Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[FOODLOVER]

The Reds came to town looking for a fight and to try and capture and kill the PM of Thailand and to destroy the reputation of Thailand ( What little is left). If you were in Patts at the time you could have cut the tension with a wet noodle. Clear stupidity to claim they were here for any other purpose than to cause a riot. Quit being apologetic idiots. Talk to someone who is not drunk and who was there. Then by a clue with the 500 baht from the vote payments. Simply idiotic. Man o freaking man, unbelievable. They came by the busload and were paid to attend as well. When you have poor folk with no freaking jobs and nothing to do they will go anywhere and do anything for the criminal that is Thaksin. Democracy red style, no thanks! ( Idiots) IMHO

[blows]

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.

Does that put you in the anarchist left camp? Are you against the police enforcing any laws? Does that mean private civilians must provide for their own protection? Did you also cheer Thaksin's murder of over 2500 Thai people under the claim of a drug war or were you against his police actions as well?

[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.

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?

If you abuse a large minority, too much, too long, and too far,

they become radicalized and start to fight back. This is the path we are clearly on.

If you fill them with enough fear of letting things go on they act,

not wait for the next election to be bought out from under them.

Thaksin has a history of pushing too far and with negative consequences

for those unable to push back, or not understanding the need to until it's too late...

This is his greatest liability, because it will inevitably cause a even greater backlash.

If the man knew how to STOP, and think anything was 'enough' the country wouldn't be in this mess.

He's unleashed the genie from the bottle, cracked open Pandoras Box ,

and will inevitably lose control of the hydra he's created.

Edited February 27, 2012 by animatic

[Publicus]

Thaksin originated the idea to make a shambles of the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya in 2009. The government already was fulfilling its responsibility to shield and to protect the ten leaders of government present at the meeting. The government's immediate and efficient reaction to Thaksin's nefarious scheme was successful, that is, no head of government or entourage was injured by the red shirts. The fact is Thaksin is the guy who painted a bull's eye on the event and on Thailand, and is the guy who deliberately put Asean's heads of government in danger and under threat. Thaksin thought disassembling Asean during the event in Thailand was a good idea for him and his personal purposes.

So what should be expect now from Thaksin's new command bunker which is under the control of watermelon senior officers of the police and military? Pheu Thai have been crying wolf about coup, coup, coup since before they were sworn in to office (and sworn at a lot ever since for a myriad of reasons). Red shirts are in Khao Yai chanting, one of their chants being "Stop the coup."

What coup?

Thaksin never tires or stirring the pot - or should I say pail.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Publicus

[tlansford]

Thaksin originated the idea to make a shambles of the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya in 2009. The government already was fulfilling its responsibility to shield and to protect the ten leaders of government present at the meeting. The government's immediate and efficient reaction to Thaksin's nefarious scheme was successful, that is, no head of government or entourage was injured by the red shirts. The fact is Thaksin is the guy who painted a bull's eye on the event and on Thailand, and is the guy who deliberately put Asean's heads of government in danger and under threat. Thaksin thought disassembling Asean during the event in Thailand was a good idea for him and his personal purposes.

So what should be expect now from Thaksin's new command bunker which is under the control of watermelon senior officers of the police and military? Pheu Thai have been crying wolf about coup, coup, coup since before they were sworn in to office (and sworn at a lot ever since for a myriad of reasons). Red shirts are in Khao Yai chanting, one of their chants being "Stop the coup."

What coup?

Thaksin never tires or stirring the pot - or should I say pail.

In the reading I have done on the ASEAN summit protests, I have never seen anything (or just missed it) that says Thaksin put the bulls-eye on the summit. Now to be fair, I never bothered to look for that specifically since summits around the world tend to be a "natural" draw for protesters as well as the fact that the New Year protests were already in full swing in nearby BKK... Or for that matter, what difference does it really make if the idea originated with Thaksin or one of the UDD organizers?

But if you have reports or data that place Thaksin as the origin of the ASEAN incident, please don't hesitate to share them. While it would not surprise me that he would have been happy to see a protest at the summit, it seems like an obvious idea for any protest organizer.

Or it could be your point of view on the protest which is fine, too.

[Orac]

Thaksin originated the idea to make a shambles of the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya in 2009. The government already was fulfilling its responsibility to shield and to protect the ten leaders of government present at the meeting. The government's immediate and efficient reaction to Thaksin's nefarious scheme was successful, that is, no head of government or entourage was injured by the red shirts. The fact is Thaksin is the guy who painted a bull's eye on the event and on Thailand, and is the guy who deliberately put Asean's heads of government in danger and under threat. Thaksin thought disassembling Asean during the event in Thailand was a good idea for him and his personal purposes.

So what should be expect now from Thaksin's new command bunker which is under the control of watermelon senior officers of the police and military? Pheu Thai have been crying wolf about coup, coup, coup since before they were sworn in to office (and sworn at a lot ever since for a myriad of reasons). Red shirts are in Khao Yai chanting, one of their chants being "Stop the coup."

What coup?

Thaksin never tires or stirring the pot - or should I say pail.

In the reading I have done on the ASEAN summit protests, I have never seen anything (or just missed it) that says Thaksin put the bulls-eye on the summit. Now to be fair, I never bothered to look for that specifically since summits around the world tend to be a "natural" draw for protesters as well as the fact that the New Year protests were already in full swing in nearby BKK... Or for that matter, what difference does it really make if the idea originated with Thaksin or one of the UDD organizers?

But if you have reports or data that place Thaksin as the origin of the ASEAN incident, please don't hesitate to share them. While it would not surprise me that he would have been happy to see a protest at the summit, it seems like an obvious idea for any protest organizer.

Or it could be your point of view on the protest which is fine, too.

You are correct of course in that protestors are more the norm at high level intergovermental meetings - The G7 meetings have virtually turned into a carnival. Normally the police a prepared for this and able to keep order however, in Thailands case I doubt many eyebrows were raised when the military was seen being heavily involved.

The bit that must have had the rest of the delegates laughing, albeit whilst trying to escape from the mob that the various forces arrayed against them failed to control, would have been the appearance of a civilian militia clearly aligned with the military and police getting involved as well.

It is one thing to have protestors protesting and I am not condoning their actions at all but this is a problem the rest of the world has learnt to deal with over many years but to bring in your own mob to counter them in front of the assembled international press was a hardly the brightest move as far as crowd control goes.

[tlansford]

- snip -

Nice post. I hope you don't mind if I remove the quote since it risks being deleted.

Feel free to comment on the actual content of posts: dispute facts & opinions, add relevant facts & opinions, etc.

[OzMick]

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.

"the red shirts....... had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out."

Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon. Shooting down from a height at a range of (say) 50m, they might manage to hit a bull elephant in the bum, but only if there was a herd. Of course, if it doesn't matter WHO you hit, the odds would be much better.

Edited February 28, 2012 by OzMick

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[rubl]

Two quotes from the "World Socialist Web Site"

"Saturday, the red-shirts forced entry into the hotel. Security forces reportedly offered little resistance. Post correspondent Parista Yuthamanop, covering the Pattaya summit, wrote, “There were no bursts of water hoses, no sounds of tear gas being fired or sounds of men clashing. The security forces had been evidently directed to use no force, no weapons, only their bodies.”

Abhisit fled to U-Tapao naval airfield by Blackhawk helicopter. Helicopters also evacuated leaders from the Philippines, Burma and Vietnam. The ASEAN meeting was hastily cancelled.

Thaksin spoke to his supporters in Pattaya via video link Saturday night, telling them, “Our people in Bangkok and the provinces can unite to change the country.”

"

"Relying on a boom in Thai export revenues as the US housing bubble allowed the US to import large quantities of Thai goods, Thaksin instituted limited health insurance and investment schemes, especially in Thailand's rural northern regions. Thaksin also lined his pockets, notably with a tax-free, $1.9 billion sale of his stake in the Shin Corp telecom company to Singaporean holding company Temasek Holdings."

http://www.wsws.org/.../thai-a13.shtml

Edited February 28, 2012 by rubl

[tlansford]

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.

"the red shirts....... had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out."

Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon. Shooting down from a height at a range of (say) 50m, they might manage to hit a bull elephant in the bum, but only if there was a herd. Of course, if it doesn't matter WHO you hit, the odds would be much better.

This is what was reported, and has nothing to do with my firearm experience.

[phiphidon]

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.

"the red shirts....... had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out."

Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon. Shooting down from a height at a range of (say) 50m, they might manage to hit a bull elephant in the bum, but only if there was a herd. Of course, if it doesn't matter WHO you hit, the odds would be much better.

"Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon"

In the more civilised parts of the world that "accusation" would be worn as a badge of pride..............

[animatic]

Two quotes from the "World Socialist Web Site"

"Saturday, the red-shirts forced entry into the hotel. Security forces reportedly offered little resistance. Post correspondent Parista Yuthamanop, covering the Pattaya summit, wrote, “There were no bursts of water hoses, no sounds of tear gas being fired or sounds of men clashing. The security forces had been evidently directed to use no force, no weapons, only their bodies.”

Abhisit fled to U-Tapao naval airfield by Blackhawk helicopter. Helicopters also evacuated leaders from the Philippines, Burma and Vietnam. The ASEAN meeting was hastily cancelled.

Thaksin spoke to his supporters in Pattaya via video link Saturday night, telling them, “Our people in Bangkok and the provinces can unite to change the country.”

"

"Relying on a boom in Thai export revenues as the US housing bubble allowed the US to import large quantities of Thai goods, Thaksin instituted limited health insurance and investment schemes, especially in Thailand's rural northern regions. Thaksin also lined his pockets, notably with a tax-free, $1.9 billion sale of his stake in the Shin Corp telecom company to Singaporean holding company Temasek Holdings."

http://www.wsws.org/.../thai-a13.shtml

The same Temasek who he had earlier sold the IMF loan debt to,

saying to his fans he'd 'paid off the IMF', when actually he turned it into

longer term debt for greater interest long term, held happily by

'off shore friend Singapore' with a long term outlook to make

more money off of Thailand.

This same longer term, greater COST to Thailand debt,

that was just juggled yet again by the current Thaksin controlled government

to shuffle it off the current books, and into someone else's payable ledger,

and allow more borrowing NOW of debt for his new Mega Projects.

30% to papa of course.

Edited February 28, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

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.

"the red shirts....... had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out."

Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon. Shooting down from a height at a range of (say) 50m, they might manage to hit a bull elephant in the bum, but only if there was a herd. Of course, if it doesn't matter WHO you hit, the odds would be much better.

"Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon"

In the more civilised parts of the world that "accusation" would be worn as a badge of pride..............

Unless of course you are trying to use that 'presumed knowledge' to make a point, and then can't.

[Macmundi]

THAILAND'S THAKSIN?? Who the hell wrote this headline? Did anyone not know that Thaksin left (abandoned) Thailand to run away from his court trial (which he obviously knew he couldn't win).

[tlansford]

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.

"the red shirts....... had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out."

Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon. Shooting down from a height at a range of (say) 50m, they might manage to hit a bull elephant in the bum, but only if there was a herd. Of course, if it doesn't matter WHO you hit, the odds would be much better.

"Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon"

In the more civilised parts of the world that "accusation" would be worn as a badge of pride..............

Unless of course you are trying to use that 'presumed knowledge' to make a point, and then can't.

you and ozmick will notice that my knowledge of firearms is not only NOT on display here relative to to actions the red shirts took 3 years ago in Pattaya, it is also irrelevant to those actions.

As for my knowledge of firearms, ozmick has no idea about that.

[rubl]

Thaksin said he wants to return to Thailand by the end of the year to wish King Bhumibol Adulyadej a happy 84th birthday, but played down suggestions that his ultimate goal was to once again rule the country.

"My youngest sister is already there, so no need for me to go back as a prime minister," he said, insisting he just wanted to lecture and play golf.

From 2011-05-31

[OzMick]

"the red shirts....... had 2 of their men on a high vantage point with pistols ready to shoot if violence broke out."

Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon. Shooting down from a height at a range of (say) 50m, they might manage to hit a bull elephant in the bum, but only if there was a herd. Of course, if it doesn't matter WHO you hit, the odds would be much better.

"Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon"

In the more civilised parts of the world that "accusation" would be worn as a badge of pride..............

Unless of course you are trying to use that 'presumed knowledge' to make a point, and then can't.

you and ozmick will notice that my knowledge of firearms is not only NOT on display here relative to to actions the red shirts took 3 years ago in Pattaya, it is also irrelevant to those actions.

As for my knowledge of firearms, ozmick has no idea about that.

"When you don't know what you're talking about, anything is possible." - Unknown I have to make judgements based on what you write, and when that veers into infantile fantasy, the conclusion becomes easy.

PP - wear your badge while others with a uniform protect your worthless hide and your right to criticize everything they do.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

"Your lack of experience with firearms shines like a beacon"

In the more civilised parts of the world that "accusation" would be worn as a badge of pride..............

Unless of course you are trying to use that 'presumed knowledge' to make a point, and then can't.

you and ozmick will notice that my knowledge of firearms is not only NOT on display here relative to to actions the red shirts took 3 years ago in Pattaya, it is also irrelevant to those actions.

As for my knowledge of firearms, ozmick has no idea about that.

"When you don't know what you're talking about, anything is possible." - Unknown I have to make judgements based on what you write, and when that veers into infantile fantasy, the conclusion becomes easy.

PP - wear your badge while others with a uniform protect your worthless hide and your right to criticize everything they do.

read the quote you took from my post one more time. OK, now read it again slowly...

Ozmick, there is nothing to contest here unless you don't think that some red shirts were reported to be armed at the ASEAN summit.

I'll repeat for one last time : it has nothing to do with me, and you don't know sh!t about my knowledge of firearms. So get over it. Apology accepted.

[Siam Simon]

Thaksin originated the idea to make a shambles of the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya in 2009. The government already was fulfilling its responsibility to shield and to protect the ten leaders of government present at the meeting. The government's immediate and efficient reaction to Thaksin's nefarious scheme was successful, that is, no head of government or entourage was injured by the red shirts. The fact is Thaksin is the guy who painted a bull's eye on the event and on Thailand, and is the guy who deliberately put Asean's heads of government in danger and under threat. Thaksin thought disassembling Asean during the event in Thailand was a good idea for him and his personal purposes.

So what should be expect now from Thaksin's new command bunker which is under the control of watermelon senior officers of the police and military? Pheu Thai have been crying wolf about coup, coup, coup since before they were sworn in to office (and sworn at a lot ever since for a myriad of reasons). Red shirts are in Khao Yai chanting, one of their chants being "Stop the coup."

What coup?

Thaksin never tires or stirring the pot - or should I say pail.

In the reading I have done on the ASEAN summit protests, I have never seen anything (or just missed it) that says Thaksin put the bulls-eye on the summit. Now to be fair, I never bothered to look for that specifically since summits around the world tend to be a "natural" draw for protesters as well as the fact that the New Year protests were already in full swing in nearby BKK... Or for that matter, what difference does it really make if the idea originated with Thaksin or one of the UDD organizers?

But if you have reports or data that place Thaksin as the origin of the ASEAN incident, please don't hesitate to share them. While it would not surprise me that he would have been happy to see a protest at the summit, it seems like an obvious idea for any protest organizer.

Or it could be your point of view on the protest which is fine, too.

The biggest question from the Pattaya ASEAN summit is why was the then Deputy Prime Minister (Suthep) organising Blue Shirt thugs in conjunction with a banned politician (Newin)? It's a fingers in ears and hands over eyes issue for TVF's right wing fraternity.

Btw, Nick Nostitz (the most hated man on TVF) was there and published on the internet an excellent set of photos along with a very humane journal from his personal observations at that Pattaya ASEAN. Anyone wanting to go beyond the lies and propaganda posted on this forum can read it and view the great photos here:

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2009/04/20/the-crushing-of-the-red-shirts/

[tlansford]

Thaksin originated the idea to make a shambles of the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya in 2009. The government already was fulfilling its responsibility to shield and to protect the ten leaders of government present at the meeting. The government's immediate and efficient reaction to Thaksin's nefarious scheme was successful, that is, no head of government or entourage was injured by the red shirts. The fact is Thaksin is the guy who painted a bull's eye on the event and on Thailand, and is the guy who deliberately put Asean's heads of government in danger and under threat. Thaksin thought disassembling Asean during the event in Thailand was a good idea for him and his personal purposes.

So what should be expect now from Thaksin's new command bunker which is under the control of watermelon senior officers of the police and military? Pheu Thai have been crying wolf about coup, coup, coup since before they were sworn in to office (and sworn at a lot ever since for a myriad of reasons). Red shirts are in Khao Yai chanting, one of their chants being "Stop the coup."

What coup?

Thaksin never tires or stirring the pot - or should I say pail.

In the reading I have done on the ASEAN summit protests, I have never seen anything (or just missed it) that says Thaksin put the bulls-eye on the summit. Now to be fair, I never bothered to look for that specifically since summits around the world tend to be a "natural" draw for protesters as well as the fact that the New Year protests were already in full swing in nearby BKK... Or for that matter, what difference does it really make if the idea originated with Thaksin or one of the UDD organizers?

But if you have reports or data that place Thaksin as the origin of the ASEAN incident, please don't hesitate to share them. While it would not surprise me that he would have been happy to see a protest at the summit, it seems like an obvious idea for any protest organizer.

Or it could be your point of view on the protest which is fine, too.

The biggest question from the Pattaya ASEAN summit is why was the then Deputy Prime Minister (Suthep) organising Blue Shirt thugs in conjunction with a banned politician (Newin)? It's a fingers in ears and hands over eyes issue for TVF's right wing fraternity.

Btw, Nick Nostitz (the most hated man on TVF) was there and published on the internet an excellent set of photos along with a very humane journal from his personal observations at that Pattaya ASEAN. Anyone wanting to go beyond the lies and propaganda posted on this forum can read it and view the great photos here:

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

2009 : The events and photos as it happened and from a professional.

Anyone who is curious about the red/yellow conflict & who hasn't read this, regardless of political views, should do so.

Nick published 2 volumes on the red/yellow conflicts through 2009. A third volume covering 2010 should be in the works. You can find them at Asia books & Kinokuniya.

Thanks, Siam Simon.

[rixalex]

2009 : The events and photos as it happened and from a professional.

Professional what exactly?

In my view, he may be considered "professional" in a number of fields, photography being the obvious one, but in terms of covering an event, the crucial field that i would be interested in a person being professional in so as to distinguish them out from being just another casual observer prone to bias (like the rest of us), and so as to give their articles credibility, is journalism. Nick by his own admission is not qualified in this way. That's fine. Doesn't mean i dismiss his coverage out of hand - a lot of his stuff is accurate and informative. Does mean i put it in a different category. Does mean i wouldn't refer to him as being a professional. With the sort of work he does, to describe him thus could mislead people.

[sparebox2]

There was no coup in 2006, as there was no PM. Thaksin was not the PM of Thailand in Sept 2006. This is a fact that many Farangs do not understand.

It is like robbing an empty house. As nothing was taken (robbed), no crime had happened.

[rubl]

The biggest question from the Pattaya ASEAN summit is why was the then Deputy Prime Minister (Suthep) organising Blue Shirt thugs in conjunction with a banned politician (Newin)? It's a fingers in ears and hands over eyes issue for TVF's right wing fraternity.

Btw, Nick Nostitz (the most hated man on TVF) was there and published on the internet an excellent set of photos along with a very humane journal from his personal observations at that Pattaya ASEAN. Anyone wanting to go beyond the lies and propaganda posted on this forum can read it and view the great photos here:

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

I'm not saying 'as usual', but you are a bit late, Simon old chap. I already posted almost four days ago quoting from our local reporter NN

[OzMick]

Thaksin originated the idea to make a shambles of the Asean prime minister's meeting in Pattaya in 2009. The government already was fulfilling its responsibility to shield and to protect the ten leaders of government present at the meeting. The government's immediate and efficient reaction to Thaksin's nefarious scheme was successful, that is, no head of government or entourage was injured by the red shirts. The fact is Thaksin is the guy who painted a bull's eye on the event and on Thailand, and is the guy who deliberately put Asean's heads of government in danger and under threat. Thaksin thought disassembling Asean during the event in Thailand was a good idea for him and his personal purposes.

So what should be expect now from Thaksin's new command bunker which is under the control of watermelon senior officers of the police and military? Pheu Thai have been crying wolf about coup, coup, coup since before they were sworn in to office (and sworn at a lot ever since for a myriad of reasons). Red shirts are in Khao Yai chanting, one of their chants being "Stop the coup."

What coup?

Thaksin never tires or stirring the pot - or should I say pail.

In the reading I have done on the ASEAN summit protests, I have never seen anything (or just missed it) that says Thaksin put the bulls-eye on the summit. Now to be fair, I never bothered to look for that specifically since summits around the world tend to be a "natural" draw for protesters as well as the fact that the New Year protests were already in full swing in nearby BKK... Or for that matter, what difference does it really make if the idea originated with Thaksin or one of the UDD organizers?

But if you have reports or data that place Thaksin as the origin of the ASEAN incident, please don't hesitate to share them. While it would not surprise me that he would have been happy to see a protest at the summit, it seems like an obvious idea for any protest organizer.

Or it could be your point of view on the protest which is fine, too.

The biggest question from the Pattaya ASEAN summit is why was the then Deputy Prime Minister (Suthep) organising Blue Shirt thugs in conjunction with a banned politician (Newin)? It's a fingers in ears and hands over eyes issue for TVF's right wing fraternity.

Btw, Nick Nostitz (the most hated man on TVF) was there and published on the internet an excellent set of photos along with a very humane journal from his personal observations at that Pattaya ASEAN. Anyone wanting to go beyond the lies and propaganda posted on this forum can read it and view the great photos here:

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

When organising security for an international political event in any western country, those in charge can arrange police and private security from any company, group or organisation they wish. Police most certainly will be armed, and private security quite likely, depending on the perceived threat (possible exception in the UK).

What would be VERY unusual is peaceful protesters showing up carrying fire-arms, as so-called guards or otherwise. IMHO the response would be fast and quite harsh. But TIT, and "peaceful" red shirt protesters are allowed to run around armed to the teeth, invading hotels, government offices and hospitals. Don't you see anything wrong with that?

[phiphidon]

2009 : The events and photos as it happened and from a professional.

Professional what exactly?

In my view, he may be considered "professional" in a number of fields, photography being the obvious one, but in terms of covering an event, the crucial field that i would be interested in a person being professional in so as to distinguish them out from being just another casual observer prone to bias (like the rest of us), and so as to give their articles credibility, is journalism. Nick by his own admission is not qualified in this way. That's fine. Doesn't mean i dismiss his coverage out of hand - a lot of his stuff is accurate and informative. Does mean i put it in a different category. Does mean i wouldn't refer to him as being a professional. With the sort of work he does, to describe him thus could mislead people.

By professional, I presume you would include the likes of the journalists/reporters/photographers that organisations like the BBC / CNN / Al Jazeera sent to cover the events of last year? If this is the case would you place yourself outside of the very voiciferous group of posters on this very forum that declared their coverage as biased?

[scorecard]

2009 : The events and photos as it happened and from a professional.

Professional what exactly?

In my view, he may be considered "professional" in a number of fields, photography being the obvious one, but in terms of covering an event, the crucial field that i would be interested in a person being professional in so as to distinguish them out from being just another casual observer prone to bias (like the rest of us), and so as to give their articles credibility, is journalism. Nick by his own admission is not qualified in this way. That's fine. Doesn't mean i dismiss his coverage out of hand - a lot of his stuff is accurate and informative. Does mean i put it in a different category. Does mean i wouldn't refer to him as being a professional. With the sort of work he does, to describe him thus could mislead people.

By professional, I presume you would include the likes of the journalists/reporters/photographers that organisations like the BBC / CNN / Al Jazeera sent to cover the events of last year? If this is the case would you place yourself outside of the very voiciferous group of posters on this very forum that declared their coverage as biased?

Biased, well pretty much all reporting is biased.

You should remember that many points mentioned by the CNN / BBC reporters have been debated here many times, with good logical argument to substantiate why some posters believe the CNN / BBC comments were unbalanced and missed many salient points.

You should also be fair and recognize that others are entitled to their opinion.

Another point is instant reporting. Today CNN and more have one criteria in mind - get anything on screen as quickly as possible / be the first channel with something on screen about an event, an incident..

The instant reporting of the 2006 coup by Dan rivers (CNN) is a good example - he was on screen babbling all sorts of gibberish within a few minutes (and he's lucky some of his babbling didn't bring some serious LM charges, and clearly he had no background to what he was saying and the possible consequences of what he was just babbling).

Edited February 29, 2012 by scorecard

[yoshiwara]

The ASEAN events were a dress rehearsal for the red thuggery that was to take place the following year. The thugs were Thaksin's boys. Once the publicity fallout turned negative however, Thaksin then openly lied (how odd!) and blamed the violence on fake reds. Echoes of this can be read in some of the contributions above. Mentions of blue-shirts and so on. When a red apologist uses the word 'professional' in their presentation of the 'er facts, you can be assured that they are trying to dress up something smelly as above suspicion like Mother Theresa presumably and therefore not subject to contradiction. An element of the western press bought the 'liberation struggle' pig in a poke. Now that memories are fading a bit the red cheerleaders are back peddling the old rubbish that well, maybe it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. Slightly ridiculous and a little pompous. No sale.

[metisdead]

Several completely off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[scorecard]

The biggest question from the Pattaya ASEAN summit is why was the then Deputy Prime Minister (Suthep) organising Blue Shirt thugs in conjunction with a banned politician (Newin)? It's a fingers in ears and hands over eyes issue for TVF's right wing fraternity.

Btw, Nick Nostitz (the most hated man on TVF) was there and published on the internet an excellent set of photos along with a very humane journal from his personal observations at that Pattaya ASEAN. Anyone wanting to go beyond the lies and propaganda posted on this forum can read it and view the great photos here:

http://asiapacific.a...the-red-shirts/

I'm not saying 'as usual', but you are a bit late, Simon old chap. I already posted almost four days ago quoting from our local reporter NN

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5087404

Well siam simon perhaps you would like to comment on all the current activities of Suranand. He's amongst the banned 111 TRT folks, still banned, but it's been openly admitted that he's actively working (actively working) for yingluck.

Look forward to your comment.