums . Not to flood, post commercial or for-profit advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and similar solicitations.

[rubl]

Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article?

http://www.atimes.co...a/LG13Ae01.html

Curious if you know what is allowed at this board and what not?

I got an extended suspension of my posting rights for linking to an Asia Times article by Shawn Crispin, since them i ignore that source as illegal for Thailand for that forum.

Maybe it was the content of the article, and not the location of it that was the problem.

Did the article that you linked to discuss things that shouldn't be discussed on here?

I didn't quote any objectionable content i just posted the link to the 'location'. The article and its content was also republished by TAN network. So i guess nothing wrong with the content but posting links to Shawn Crispin aricles in Asia Times Online is not allowed at this board.

I got even articles from The Nation deleted here. So the argument 'Curious if you read the news? Did you miss this article? ' is a little bit strange. There isn't every news allowed in the Thaivisa cosmos.

I thought you were on a short holiday break?

I must admit that the implementation of the rules is also not always clear to me. Still a link is illegal if the site you link to doesn't want / allow it. Also the contents of the article you link to may be objectable in some way EVEN when on a respctable news site. Anyway any forum has the right to set rules, even silly ones. If you don't like them, or can't abide by them, look for another forum that suits you more.

[mazeltov]

I thought you were on a short holiday break?

I must admit that the implementation of the rules is also not always clear to me. Still a link is illegal if the site you link to doesn't want / allow it. Also the contents of the article you link to may be objectable in some way EVEN when on a respctable news site. Anyway any forum has the right to set rules, even silly ones. If you don't like them, or can't abide by them, look for another forum that suits you more.

I am not argue about. I just want tell everybody to keep in mind that a link to asia times online can bring you into trouble here, so better ignore asia times online and don't post links to that source and also don't be surprise when others ignore that content from that source and not take it into consideration.

[ThaksinKharma]

I thought you were on a short holiday break?

I must admit that the implementation of the rules is also not always clear to me. Still a link is illegal if the site you link to doesn't want / allow it. Also the contents of the article you link to may be objectable in some way EVEN when on a respctable news site. Anyway any forum has the right to set rules, even silly ones. If you don't like them, or can't abide by them, look for another forum that suits you more.

I am not argue about. I just want tell everybody to keep in mind that a link to asia times online can bring you into trouble here, so better ignore asia times online and don't post links to that source and also don't be surprise when others ignore that content from that source and not take it into consideration.

That's pure BS. A search of this forum reveals multiple results for articles by Shawn Crispin and Asia Times.

Any doofus should know that it is the content of the article and not the writer or media outlet that publishes it.

You're just whining because you got a specific post deleted and suspended by Admin.

Now you're attempting to cast doubt and dispersions against Admin in a belittling manner by questioning moderation issues, which you know is against the rules

but nonetheless attempt to assert in a weakly-veiled effort.

Doesn't seem you learned much from your earlier suspension, which evidently was too short.

[craigt3365]

I thought you were on a short holiday break?

I must admit that the implementation of the rules is also not always clear to me. Still a link is illegal if the site you link to doesn't want / allow it. Also the contents of the article you link to may be objectable in some way EVEN when on a respctable news site. Anyway any forum has the right to set rules, even silly ones. If you don't like them, or can't abide by them, look for another forum that suits you more.

I am not argue about. I just want tell everybody to keep in mind that a link to asia times online can bring you into trouble here, so better ignore asia times online and don't post links to that source and also don't be surprise when others ignore that content from that source and not take it into consideration.

That's pure BS. A search of this forum reveals multiple results for articles by Shawn Crispin and Asia Times.

Any doofus should know that it is the content of the article and not the writer or media outlet that publishes it.

You're just whining because you got a specific post deleted and suspended by Admin.

Now you're attempting to cast doubt and dispersions against Admin in a belittling manner by questioning moderation issues, which you know is against the rules

but nonetheless attempt to assert in a weakly-veiled effort.

Doesn't seem you learned much from your earlier suspension, which evidently was too short.

I seem to remember your suspension. Wasn't it on one of the red shirt rants that pop up here so often? You were pushing the box a bit, if my memory serves me correctly. If not, :jap:

[Robby nz]

Why is it that so many threads on here seem to disintagrate into silly arguments between one or two posters?

Anyway the way I read the article it would seem the proposal is for an already existing army unit to be moved to C M not for a new one to be created.

[rich54321]

does the 7th Infantry Division already exist and is being relocated?

[sbk]

Discussion of moderation is against forum rules. Mazeltov, if you cannot recall the specific reason you were suspended I will be happy to inform you via PM why your post was deleted and how it broke some very specific forum rules that could get you banned rather than merely suspended. Attempts to call into question moderation again will result in something a bit less friendly than a public warning. Hope thats clear.

So, now instead of hijacking this thread with our personal issues, maybe we can discuss the topic instead. Cheers.

[Ulysses G.]

I thought you were on a short holiday break?

I must admit that the implementation of the rules is also not always clear to me. Still a link is illegal if the site you link to doesn't want / allow it. Also the contents of the article you link to may be objectable in some way EVEN when on a respctable news site. Anyway any forum has the right to set rules, even silly ones. If you don't like them, or can't abide by them, look for another forum that suits you more.

I am not argue about. I just want tell everybody to keep in mind that a link to asia times online can bring you into trouble here, so better ignore asia times online and don't post links to that source and also don't be surprise when others ignore that content from that source and not take it into consideration.

That's pure BS. A search of this forum reveals multiple results for articles by Shawn Crispin and Asia Times.

Any doofus should know that it is the content of the article and not the writer or media outlet that publishes it.

You're just whining because you got a specific post deleted and suspended by Admin.

Now you're attempting to cast doubt and dispersions against Admin in a belittling manner by questioning moderation issues, which you know is against the rules

but nonetheless attempt to assert in a weakly-veiled effort.

Doesn't seem you learned much from your earlier suspension, which evidently was too short.

It is lucky that sbk is not vindictive against avid redshirt propagandists or she might use this excellent opportunity to bounce mazeltov for breaking the rules.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[whybother]

The article says it is a NEW army unit.

Wikipedia says that there are 9 infantry divisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Thai_Army#Field_Organization):

- 4 in Bangkok (1st, 2nd, 9th and 11th)

- 3 in Nahkon Ratchasima (3rd, 6th and 12th)

- 1 in Phitsanulok (4th)

- 1 in Nahkon Si Thammarat (5th)

The new one will be the 7th infantry division.

I doubt they will be employing 20,000 new soldiers to put there, so I assume they will come from existing divisions. Ofcourse, those 20,000 would probably be replaced at their existing locations over time.

[ThaksinKharma]

nice how the article explains the why behind the reds/PTP's opposition at the end of it:

7th Infantry Division establishment opposed

BANGKOK, 25 July 2010 (NNT) – The opposition Pheu Thai Party has voiced disagreement with the planned establishment of the seventh Infantry Division in the northern province of Chiang Mai because it is contradictory to the reconciliation roadmap of the Government.

Pheu Thai Party Spokesperson, Prompong Nopparit, questioned if the planned establishment of the military unit was aimed at impeding the regional movements of the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD).

The army recently proposed that the seventh Infantry Division be established for greater efficiency in narcotic suppression in the northern region.

http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255307250028

[chantorn]

I do not know if Thai army is too small for its size.

If it is, then more division are needed.

So be it.

What about a division of solider & civilian.

[chantorn]

If there was an effective and non-biased police force up there, this would probably not be necessary. If it does happen, I see plenty of police losing "tea" money from the local drug lords and smugglers from across the border.

This is a very easy problem to solve.

Just issue new army uniform too all the police. From tomorrow, change all the police title to army title. Rebrand all the police station to army station.

In just 1 click, there will be no more police, and the army size will double.

So now you will not see any more police stopping you from speeding, etc.

Only good army boys with M16 doing occasional check on your vehicle as you race down to Pattaya in your Ferrari.

[Johpa]

I believe there is some land available for a new army camp east of the city of Chiang Mai, out by Sankampeng, that was originally conceived as being used as an airport.

[Piengrudee]

Claim all you like. We all know the real reason.