Thailand Dismisses Terrorism Risk Study By British Firm

[hansnl]

I agree, reading is very difficult.

The report is about risk assessment, NOT about the actual situation.

This is not fearmongering, but just an assessment of the possibilities for violence, or worse.

It is a message, and it is completely up to a reader, be it a government or whatever, to do or not to do something with it.

But, as happens so many times, the messenger, the country of the messenger, the background of the messenger, maybe even the religion of the messenger will be condemned.

Does not take away the fact that a lot of companies AND people read this report and get influenced by it.

And as such it might be a negative for Thailand, or the other countries named in the report.

It is a message, also for Thailand.

Edited November 18, 2010 by hansnl

[craigt3365]

Apart from two or three provinces, the idea that thailand is at any meaningful risk from terrorism is absurd.

What's happening in the South is obviously a severe threat to public safety. However, they do not target tourists. Admittedly there aren't many tourists around there, but there are some... and they are welcomed. Speak a little Yawi and the response you'll get is electrifying - in a good way! I've had long chats with Deep South Muslims, as a Buddhist, about what they can do to improve the good name of Islam. "Islam" means "peace", after all.

The threat in the Deep South is to teachers, security workers, hospital staff, public officials and some Buddhists in some predominantly-Muslim tambons. I certainly feel a lot safer at Sungai Kolok fruit market than I do walking the streets of Paris, London or Rome.

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

Actually, there are lots of tourists in the South...they are from Malaysia and many have been hurt in these attacks. You just don't see it in the Western news media. Here are a few of the incidents:

In what has been described as one of the bloodiest attacks in recent months, a car bomb

detonated on 15 March 2008, in the car park of the luxurious CS Pattani Hotel in southern

Thailand. The CS Pattani Hotel is one of the few luxurious hotels that can be found in the

southern Thai region. Two smaller bombs were detonated in the hotel's ground floor

restroom, and another outside the coffee shop, but caused little damage and no injuries. The

larger 20 kg remote-controlled bomb was placed in the back of the vehicle. The bomb had

detonated at 7:45pm (local time) 15 metres1 from the lobby of the popular hotel. Another

bomb was later found in the restaurant of the hotel, this was later defused by security

personnel.2 Thus far, two were killed, three others are in critical condition and 15 others

sustained moderate injuries.

A car bomb in southern Thailand has killed five people and injured more than 40, as PM Thaksin Shinawatra ended a controversial visit to the region.

The bomb exploded in the border town of Sungai Kolok in Narathiwat province at 1905 (1205 GMT), police said.

It came hours after Mr Thaksin said he would use military muscle and economic sanctions to punish villages that were sympathetic to Islamic separatists.

Local leaders in the largely Muslim region strongly criticised the plan.

The bomb was planted in a car parked near the Marina Hotel, said police spokesman Nawin Nilwanith.

Sungai Kolok is a popular tourist town on the border with Malaysia. It is not the first time the town has been the target of a suspected militant attack.

And check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2005

I ran across this when searching for hotel bombings in Thailand. Amazing at how many of the "terrorist" incidents in 2005 occurred in Thailand...unreal...

[Thai at Heart]

I agree, reading is very difficult.

The report is about risk assessment, NOT about the actual situation.

This is not fearmongering, but just an assessment of the possibilities for violence, or worse.

It is a message, and it is completely up to a reader, be it a government or whatever, to do or not to do something with it.

But, as happens so many times, the messenger, the country of the messenger, the background of the messenger, maybe even the religion of the messenger will be condemned.

Does not take away the fact that a lot of companies AND people read this report and get influenced by it.

And as such it might be a negative for Thailand, or the other countries named in the report.

It is a message, also for Thailand.

A previous firm I worked for, takes these reports extremely seriously. They used to have their regional 6 monthly get togethers of about 35 people in a downtown Sukhumvit hotel, but that stopped the day that the yellows and reds started running around on Vibhavadi Rangsit with guns about 200m from the entrance to the one of their offices. Around the same time, one of their managers was staying at the hotel in Mumbai that was attacked, but fortunately was out of the hotel at the time. The US head office got its knickers well and truly in a twist and called one of the US private security companies to evacuate the management from India and Thailand.

Add in about 20 guys being stranded in Bangkok who couldn't get flights and they were rather dramatically (and with overplayed paranoia) escorted to KL airport by the security firm and today all these meetings are in KL.

Their offices have been moved out of Sukhumvit because the reds caused massive disruption to their business this year, and apparently there were some hairy moments when people tried to take short cuts to get to work by car because the BTS was closed etc.

Some companies simply will not take the risk of at best people getting stuck in places, or at worst having their employees put at risk of getting caught up in things they wish to avoid.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[random]

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

There are more than 91 stabbing each weekend in London? really? where does this stat come from? Can you provide a link please? If this is true then i will be amazed and would love to see the stats on this.

I am assuming you mean more than 91 stabbings as that is the number you use for comparison in this sentence.

This article shows around 100 stabbings in the first 5 months of the year http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23484511-revealed-100-stabbings-in-london-this-year.do

so that will equate to roughly 20 weekends, 100 divided by 20 is equal to 5, nowhere near the figures you are getting hysterical about.

Edited November 18, 2010 by random

[atyclb]

I think many are missing the point, we're not talking 'terrorism' or 'safety' we're talking terrorist risk, the result of plenty of detailed data, intelligence and consideration by a professional organisation who compile this data for insurance companies and so on. Risk is the keyword and it's based on a number of factors we fail to see, these include;

1. The ease at which a terrorist organisation could organise an attack in Thailand (it's a popular haven for crooks who the police seem oblivious to)

2. The vulnerability of foreign nationalities being attacked here (14 million tourists, lots of Israeli youth gathering in unprotected guesthouses etc)

3. Incompetent intelligence and ability to investigate and catch perpetrators (Army and police didn't see the airport or Ratchaprasong threat, no one has been caught for the various bombings)

4. A muslim minority, brutally suppressed and disaffected

5. Political discord and lack of unity among the police and army

6. Lots of Americans and Brits coming here on holiday (just like Bali)

7. Likelihood that when political activism arises, Thailand tends to drift towards the most destructive and dramatic outcomes (no common sense prevails)

8. Ease at which money can buy you favour here, turn a police blind eye, and absolve you from responsibility.

Personally, given all these factors, it's a miracle a Bali style bombing hasn't yet happened in Phuket, even from a really pissed off local who wants to spoilt things for this govt, it would be relatively easy to carry out and get away with.

Also, given the sheer audacity and unprecedented events of May 2010, it's no surprise that Thailand earned such a distinction, even if 6 months later we all know that's it's returned to normal with little to worry about.

A very clear and well thought out response, thank you. I am not an alarmist or pessimist but what you said is factual. Imagine if the man in Montenegro decided to hire/fund some hard core militants from the south.

[atyclb]

Sixteen countries are rated as ‘extreme risk’ with Somalia (1), Pakistan (2), Iraq (3), Afghanistan (4), Palestinian Occupied Territory (5), Colombia (6), Thailand (7), Philippines (8), Yemen (9) and Russia (10) at the bottom of the ranking.

Colombia is similar to Thailand in that it has known perpetual hot spots aka red zones. Colombia has a problem with kidnapping also, though the motivation seems to be political and monetary, not religious.

In addition, Colombia has numerous developed, upscale locales including luxury malls, skytrain, and many other 1st world amenities. There are areas akin to Madrid, or other Euro cities.I wonder why Mexico did not make the top ten?

[bushwacker]

<"Mr Thani said Thailand is still popular among tourists from around the world and Travel+Leisure magazine, a leading worldwide travel magazine, recently named Thailand’s capital as the World’s Best City 2010 for living and travelling in a survey conducted among its readers">

Crap!!! The best in the World? This joke is not even funny. :jap:

[GooEng]

No denying it there is a big problem in the south.

That being said how about some reality.

The four most southern provinces and you want to judge all of Thailand on them. A bit far out aren't you. Why don't you judge all of Thailand by the four northern provinces. It would be closer to the truth. It is the truth we are looking for I hope.

It isn't judging Thailand to think that those terrorizing the South could very easily:

a. Hop on a Thai airlines flight and be in Bangkok in less than 2 hours

b. Hop on the train and be in Bangkok in less than 24 hours

c. Or hop in a pick-up truck or bus and take the highway to Bangkok is about 14 hours

After all, their real argument is with the government...and that's in Bangkok.

i think there is an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude in the thai government about the problems in the deep south.

as long as it is a localised problem in an area where few foreigners visit and it's thai-on-thai, and not disrupting any major industry they treat it as a domestic issue and one to be contained where necessary and possible.

i think it would be a completely different matter if the terrorists were to start attacking targets in the offshore gas industry, the tourist centres or in bkk itself.

i think a swift, deadly and very heavy handed military response would result, not only would terrorists be targeted, but so would their families and many others into the process - support would dwindle and whatever local sympathy they may have would evaporate and the people involved in covert terrorist activity would be exposed by the people they claim to be representing. i think the terrorists know that and so the problem remains where it is - in the 4 southern most provinces.

[w11guy]

There's more risk of terrorism in UK than in Thailand. You don't get suicide bombers blowing up the metro and buses here. You also don't get people trying to blow up planes. There may be a risk in the South, but overall Thailand is very safe. The risk assessment has been done in an abstract fashion without actually knowing what any of the countries are like. This just present negative images of countries for no good reason. The fact is that more people have been killed my terrorist attacks in London than in Bangkok over the last few decades.

This is no different to the UK government saying that the UK is safe for tourists, yet having the terror alert as very high with a terrorist attack deemed very likely.

Even so, in any country the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is negligible. More people kill them selves through bad lifestyle choice. People like to focus on unlikely events that they can't do anything about rather than focus on likely events that they have control over.

[w11guy]

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

Check your facts before making such stupid comments. There is no way that there are over 91 stabbings in London every weekend. I would even be surprised if there were more than five.

[Pi Sek]

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

There are more than 91 stabbing each weekend in London? really? where does this stat come from? Can you provide a link please? If this is true then i will be amazed and would love to see the stats on this.

I am assuming you mean more than 91 stabbings as that is the number you use for comparison in this sentence.

This article shows around 100 stabbings in the first 5 months of the year http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23484511-revealed-100-stabbings-in-london-this-year.do

so that will equate to roughly 20 weekends, 100 divided by 20 is equal to 5, nowhere near the figures you are getting hysterical about.

I'm afraid I have no evidence and this is my personal idea of stabbing numbers. I can assure you that in the town of Luton there are about 10 a weekend - I can tell you first hand. I can also tell you that many incidents are NOT reported as the stabbers and the stabbees are often the same crowd, even if they are on different sides. And I wouldn't expect Luton to be more violent than, say, Southwark.

I also used to live in a "peaceful" Surrey suburb of London, where 5 of my friends were mugged at knifepoint in 2 years, 2 of them sustained knife injuries. And I don't claim to know that many people, so I'd say this is a fairly evident statistic.

[BCP]

It looks to me like all the numbers that have been crunched about Thailand by these Security Firms on their computers over recent times are just now starting to filter through.

There does have to be some price to pay in the form of less tourism revenue for all the recent upheval in Thailand. Whether this 'Terror Risk Index' is correct or if it is well off the mark doesn't really matter, just add it to the cons side of the argument for visiting LOS, along with all the misleading reports by the BBC, and other news agencies, about the War Zones and all the other trouble.

Those of us that know Thailand a good bit better than it may be portrayed oversea's will know none of this 'bad press' will keep the tourists away half as much as a strong Baht and poor exchange rates. When the Thai Government manages to get the exchange rate on the Pro's side of the argument for coming here, no-one will take notice of any 'Terror Risk Index'.

[creck]

The Maplecroft report is almost purely a statistical exercise. It is mostly based on the number of incidents, human casualties and property damage that occurred between June 2009 and June 2010. Thailand will not be in the top 16 next year.

It is mostly not a carefully considered intelligence report as is described above by virtualtraveller (though such reports have led to wars after which governments have said oops! Sorry we were wrong!). Although the excellent list of items may well have influenced the report, the numbers were key. The numbers were from a set period 12 months June to June 2010 in which we have to consider much more than 91 deaths. There were 100 due to the assault in May alone and another twenty from the earlier fracas at the bridge and that still ignores all ‘other’ deaths by terrorists. They do give a black spot to Bangkok as well as ‘the south’.

As for stabbings in London, – they are mostly nonfatal – less than one in two months actually die from them. They are a worrying recent trend but not as worrying to me as the schoolboy fights with guns in Bangkok. If we want to talk about injuries then the numbers in Bangkok from last May would be staggering.

And why was last May’s problem unprecedented? Has the Thai army never shot at civilian crowds before? Of course, every incident is unique and maybe this is the worst in Thailand (my history is not good enough to be sure) but the fire power I saw being prepared in May for the army assault reminded me of Beijing. Unprecedented; no, and not the last

[random]

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

There are more than 91 stabbing each weekend in London? really? where does this stat come from? Can you provide a link please? If this is true then i will be amazed and would love to see the stats on this.

I am assuming you mean more than 91 stabbings as that is the number you use for comparison in this sentence.

This article shows around 100 stabbings in the first 5 months of the year http://www.thisislon...on-this-year.do

so that will equate to roughly 20 weekends, 100 divided by 20 is equal to 5, nowhere near the figures you are getting hysterical about.

I'm afraid I have no evidence and this is my personal idea of stabbing numbers. I can assure you that in the town of Luton there are about 10 a weekend - I can tell you first hand. I can also tell you that many incidents are NOT reported as the stabbers and the stabbees are often the same crowd, even if they are on different sides. And I wouldn't expect Luton to be more violent than, say, Southwark.

I also used to live in a "peaceful" Surrey suburb of London, where 5 of my friends were mugged at knifepoint in 2 years, 2 of them sustained knife injuries. And I don't claim to know that many people, so I'd say this is a fairly evident statistic.

so we agree that there are nowhere near 91 stabbing every weekend in London?

[random]

There's more risk of terrorism in UK than in Thailand. You don't get suicide bombers blowing up the metro and buses here. You also don't get people trying to blow up planes. There may be a risk in the South, but overall Thailand is very safe. The risk assessment has been done in an abstract fashion without actually knowing what any of the countries are like. This just present negative images of countries for no good reason. The fact is that more people have been killed my terrorist attacks in London than in Bangkok over the last few decades.

This is no different to the UK government saying that the UK is safe for tourists, yet having the terror alert as very high with a terrorist attack deemed very likely.

Even so, in any country the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is negligible. More people kill them selves through bad lifestyle choice. People like to focus on unlikely events that they can't do anything about rather than focus on likely events that they have control over.

The Thai government say that the events in Bangkok this summer are acts of terrorism, that mean 91 people died because of terrorism in the middle of 2010 in Bangkok, remember its the Thai government that label it terrorism, so why would the report go agaisnt that, if the report said that it wasn't terrorism that killed the 91 people would you agree? Add to this number the others that have died since in bombings that are attributed to the same people, if we then bring in the numbers killed in the south by terrorists (although quite bizarrely they are classed as insurgents) then the number in Thailand rises dramatically.

you say it is a fact that more people have been killed by terrorists in London than in Bangkok over the last few decades, you say this is fact, can you provide the relevant figures from which you gleaned this fact or is it just speculation on your part?

[atyclb]

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

There are more than 91 stabbing each weekend in London? really? where does this stat come from? Can you provide a link please? If this is true then i will be amazed and would love to see the stats on this.

I am assuming you mean more than 91 stabbings as that is the number you use for comparison in this sentence.

This article shows around 100 stabbings in the first 5 months of the year http://www.thisislon...on-this-year.do

so that will equate to roughly 20 weekends, 100 divided by 20 is equal to 5, nowhere near the figures you are getting hysterical about.

I'm afraid I have no evidence and this is my personal idea of stabbing numbers. I can assure you that in the town of Luton there are about 10 a weekend - I can tell you first hand. I can also tell you that many incidents are NOT reported as the stabbers and the stabbees are often the same crowd, even if they are on different sides. And I wouldn't expect Luton to be more violent than, say, Southwark.

I also used to live in a "peaceful" Surrey suburb of London, where 5 of my friends were mugged at knifepoint in 2 years, 2 of them sustained knife injuries. And I don't claim to know that many people, so I'd say this is a fairly evident statistic.

so we agree that there are nowhere near 91 stabbing every weekend in London?

Do stabbings related to drunkedness and/ or domestic violence or gangs fighting amongst themselves count towards "terrorism" stats ?

[Arkady]

I expect most Americans would have dismissed a similar finding about US vulnerability to terrorist attack prior to 9/11. Of course Thailand with its lax security and pervasive corruption is extremely vulnerable. How many other countries would allow a group of armed thugs to take over the carpark of the nation's main airport for a few hours and do nothing whatsoever about it at the time or subsequently? On the hand, the PM has to dis the allegation, since there is no hard evidence evidence and tourism is a major industry.

[Buchholz]

Sixteen countries including Colombia, Thailand, the Philippines and India were classified as being at "extreme" risk of attack, with Thailand ranking seventh in the Terrorism Risk Index (TRI) complied by the UK-based Maplecroft company, a global risks advisory firm.

From their website, Maplecroft's TRI report is dated 9 months ago on Feb. 16, 2010 and ranks Thailand at 9th with the following note:

Terrorism incidents in Thailand's restive Muslim south - such as the October 2009 bomb attacks in Sungai Kolok - largely account for the country's rating.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Buchholz

[Buchholz]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

Maplecroft's point:

Terrorism incidents in Thailand's restive Muslim south largely account for the country's rating.

[wileycoyote]

It is not only the South:

2)Heavens knows what instability may happen in Myanamar which would effect the border areas West & North ,as Karen other groups review their position if there was a challenge against the junta.

3)There is border dispute with Cambodia.

Internally :

4)A fractious & aggreived Red Faction,with a exiled ,wealthy leader who dreams of a comeback.

5)There is an aging monarch ,with no guarantee of a smooth succession.

6) There is a restive middle class who feel squeezed between a corrupt meritocracy & undemocratic coalitions .

I think Thailand is in correct ranked place

[femi fan]

It isn't judging Thailand to think that those terrorizing the South could very easily:

a. Hop on a Thai airlines flight and be in Bangkok in less than 2 hours

b. Hop on the train and be in Bangkok in less than 24 hours

c. Or hop in a pick-up truck or bus and take the highway to Bangkok is about 14 hours

After all, their real argument is with the government...and that's in Bangkok.

That's the pesky thing about terrorism eh, it could happen anywhere at any time. How inconvenient is that? Gee, when i put my mind to it properly, anything dangerous could happen to me at any time. Heck, i might even die tomorrow if i'm unlucky. A coconut might fall out of its tree as i'm walking under it and bonk me on the head, wham bam, i'm dead. Maybe maplecroft could do a death-by-coconut risk-assessment in various countries containing palm trees.

I think you ought to find out a bit more about the psychology of terrorism. Terrorists don't strike at governments normally. Terrorists are normal citizens killing other normal citizens to create a sense of fear in them. The idea is that these citizens then pressure the government to stop its criminal actions which is why the terrorists are causing all this mayhem and violence for in the first place.

If we had peaceful governments, we'd have no terrorists. People don't choose terrorism as a profession, it's a reaction against state abuses. We all know the biggest terrorists in the world are the US government. That's why there's no shortage of citizens reacting against them by becoming terrorists.

[femi fan]

I think there are other countries that should be on this list instead of Thailand...but this is a reputable company who sells their services on a global basis. I would assume they know what they are doing...as opposed to all us punters here on TV....

I'm afraid that would be quite a big assumption, and quite likely to be wrong. Like someone said, it's just an exercise in stats, commissioned by western governments on the look out for some good business in the security line of equipment. Those maplecroft people have been nowhere near the countries they've designated as at risk from terrorism. That's my assumption.

[Ulysses G.]

The Minister is probably correct.

Only regular watchers of the BBC news would classify Thailand in general as at "extreme risk" of terrorism.

Extreme risk of scams, maybe, but certainly not deserving of such scare-mongering. Thailand has enough problems without the "experts" imagining more.

Agreed

[femi fan]

Come on jayjay. This thread is about Thailand and you've turned it into a USA bashing thread. I guarantee there are many in that country with IQs WELL above yours. Very inappropriate statement. Cheap shot.

Any thread on terrorism anywhere in the world is most likely to have a lot to do with the USA. It's this nation's government's war against terrorism they declared officially in 2001, but unofficially started years before that, that has created so much terrorism around the globe. Not so many years ago there were hardly any deaths or incidents in the south of thailand. That all changed post-911, as did bali, as did london, as did spain, and so on. Iraq and afghanistan citizens are terrorised daily, both by US and UK governments, and the citizens who have reacted against this repression by the western invaders. The US is unfortunately the major cause of just about ALL terrorism around the world.

Even the CIA know this having coined the term blowback a long time ago, before 911.

We need to remember that terrorists are citizens who decide to kill fellow citizens in their (perverted) effort to stop governments committing crimes and abuses against their own brethren.

The day the american nation puts its money and effort into creating peace rather than into waging war, all terrorism will drop. Citizens don't just wake up and think they'll turn themselves into a walking bomb. Repression by governments is the prime cause.

[femi fan]

I expect most Americans would have dismissed a similar finding about US vulnerability to terrorist attack prior to 9/11. Of course Thailand with its lax security and pervasive corruption is extremely vulnerable. How many other countries would allow a group of armed thugs to take over the carpark of the nation's main airport for a few hours and do nothing whatsoever about it at the time or subsequently? On the hand, the PM has to dis the allegation, since there is no hard evidence evidence and tourism is a major industry.

Heh, how many other countries would allow four pilots who have just trained in two-seater cessna planes in their own country to then hijack four jets and just let them fly into buildings? All that security and those procedures in place, yet they still managed to let these four slip the net. They were only flying for an hour after the relevant agencies knew of the hijacks, but nothing sent up to intercept them. That's pretty poor mismanagement. Makes the carpark incident in thailand look tiny in comparison.

[phetaroi]

i think there is an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude in the thai government about the problems in the deep south.

as long as it is a localised problem in an area where few foreigners visit and it's thai-on-thai, and not disrupting any major industry they treat it as a domestic issue and one to be contained where necessary and possible.

i think it would be a completely different matter if the terrorists were to start attacking targets in the offshore gas industry, the tourist centres or in bkk itself.

i think a swift, deadly and very heavy handed military response would result, not only would terrorists be targeted, but so would their families and many others into the process - support would dwindle and whatever local sympathy they may have would evaporate and the people involved in covert terrorist activity would be exposed by the people they claim to be representing. i think the terrorists know that and so the problem remains where it is - in the 4 southern most provinces.

I think you make good points, although I'll add in another factor if there were that heavy-handed response that you predict...the outside radical Muslim influence would increase.

[phetaroi]

There's more risk of terrorism in UK than in Thailand. You don't get suicide bombers blowing up the metro and buses here. You also don't get people trying to blow up planes. There may be a risk in the South, but overall Thailand is very safe. The risk assessment has been done in an abstract fashion without actually knowing what any of the countries are like. This just present negative images of countries for no good reason. The fact is that more people have been killed my terrorist attacks in London than in Bangkok over the last few decades.

This is no different to the UK government saying that the UK is safe for tourists, yet having the terror alert as very high with a terrorist attack deemed very likely.

Even so, in any country the risk of dying in a terrorist attack is negligible. More people kill them selves through bad lifestyle choice. People like to focus on unlikely events that they can't do anything about rather than focus on likely events that they have control over.

First, you are correct, there is more of a risk of terrorism in the UK (and the US) than in Thailand.

You are correct that THUS FAR you "don't get suicide bombers blowing up the metro and buses here", although didn't someone throw a hand grenade on a bus just the other day? And aren't hand grenades in rather ample supply, as evidenced on and around May 19?

It is true that THUS FAR no one in Thailand has attempted to blow up an airplane. However, I would remind you that the US and Great Britain are being punished for what the terrorists see as international acts, while in the Deep South and in the Red Shirt movement, the punishment is for acts that occurred within the country.

Yes, more people have been killed in London in the past decade than in Bangkok, but FAR MORE people have been killed by terrorism in the deep south of Thailand than in all of England in the past decade (at least, I'm not aware of 4,000+ being killed in England).

Yes, more people kill themselves by bad lifestyle choices than by terrorism, but then again there is a difference between the personal choices one makes and the choices someone else makes for us.

And finally, the US and GB are working overtime to prevent terrorism within their shores or to their interests. Thailand is just twiddling its thumbs with a mai pben rai attitude, assuming that things will just work out okay...or, if I'm wrong, perhaps you can show me specific strategic things the Thai government is doing to solve the issues in the deep South.

[craigt3365]

Any thread on terrorism anywhere in the world is most likely to have a lot to do with the USA. It's this nation's government's war against terrorism they declared officially in 2001, but unofficially started years before that, that has created so much terrorism around the globe. Not so many years ago there were hardly any deaths or incidents in the south of thailand. That all changed post-911, as did bali, as did london, as did spain, and so on. Iraq and afghanistan citizens are terrorised daily, both by US and UK governments, and the citizens who have reacted against this repression by the western invaders. The US is unfortunately the major cause of just about ALL terrorism around the world.

Even the CIA know this having coined the term blowback a long time ago, before 911.

We need to remember that terrorists are citizens who decide to kill fellow citizens in their (perverted) effort to stop governments committing crimes and abuses against their own brethren.

The day the american nation puts its money and effort into creating peace rather than into waging war, all terrorism will drop. Citizens don't just wake up and think they'll turn themselves into a walking bomb. Repression by governments is the prime cause.

I for sure agree that US, and it's policies in the Middle East, have escalated the violence, specifically related to terrorism globally. But as usual, you are way off base on your other comments. There is no "officially" declared war on terrorism. That is a term which was coined by the Executive branch of the US. War has to be declared by congress and that never happened. Do some research.

As far as terrorism starting in 2001, you have to be kidding me? Are you really that uninformed? If so, check out this link and all the acitivities that occurred in the year 2000. You can then click on the links and see what happened in each year prior to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2000

To say the US is the cause of all terrorism globally is absolutely incorrect. What about Sri Lanka? What about the Caucasus in Russia? The Japanese Red Army? The IRA? Etc, etc, etc.

I have to ask, how old are you? I love a debate, but do some research before you post incorrect information.

Heh, how many other countries would allow four pilots who have just trained in two-seater cessna planes in their own country to then hijack four jets and just let them fly into buildings? All that security and those procedures in place, yet they still managed to let these four slip the net. They were only flying for an hour after the relevant agencies knew of the hijacks, but nothing sent up to intercept them. That's pretty poor mismanagement. Makes the carpark incident in thailand look tiny in comparison.

Wow...I don't even know where to start with this comment. Unreal. For sure there were gaps in shared info among various US agencies, but to say they were allowed to fly into buildings...wow. So they were suppose to send up jets and shoot them down? When they didn't even know what they were going to do? I would love to see you in charge of that situation and see how well you could have carried it out. Much more complex than any of us could ever imagine...and dealt with my much smarter people. No assumptions there.

[asiawatcher]

Continued denial, selective memory and what Thai's think they believe, right or wrong and they always find a way to justify it to themselves. Fortunately the public is far smarter at large!

[femi fan]

I for sure agree that US, and it's policies in the Middle East, have escalated the violence, specifically related to terrorism globally. But as usual, you are way off base on your other comments. There is no "officially" declared war on terrorism. That is a term which was coined by the Executive branch of the US. War has to be declared by congress and that never happened. Do some research.

As far as terrorism starting in 2001, you have to be kidding me? Are you really that uninformed? If so, check out this link and all the acitivities that occurred in the year 2000. You can then click on the links and see what happened in each year prior to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2000

To say the US is the cause of all terrorism globally is absolutely incorrect. What about Sri Lanka? What about the Caucasus in Russia? The Japanese Red Army? The IRA? Etc, etc, etc.

I have to ask, how old are you? I love a debate, but do some research before you post incorrect information.

Allow me to respond point by point here.

I've said nothing about terrorism starting in 2001, i was referring to how things changed considerably post-2001, and in particular in the context of the south of thailand. Your link is an excellent one and in fact proves my point: not one of those dozens of terrorist incidents in 2000 occurred in thailand. I recall specifically how thai government's actions under the leadership of thaksin helped severely inflame unrest in the south. And i have been saying on this thread that terrorism is just about always in repsonse to violent actions by states.

Your bit about whether a war on terrorism was officially started or not is just semantics. The whole world, through the US media, learned that the american government had declared, in practical terms, &lt;deleted&gt;, ie The War Against Terror. Some pundits will say this is a good ploy, since this war can never be won while the instigators of it all are blind to their contributions to world terror. And with wars, peoples need leaders most.

And of course you're right, it would be incorrect to say the US is the cause of all terrorism, but then, who's saying this anyway?

My age? Irrelevant really, but i assume in asking that you take the position that the youth and adolescants of the day are unable to debate well enough for you? I have seen plenty of very decent arguments and opinions and ideas put forward by young people for their world. At their age they still retain open minds of course. Unlike our dogmatic adult leaders, and many dogmatic adult citizens.

I too love a debate, and have done absolutely heaps of research in my time about the topics i am interested in. Perhaps i could urge you to read more critically, then you won't see things in my writing that aren't there? Then your own debating may improve, but it might also be better to not write off young people. We can learn from them, we can learn from anybody with open minds.