Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[tlansford]

- sniper -

Assuming that this is regarding my post, I am relaying the information about the events and observations of this protest as well as the publicly available information about the blue shirts. This is done in response to the part of this thread concerning the ASEAN summit.

Abhisit did not hesitate to use the police. The police were present and doing their job in coordination with the military. Your speculation regarding abhisit and the police in Pattaya is just that, speculation, scorecard. It doesn't match with the actual events.

The govt did use the Blue Shirts as well, and the blue shirts did attack the red shirts. This is one of the factors that should not be overlooked.

Your second comment about "gang of 'red' thugs should be allowed to roam through a hotel, severely intimidating foreign guests etc., then why would you not accept that another gang, the so called blue shirts, be doing something similar?" is incorrect on 2 points. Taking the latter, the blue shirts were not a gang of thugs, but an organized, armed group put in place by the government. As for the former, the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit, who had already left. If you find actual information from first hand reports on the scene, then you will see that the red shirts did not behave like 'thugs', nor did they intimidate (much less "severely") the guests. Both tourists and red shirts were snapping pictures of the scene, some even together. There was no violence in the hotel.

So you believe that an armed group of protestors who fight their way into a private resort hosting world leaders using granades, barge their way into rooms without thought for others safety, personal space and security. Who damaged and stole property, tarnished Thailand international reputation are not a group of thugs, just some harmless group that joked and had fun with the tourists?

Those are your words, not mine. There's no new information in your post or reference to other reports from the scene that might add details to the events in the hotel. The other information that I am aware of is written above already. But your post is incorrect in several points - the protesters did not "fight" their way into the hotel. You could say that they kind of pushed their way into the hotel when one of the glass windows broke.

There were no grenades.

You ignore the fact that the reason people were in the hotel was because they were looking for Abhisit (who had already left).

And you toss on a couple of irrelevant extras like tarnishing Thailand's reputation (even if one thinks this is true, what is the point?) as well as the comment about theft which I have not seen reported anywhere (given the relative chaos of the scene and the number of people in the hotel, it would not surprise me, but it doesn't seem to have been wide-spread or organized as it was not reported in the information that I read).

I am open to reading reports on the incident which I have not seen before. If you have interesting links or references, please post them.

Finally, I prefer to call them what they were, protesters. You are free to cal them "thugs" if you want to.

The red shirts who forcefully penetrated the resort's defenses looking for Prime Minister Abhisit wanted to, what, have a cup of coffee with him? To make sure the then PM got to his room okay and safe? To make sure no one on the premesis got hurt or felt threatened? To give Abhisit the direct personal greetings and best wishes of Thaksin?

Thaksin identified the Asean prime ministers summit in Pattaya as a target of disorder, disruption, violence and to send red shirts throughout the buildings looking for the then prime minister Abhisit. The whole of it was the reprehensible idea, scheme and battleplan of one man, Thaksin Shinawatra, aka Mr. Reconciliation..

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to express it. It doesn't, however, change the actions of the government and the protesters on that day. The point to take away is that the government could have handled the situation in a "normal" way, protecting the hotel and the ASEAN summit with police, military, water canons, and tear-gas. But instead they chose to deploy an unaccountable group of armed "counter-protesters" (the military & PAD Blue Shirts) to attack the protesters. Why they chose that strategy doesn't make sense to me.

But it foreshadowed the government's poor decisions (IMO) to be made one year later in Bangkok.

[animatic]

='tlansford' timestamp='1330168177' post='5087085'

- sniper -

Assuming that this is regarding my post, I am relaying the information about the events and observations of this protest as well as the publicly available information about the blue shirts. This is done in response to the part of this thread concerning the ASEAN summit.

Abhisit did not hesitate to use the police. The police were present and doing their job in coordination with the military. Your speculation regarding abhisit and the police in Pattaya is just that, speculation, scorecard. It doesn't match with the actual events.

The govt did use the Blue Shirts as well, and the blue shirts did attack the red shirts. This is one of the factors that should not be overlooked.

Your second comment about "gang of 'red' thugs should be allowed to roam through a hotel, severely intimidating foreign guests etc., then why would you not accept that another gang, the so called blue shirts, be doing something similar?" is incorrect on 2 points. Taking the latter, the blue shirts were not a gang of thugs, but an organized, armed group put in place by the government. As for the former, the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit, who had already left. If you find actual information from first hand reports on the scene, then you will see that the red shirts did not behave like 'thugs', nor did they intimidate (much less "severely") the guests. Both tourists and red shirts were snapping pictures of the scene, some even together. There was no violence in the hotel.

So you believe that an armed group of protestors who fight their way into a private resort hosting world leaders using granades, barge their way into rooms without thought for others safety, personal space and security. Who damaged and stole property, tarnished Thailand international reputation are not a group of thugs, just some harmless group that joked and had fun with the tourists?

Those are your words, not mine. There's no new information in your post or reference to other reports from the scene that might add details to the events in the hotel. The other information that I am aware of is written above already. But your post is incorrect in several points - the protesters did not "fight" their way into the hotel. You could say that they kind of pushed their way into the hotel when one of the glass windows broke.

There were no grenades.

You ignore the fact that the reason people were in the hotel was because they were looking for Abhisit (who had already left).

And you toss on a couple of irrelevant extras like tarnishing Thailand's reputation (even if one thinks this is true, what is the point?) as well as the comment about theft which I have not seen reported anywhere (given the relative chaos of the scene and the number of people in the hotel, it would not surprise me, but it doesn't seem to have been wide-spread or organized as it was not reported in the information that I read).

I am open to reading reports on the incident which I have not seen before. If you have interesting links or references, please post them.

Finally, I prefer to call them what they were, protesters. You are free to cal them "thugs" if you want to.

The red shirts who forcefully penetrated the resort's defenses looking for Prime Minister Abhisit wanted to, what, have a cup of coffee with him? To make sure the then PM got to his room okay and safe? To make sure no one on the premesis got hurt or felt threatened? To give Abhisit the direct personal greetings and best wishes of Thaksin?

Thaksin identified the Asean prime ministers summit in Pattaya as a target of disorder, disruption, violence and to send red shirts throughout the buildings looking for the then prime minister Abhisit. The whole of it was the reprehensible idea, scheme and battleplan of one man, Thaksin Shinawatra, aka Mr. Reconciliation..

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to express it. It doesn't, however, change the actions of the government and the protesters on that day. The point to take away is that the government could have handled the situation in a "normal" way, protecting the hotel and the ASEAN summit with police, military, water canons, and tear-gas. But instead they chose to deploy an unaccountable group of armed "counter-protesters" (the military & PAD Blue Shirts) to attack the protesters. Why they chose that strategy doesn't make sense to me.

But it foreshadowed the government's poor decisions (IMO) to be made one year later in Bangkok.

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

[blows]

Those are your words, not mine. There's no new information in your post or reference to other reports from the scene that might add details to the events in the hotel. The other information that I am aware of is written above already. But your post is incorrect in several points - the protesters did not "fight" their way into the hotel. You could say that they kind of pushed their way into the hotel when one of the glass windows broke.

There were no grenades.

You ignore the fact that the reason people were in the hotel was because they were looking for Abhisit (who had already left).

And you toss on a couple of irrelevant extras like tarnishing Thailand's reputation (even if one thinks this is true, what is the point?) as well as the comment about theft which I have not seen reported anywhere (given the relative chaos of the scene and the number of people in the hotel, it would not surprise me, but it doesn't seem to have been wide-spread or organized as it was not reported in the information that I read).

I am open to reading reports on the incident which I have not seen before. If you have interesting links or references, please post them.

Finally, I prefer to call them what they were, protesters. You are free to cal them "thugs" if you want to.

The red shirts who forcefully penetrated the resort's defenses looking for Prime Minister Abhisit wanted to, what, have a cup of coffee with him? To make sure the then PM got to his room okay and safe? To make sure no one on the premesis got hurt or felt threatened? To give Abhisit the direct personal greetings and best wishes of Thaksin?

Thaksin identified the Asean prime ministers summit in Pattaya as a target of disorder, disruption, violence and to send red shirts throughout the buildings looking for the then prime minister Abhisit. The whole of it was the reprehensible idea, scheme and battleplan of one man, Thaksin Shinawatra, aka Mr. Reconciliation..

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to express it. It doesn't, however, change the actions of the government and the protesters on that day. The point to take away is that the government could have handled the situation in a "normal" way, protecting the hotel and the ASEAN summit with police, military, water canons, and tear-gas. But instead they chose to deploy an unaccountable group of armed "counter-protesters" (the military & PAD Blue Shirts) to attack the protesters. Why they chose that strategy doesn't make sense to me.

But it foreshadowed the government's poor decisions (IMO) to be made one year later in Bangkok.

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

Single handedly made Thailand lose FACE on the World stage.

[rubl]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

[waza]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

[rubl]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

No tear gas grenades at the hotel when the red-shirts 'peacefully' entered it, that may have come later

[waza]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

No tear gas grenades at the hotel when the red-shirts 'peacefully' entered it, that may have come later

no it was hours earlier when they took on the blue shirts

[tlansford]

- sniper -

Those are your words, not mine. There's no new information in your post or reference to other reports from the scene that might add details to the events in the hotel. The other information that I am aware of is written above already. But your post is incorrect in several points - the protesters did not "fight" their way into the hotel. You could say that they kind of pushed their way into the hotel when one of the glass windows broke.

There were no grenades.

You ignore the fact that the reason people were in the hotel was because they were looking for Abhisit (who had already left).

And you toss on a couple of irrelevant extras like tarnishing Thailand's reputation (even if one thinks this is true, what is the point?) as well as the comment about theft which I have not seen reported anywhere (given the relative chaos of the scene and the number of people in the hotel, it would not surprise me, but it doesn't seem to have been wide-spread or organized as it was not reported in the information that I read).

I am open to reading reports on the incident which I have not seen before. If you have interesting links or references, please post them.

Finally, I prefer to call them what they were, protesters. You are free to cal them "thugs" if you want to.

The red shirts who forcefully penetrated the resort's defenses looking for Prime Minister Abhisit wanted to, what, have a cup of coffee with him? To make sure the then PM got to his room okay and safe? To make sure no one on the premesis got hurt or felt threatened? To give Abhisit the direct personal greetings and best wishes of Thaksin?

Thaksin identified the Asean prime ministers summit in Pattaya as a target of disorder, disruption, violence and to send red shirts throughout the buildings looking for the then prime minister Abhisit. The whole of it was the reprehensible idea, scheme and battleplan of one man, Thaksin Shinawatra, aka Mr. Reconciliation..

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to express it. It doesn't, however, change the actions of the government and the protesters on that day. The point to take away is that the government could have handled the situation in a "normal" way, protecting the hotel and the ASEAN summit with police, military, water canons, and tear-gas. But instead they chose to deploy an unaccountable group of armed "counter-protesters" (the military & PAD Blue Shirts) to attack the protesters. Why they chose that strategy doesn't make sense to me.

But it foreshadowed the government's poor decisions (IMO) to be made one year later in Bangkok.

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

It is not clear what you mean to say. Are you trying to say that the government could not have known that there would be protests and that precautions might be in order? Because if that is the case, then clearly that is not correct as the government did make plans for protests (BPP, Military, Blue Shirts, and road-blocks). Not to mention protests were already taking place in Bangkok before the summit, and summits tend to draw protesters anyway (anyone remember Seattle?).

Or maybe you mean they thought about protesters, but just didn't think they would go to the hotel. But I can't follow that line of reasoning.

Or maybe you meant something else... ?

[tlansford]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

You guys don't actually read other people's posts, do you?

Do you have any information to contribute or do you just want to feel good by deriding one group?

[waza]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

You guys don't actually read other people's posts, do you?

Do you have any information to contribute or do you just want to feel good by deriding one group?

About the same good feelings you get by belittling others opinions and imput

Edited February 25, 2012 by waza

[blows]

I have noticed through the years, that people that suffer some level of psychosis, accuse other people of doing, what it is they are doing. Had it been a one off, I would have forgot about it, but when one sees it time and time again, then there must be some correlation. Or am I wrong?

[Publicus]

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

You guys don't actually read other people's posts, do you?

Do you have any information to contribute or do you just want to feel good by deriding one group?

About the same good feelings you get by belittling others opinions and imput

I understand that Rubl, Publicus, Animatic and others have a different point of view, and I try to acknowledge and respect that. I also try to avoid emotional and imprecise terms like thugs, etc.

Feel free to discuss with me - I have no problem asking for information on TVF and hearing others' opinions and conclusions. On the other hand, I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth, and I have no time for people who just hate.

[metisdead]

An off topic discussion of personality disorders has been removed, discussion of Thailand's Thaksin Prepares for War would be on topic.

[animatic]

Clearly, no one quite realized the Red Shirts would actual be crazed enough to attack the Summit.

As our dear member tlansford posted a bit earlier here, the red shirts didn't attack the Summit, "the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit", in their normal friendly way

I guess its normal to lob tear gas granades at opposing protestors as well.

No tear gas grenades at the hotel when the red-shirts 'peacefully' entered it, that may have come later

And so normal to try and drag the PM from his car while lobbing cement blocks at it.

Such a peaceful crew these guys.

[animatic]

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

ie. setting the stage for civil war to force him to get the concessions he demands.

[tlansford]

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

ie. setting the stage for civil war to force him to get the concessions he demands.

Thailand has returned to elections, and Thaksin's party seems to have no problem winning those for the foreseeable future. It is possible that they will lose that advantage in the future, but so far, that seems remote.

If I understand your statement correctly, then, IMO, violence and the threat of civil war will not be in Thaksin's nor the PTP's nor the UDD's interests. Violence, much less civil war will be the excuse for the military to act again.

Such a situation is unlikely to be beneficial to Thaksin negotiating a deal to return either. And it seems to me that his most likely possibility to return to Thailand within his lifetime is a negotiated deal.

On the other hand, I believe that Thaksin and his allies will flex their "muscles", as it were, to support Thaksin in negotiating a return. This could be part of the purpose of the rally in Khao Yai as well as the push on the charter amendment.

But it seems to me that, if there is a faction interested in causing violence and providing an excuse for military action, it would be the faction which does not have reasonable electoral chances, or does not wield power in the civilian, democratic arena.

What do you think? Is violence / civil war really in Thaksin's interests?

[Reasonableman]

You seem confused. Ms Yingluck leads her party, not Mr Thaksin, or am I mistaken?

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

ie. setting the stage for civil war to force him to get the concessions he demands.

Thailand has returned to elections, and Thaksin's party seems to have no problem winning those for the foreseeable future. It is possible that they will lose that advantage in the future, but so far, that seems remote.

If I understand your statement correctly, then, IMO, violence and the threat of civil war will not be in Thaksin's nor the PTP's nor the UDD's interests. Violence, much less civil war will be the excuse for the military to act again.

Such a situation is unlikely to be beneficial to Thaksin negotiating a deal to return either. And it seems to me that his most likely possibility to return to Thailand within his lifetime is a negotiated deal.

On the other hand, I believe that Thaksin and his allies will flex their "muscles", as it were, to support Thaksin in negotiating a return. This could be part of the purpose of the rally in Khao Yai as well as the push on the charter amendment.

But it seems to me that, if there is a faction interested in causing violence and providing an excuse for military action, it would be the faction which does not have reasonable electoral chances, or does not wield power in the civilian, democratic arena.

What do you think? Is violence / civil war really in Thaksin's interests?

[tlansford]

Oh, come on (Reasonable)man...

You seem confused. Ms Yingluck leads her party, not Mr Thaksin, or am I mistaken?

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

ie. setting the stage for civil war to force him to get the concessions he demands.

Thailand has returned to elections, and Thaksin's party seems to have no problem winning those for the foreseeable future. It is possible that they will lose that advantage in the future, but so far, that seems remote.

If I understand your statement correctly, then, IMO, violence and the threat of civil war will not be in Thaksin's nor the PTP's nor the UDD's interests. Violence, much less civil war will be the excuse for the military to act again.

Such a situation is unlikely to be beneficial to Thaksin negotiating a deal to return either. And it seems to me that his most likely possibility to return to Thailand within his lifetime is a negotiated deal.

On the other hand, I believe that Thaksin and his allies will flex their "muscles", as it were, to support Thaksin in negotiating a return. This could be part of the purpose of the rally in Khao Yai as well as the push on the charter amendment.

But it seems to me that, if there is a faction interested in causing violence and providing an excuse for military action, it would be the faction which does not have reasonable electoral chances, or does not wield power in the civilian, democratic arena.

What do you think? Is violence / civil war really in Thaksin's interests?

[asiawatcher]

Keep seeing this article propagated - sure it has to be on Snopes soon - could not possibly be true...

[pastitche]

makes completely irrelevant...ahem 'joke'..... and laughs hysterically to himself.

definitely deluded.

That would have been delusive or delusional.

de·lu·sive adjective

1. tending to delude; misleading; deceptive: a delusive reply.

2. of the nature of a delusion; false; unreal: a delusive belief.

de·lu·sion·al adjective

1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:

Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.

2. Psychiatry . maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts,

usually as a result of mental illness:

He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

Unfortunately you are suggesting that "deluded" is not a valid word to describe what the poster meant ie misled. Use a proper dictionary would be my suggestion

[pastitche]

The question is where were the BIB? They were charged with the events security and yet despite vigilante resistance the red shirt rioters managed to get in, clear the resort and eat the buffet. Miracle Thailand, where terrorists dreams do come true..

I've often thought it should be a Democrat policy that after winning an election, they would declare martial law, fire every BIB, give them the option of appearing before a public-welcome corruption committee to reapply for their job, and start the BIB from scratch with higher pay and very strict corruption penalties. Should be a landslide win.

The overriding problem appears to be winning an election

[Heimdallr]

The overriding problem appears to be winning an election

You are right. It is a sad fact that truly democratic politicians are less popular and stay in power for a shorter period of time.

[philw]

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

Oh dear.....................

You make feel in need of a hat.

Do you guys sell them ???

You make it look like Thailand is only 2 steps away from China in the days of Mao.

[rubl]

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

Oh dear.....................

You make feel in need of a hat.

Do you guys sell them ???

You make it look like Thailand is only 2 steps away from China in the days of Mao.

Matter of opinion, maybe more like two steps away from a pro-government coup

[waza]

Not the main point here, however, you, as always, fail to mention all the salient points.

- I would strongly suspect (my opinion) that abhisit was hesitant to rely on the police to take the actions they were responsible for, and a later event (the farce when 200+ police couldn't catch arisman at a hotel) proved that the police have no real commitment to the roles they are employed for and paid for out of taxpayers funds.

- If it was acceptable to you that a gang of 'red' thugs should be allowed to roam through a hotel, severely intimidating foreign guests etc., then why would you not accept that another gang, the so called blue shirts, be doing something similar?

In reality of course none of this is acceptable.

Assuming that this is regarding my post, I am relaying the information about the events and observations of this protest as well as the publicly available information about the blue shirts. This is done in response to the part of this thread concerning the ASEAN summit.

Abhisit did not hesitate to use the police. The police were present and doing their job in coordination with the military. Your speculation regarding abhisit and the police in Pattaya is just that, speculation, scorecard. It doesn't match with the actual events.

The govt did use the Blue Shirts as well, and the blue shirts did attack the red shirts. This is one of the factors that should not be overlooked.

Your second comment about "gang of 'red' thugs should be allowed to roam through a hotel, severely intimidating foreign guests etc., then why would you not accept that another gang, the so called blue shirts, be doing something similar?" is incorrect on 2 points. Taking the latter, the blue shirts were not a gang of thugs, but an organized, armed group put in place by the government. As for the former, the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit, who had already left. If you find actual information from first hand reports on the scene, then you will see that the red shirts did not behave like 'thugs', nor did they intimidate (much less "severely") the guests. Both tourists and red shirts were snapping pictures of the scene, some even together. There was no violence in the hotel.

So you believe that an armed group of protestors who fight their way into a private resort hosting world leaders using granades, barge their way into rooms without thought for others safety, personal space and security. Who damaged and stole property, tarnished Thailand international reputation are not a group of thugs, just some harmless group that joked and had fun with the tourists?

Those are your words, not mine. There's no new information in your post or reference to other reports from the scene that might add details to the events in the hotel. The other information that I am aware of is written above already. But your post is incorrect in several points - the protesters did not "fight" their way into the hotel. You could say that they kind of pushed their way into the hotel when one of the glass windows broke.

There were no grenades.

You ignore the fact that the reason people were in the hotel was because they were looking for Abhisit (who had already left).

And you toss on a couple of irrelevant extras like tarnishing Thailand's reputation (even if one thinks this is true, what is the point?) as well as the comment about theft which I have not seen reported anywhere (given the relative chaos of the scene and the number of people in the hotel, it would not surprise me, but it doesn't seem to have been wide-spread or organized as it was not reported in the information that I read).

I am open to reading reports on the incident which I have not seen before. If you have interesting links or references, please post them.

Finally, I prefer to call them what they were, protesters. You are free to cal them "thugs" if you want to.

I guess your right, thugs is the wrong name for them, they were more like a lynch mob.

[waza]

The Asean prime minister's summit in Pattaya was identified by one person, Thaksin, to initiate and create chaos and a crisis in Thailand. It was done out of meanness, spiite and revenge without any regard of Thailand or its people. Violence and disorder were the battleplan. Thaksin aimed the gun, so to speak, and pulled the trigger on the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya. Thaksin wanted a high level disaster in Pattaya. The government had to respond but, as has been pointed out above, not even the government could conceive of how violent and forceful the Thaksin people had been prepared to be. Yes, Abhisit got out of the resort - the then prime minister Abhisit was spirited out by security personnel along with 9 other prime ministers of the Asean governments.

This is the major and overriding point of the date, place, event, thanks to the police capitan (some report Thaksin was a police colonel) in Dubai. Presently, the OP reports that the Thai schicklgruber has graduated to organizing generals of the military and the police into establishing and operating a Bangkok command bunker. We can only cringe as we await his next developments and deployments.

ie. setting the stage for civil war to force him to get the concessions he demands.

Thailand has returned to elections, and Thaksin's party seems to have no problem winning those for the foreseeable future. It is possible that they will lose that advantage in the future, but so far, that seems remote.

If I understand your statement correctly, then, IMO, violence and the threat of civil war will not be in Thaksin's nor the PTP's nor the UDD's interests. Violence, much less civil war will be the excuse for the military to act again.

Such a situation is unlikely to be beneficial to Thaksin negotiating a deal to return either. And it seems to me that his most likely possibility to return to Thailand within his lifetime is a negotiated deal.

On the other hand, I believe that Thaksin and his allies will flex their "muscles", as it were, to support Thaksin in negotiating a return. This could be part of the purpose of the rally in Khao Yai as well as the push on the charter amendment.

But it seems to me that, if there is a faction interested in causing violence and providing an excuse for military action, it would be the faction which does not have reasonable electoral chances, or does not wield power in the civilian, democratic arena.

What do you think? Is violence / civil war really in Thaksin's interests?

Depends on Thaksin agenda, if it is to run the Thai government by proxy then its not in his interest. But if his goal is the dictorial control of Thailand in person my guess is that no strategy is out of the question. With a step son in the Thai army, civil war is my greatest fear.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

Assuming that this is regarding my post, I am relaying the information about the events and observations of this protest as well as the publicly available information about the blue shirts. This is done in response to the part of this thread concerning the ASEAN summit.

Abhisit did not hesitate to use the police. The police were present and doing their job in coordination with the military. Your speculation regarding abhisit and the police in Pattaya is just that, speculation, scorecard. It doesn't match with the actual events.

The govt did use the Blue Shirts as well, and the blue shirts did attack the red shirts. This is one of the factors that should not be overlooked.

Your second comment about "gang of 'red' thugs should be allowed to roam through a hotel, severely intimidating foreign guests etc., then why would you not accept that another gang, the so called blue shirts, be doing something similar?" is incorrect on 2 points. Taking the latter, the blue shirts were not a gang of thugs, but an organized, armed group put in place by the government. As for the former, the red shirts entered the hotel looking for Abhisit, who had already left. If you find actual information from first hand reports on the scene, then you will see that the red shirts did not behave like 'thugs', nor did they intimidate (much less "severely") the guests. Both tourists and red shirts were snapping pictures of the scene, some even together. There was no violence in the hotel.

So you believe that an armed group of protestors who fight their way into a private resort hosting world leaders using granades, barge their way into rooms without thought for others safety, personal space and security. Who damaged and stole property, tarnished Thailand international reputation are not a group of thugs, just some harmless group that joked and had fun with the tourists?

Those are your words, not mine. There's no new information in your post or reference to other reports from the scene that might add details to the events in the hotel. The other information that I am aware of is written above already. But your post is incorrect in several points - the protesters did not "fight" their way into the hotel. You could say that they kind of pushed their way into the hotel when one of the glass windows broke.

There were no grenades.

You ignore the fact that the reason people were in the hotel was because they were looking for Abhisit (who had already left).

And you toss on a couple of irrelevant extras like tarnishing Thailand's reputation (even if one thinks this is true, what is the point?) as well as the comment about theft which I have not seen reported anywhere (given the relative chaos of the scene and the number of people in the hotel, it would not surprise me, but it doesn't seem to have been wide-spread or organized as it was not reported in the information that I read).

I am open to reading reports on the incident which I have not seen before. If you have interesting links or references, please post them.

Finally, I prefer to call them what they were, protesters. You are free to cal them "thugs" if you want to.

I guess your right, thugs is the wrong name for them, they were more like a lynch mob.

If you just want to call them names, that is up to you.

It leaves me the opportunity to note that the UDD protesters were also prepared for a fight in Pattaya. And the blue shirts provided it for them. I noted earlier that it was amazing that there was not more and more serious violence at the ASEAN summit. NN wrote about a stand-off between red/blue that was diffused by a PAD medic. and it is a good thing, too. Not only were the blue shirts / PAD guards / army armed and ready for a fight, the red shirts were too and had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out.

It seems apparent to me that the strategy of the government to use a fake group of "counter-protesters" to attack the red shirts was not a good strategy compared to using internationally accepted crowd control tactics. Doing so would have very likely reduced the violence at the summit and perhaps allowed it to end normally rather than with the protesters in the hotel and the summit aborted.

Finally, this one event should be placed in the context of the other events, including the demonstrations which were already occurring in BKK.

If it appears to you that I am particularly hard on the government's strategies, and not so on the UDD, then I'd like to point out that this does is not condoning any of the violence on the part of the protesters, but rather is an acknowledgement that in the case of demonstrations (anywhere) the outcome is primarily dependent on the actions of law enforcement.

[rubl]

If it appears to you that I am particularly hard on the government's strategies, and not so on the UDD, then I'd like to point out that this does is not condoning any of the violence on the part of the protesters, but rather is an acknowledgement that in the case of demonstrations (anywhere) the outcome is primarily dependent on the actions of law enforcement.

A true word, although I probably would have written 'primarily dependent on law enforcement', rather than stressing actions. Many problems in Thailand seem the result of lack of law enforcement.

Edited February 26, 2012 by rubl

[tlansford]

If it appears to you that I am particularly hard on the government's strategies, and not so on the UDD, then I'd like to point out that this does is not condoning any of the violence on the part of the protesters, but rather is an acknowledgement that in the case of demonstrations (anywhere) the outcome is primarily dependent on the actions of law enforcement.

A true word, although I probably would have written 'primarily dependent on law enforcement', rather than stressing actions. Many problems in Thailand seem the result of lack of law enforcement.

yeah, I put in "actions" due to not only thinking about Thailand's demonstrations, but the recent & absurd (although less "fatal") (re)actions of law enforcement in the USA last year at the OWS demonstrations.