Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[rubl]

The Thaksin and red shirt people have washed their collective memory of the attack at the Asean prime ministers summit in 2008 in Pattaya when, reds led by Thaksin in Dubai was shouting "revolution" over his mobile phone his mobs attacked the Pattaya resort where Asean PM's were gathered and had to be evacuated by helicopter and other means. Other prominent Thais had additional organized groups of various colors to add to the chaos caused by Thaksin and his reds, a chaos which not only was an embarassment to Thailand, but which also revealed Thaksin to the international community.

It's a relief to see that some of us remember the time and are willing to cause others to recollect it or to acquaint themselves with it.

Minor correction, the summit stormed by UDD members led by k. Arisman was in 2009

Correct, April 2009. I wonder what Publicus can say about this event besides the fact that Abhisit left before the red shirts entered the hotel.

His comment of "other prominent Thais" and groups of "various colors" should be more accurately stated as "Suthep & Newin", and "blue shirts" with a point of detail being that the Blue Shirts consisted of PAD guards and military conscripts along with the fact that the Blue Shirts were organized behind the military lines in Pattaya. The Blue Shirts were present as a (meant to appear as a) non-government related group to use as a counter-measure to the red shirts.

In this way, it would not appear as though the government was using force/violence against the protesters at the ASEAN summit. Both sides were armed, and it seems amazing that there were not more injuries and violence.

If the fuse was the Red Shirts, then the match was the government & their Blue Shirts.

- did k. Abhisit leave the ASEAN venue before 'red shirts' entered the hotel and if so other than planned?

- blue shirts as counter measure might have been a bit overdone, but the situation suggest otherwise.

- in this way the UDD / red-shirts were seen as aggressors independent of other groups present

- indeed amazzing not more injuries and/or violance especially with k. Arisman saying 'catch Abhisit, do with him what you want'

- if the fuse was the red-shirts, surely the canister/scrapnel was the red-shirts again and k. Arsisman the match.

Sorry, but I have a problem accepting government's blame because they didn't roll over and play dead.

[nurofiend]

Get over it.

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

definitely deluded.

Glad you got the joke. I thought it might have gone over your head, like the previous comment.

firstly a joke is defined as something funny... hence why i said 'joke'... and what you wrote just doesn't qualify i'm afraid.

and nothing went over my head, your comment was stupid, plain and simple...

insinuating that people who have a problem with comparing thaksin to hitler are feigning indignation as a ploy to shame the opposition into silence!!!

i mean it just sounds like the rants of a madman... and most certainly not a reasonable...man

pffft

getting over something would suggest that it's something upsetting me, sorry to hurt your ego... but it's not.

Edited February 24, 2012 by nurofiend

[Reasonableman]

Good to know. ;-)

[nurofiend]

Good to know. ;-)

all good then

[waza]

The Thaksin and red shirt people have washed their collective memory of the attack at the Asean prime ministers summit in 2008 in Pattaya when, reds led by Thaksin in Dubai was shouting "revolution" over his mobile phone his mobs attacked the Pattaya resort where Asean PM's were gathered and had to be evacuated by helicopter and other means. Other prominent Thais had additional organized groups of various colors to add to the chaos caused by Thaksin and his reds, a chaos which not only was an embarassment to Thailand, but which also revealed Thaksin to the international community.

It's a relief to see that some of us remember the time and are willing to cause others to recollect it or to acquaint themselves with it.

Minor correction, the summit stormed by UDD members led by k. Arisman was in 2009

Correct, April 2009. I wonder what Publicus can say about this event besides the fact that Abhisit left before the red shirts entered the hotel.

His comment of "other prominent Thais" and groups of "various colors" should be more accurately stated as "Suthep & Newin", and "blue shirts" with a point of detail being that the Blue Shirts consisted of PAD guards and military conscripts along with the fact that the Blue Shirts were organized behind the military lines in Pattaya. The Blue Shirts were present as a (meant to appear as a) non-government related group to use as a counter-measure to the red shirts.

In this way, it would not appear as though the government was using force/violence against the protesters at the ASEAN summit. Both sides were armed, and it seems amazing that there were not more injuries and violence.

If the fuse was the Red Shirts, then the match was the government & their Blue Shirts.

- did k. Abhisit leave the ASEAN venue before 'red shirts' entered the hotel and if so other than planned?

- blue shirts as counter measure might have been a bit overdone, but the situation suggest otherwise.

- in this way the UDD / red-shirts were seen as aggressors independent of other groups present

- indeed amazzing not more injuries and/or violance especially with k. Arisman saying 'catch Abhisit, do with him what you want'

- if the fuse was the red-shirts, surely the canister/scrapnel was the red-shirts again and k. Arsisman the match.

Sorry, but I have a problem accepting government's blame because they didn't roll over and play dead.

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..

Edited February 25, 2012 by waza

[OzMick]

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.

[Orac]

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.

Why go to the trouble of winning an election. Rather than martial law they could just declare a state of emergency and replace the police with the army - I am sure this will demonstrate to the general public how useless the police are and lead them to a landslide victory by an appreciating nation.

[Heimdallr]

When CalgaryII says he knows some of these people, is he perhaps also close to the infamous Robert Amsterdam (or is he the man himself?).

It's a frightening article about the course we are on, which is very similar to 2001-2005. It is excellent politics for them but anyone who opposes will suffer while the supporters, at least those at the top, will benefit greatly. Then again, it is what a large group of people in this country want

[animatic]

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.

Edited February 25, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

When CalgaryII says he knows some of these people, is he perhaps also close to the infamous Robert Amsterdam (or is he the man himself?).

It's a frightening article about the course we are on, which is very similar to 2001-2005. It is excellent politics for them but anyone who opposes will suffer while the supporters, at least those at the top, will benefit greatly. Then again, it is what a large group of people in this country want

Or have been lead to believe the want.

[animatic]

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.

It would be a vote getter, if the ballots are secret.

[blows]

Minor correction, the summit stormed by UDD members led by k. Arisman was in 2009

Correct, April 2009. I wonder what Publicus can say about this event besides the fact that Abhisit left before the red shirts entered the hotel.

His comment of "other prominent Thais" and groups of "various colors" should be more accurately stated as "Suthep & Newin", and "blue shirts" with a point of detail being that the Blue Shirts consisted of PAD guards and military conscripts along with the fact that the Blue Shirts were organized behind the military lines in Pattaya. The Blue Shirts were present as a (meant to appear as a) non-government related group to use as a counter-measure to the red shirts.

In this way, it would not appear as though the government was using force/violence against the protesters at the ASEAN summit. Both sides were armed, and it seems amazing that there were not more injuries and violence.

If the fuse was the Red Shirts, then the match was the government & their Blue Shirts.

- did k. Abhisit leave the ASEAN venue before 'red shirts' entered the hotel and if so other than planned?

- blue shirts as counter measure might have been a bit overdone, but the situation suggest otherwise.

- in this way the UDD / red-shirts were seen as aggressors independent of other groups present

- indeed amazzing not more injuries and/or violance especially with k. Arisman saying 'catch Abhisit, do with him what you want'

- if the fuse was the red-shirts, surely the canister/scrapnel was the red-shirts again and k. Arsisman the match.

Sorry, but I have a problem accepting government's blame because they didn't roll over and play dead.

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..

Thugocracy at its finest.

[tlansford]

The Thaksin and red shirt people have washed their collective memory of the attack at the Asean prime ministers summit in 2008 in Pattaya when, reds led by Thaksin in Dubai was shouting "revolution" over his mobile phone his mobs attacked the Pattaya resort where Asean PM's were gathered and had to be evacuated by helicopter and other means. Other prominent Thais had additional organized groups of various colors to add to the chaos caused by Thaksin and his reds, a chaos which not only was an embarassment to Thailand, but which also revealed Thaksin to the international community.

It's a relief to see that some of us remember the time and are willing to cause others to recollect it or to acquaint themselves with it.

Minor correction, the summit stormed by UDD members led by k. Arisman was in 2009

Correct, April 2009. I wonder what Publicus can say about this event besides the fact that Abhisit left before the red shirts entered the hotel.

His comment of "other prominent Thais" and groups of "various colors" should be more accurately stated as "Suthep & Newin", and "blue shirts" with a point of detail being that the Blue Shirts consisted of PAD guards and military conscripts along with the fact that the Blue Shirts were organized behind the military lines in Pattaya. The Blue Shirts were present as a (meant to appear as a) non-government related group to use as a counter-measure to the red shirts.

In this way, it would not appear as though the government was using force/violence against the protesters at the ASEAN summit. Both sides were armed, and it seems amazing that there were not more injuries and violence.

If the fuse was the Red Shirts, then the match was the government & their Blue Shirts.

- did k. Abhisit leave the ASEAN venue before 'red shirts' entered the hotel and if so other than planned?

- blue shirts as counter measure might have been a bit overdone, but the situation suggest otherwise.

- in this way the UDD / red-shirts were seen as aggressors independent of other groups present

- indeed amazzing not more injuries and/or violance especially with k. Arisman saying 'catch Abhisit, do with him what you want'

- if the fuse was the red-shirts, surely the canister/scrapnel was the red-shirts again and k. Arsisman the match.

Sorry, but I have a problem accepting government's blame because they didn't roll over and play dead.

- yes, abhisit left before the protesters entered the hotel.

- the blue shirts were overdone, but the govt miscalculated the number needed to effectively counter the red shirt protesters. It has been stated that the govt routinely dismissed the real number of red shirts to be attending/present by their own sources, so they had 300-400 blue shirts, but there were 4000-5000 red shirts in Pattaya.

- the blue shirts were there so that exactly that could happen, that the govt was not seen a an aggressor against the protesters, and if problems occurred, then the govt could plausibly deny they had anything to do with the blue/red violence. The video posted here clearly shows the blue shirts retreated behind the army lines which is a clear indication of how they had been organized. Additionally, reporters on the scene recognized the blue shirts as PAD guards and military conscripts.

- the blue shirts were a govt created entity. The govt could have used normal crowd control techniques with the police and army, but chose not to. The blue shirts added an uncontrolled element of conflict to the event. The govt abdicated its official responsibility for crowd control, and the video shows the result.

Another posted asked where the police were. They were present, too. The police were the first line of control and the military the second line of control.

the govt did not roll over and play dead. Instead they created and deployed the blue shirts to confront the red shirts. The govt had the option of using official means and standard crowd control techniques. When I say govt, in this case it is clear that Suthep (with Newin) was the driving force behind the blue shirts.

I think the govt shares a large part of the responsibility for the results.

There is some pretty good information available on the events of April 2009. I'm sure you'll find it if you are interested.

[scorecard]

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.

[Oberkommando]

I've often thought it should be a Democrat policy that after winning an election

Winning an election!

Comedy gold mate, keep 'em coming.

[tlansford]

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.

[rubl]

- yes, abhisit left before the protesters entered the hotel.

- the blue shirts were overdone, but the govt miscalculated the number needed to effectively counter the red shirt protesters. It has been stated that the govt routinely dismissed the real number of red shirts to be attending/present by their own sources, so they had 300-400 blue shirts, but there were 4000-5000 red shirts in Pattaya.

- the blue shirts were there so that exactly that could happen, that the govt was not seen a an aggressor against the protesters, and if problems occurred, then the govt could plausibly deny they had anything to do with the blue/red violence. The video posted here clearly shows the blue shirts retreated behind the army lines which is a clear indication of how they had been organized. Additionally, reporters on the scene recognized the blue shirts as PAD guards and military conscripts.

- the blue shirts were a govt created entity. The govt could have used normal crowd control techniques with the police and army, but chose not to. The blue shirts added an uncontrolled element of conflict to the event. The govt abdicated its official responsibility for crowd control, and the video shows the result.

Another posted asked where the police were. They were present, too. The police were the first line of control and the military the second line of control.

the govt did not roll over and play dead. Instead they created and deployed the blue shirts to confront the red shirts. The govt had the option of using official means and standard crowd control techniques. When I say govt, in this case it is clear that Suthep (with Newin) was the driving force behind the blue shirts.

I think the govt shares a large part of the responsibility for the results.

There is some pretty good information available on the events of April 2009. I'm sure you'll find it if you are interested.

Soon someone will surely say that if it wasn't for the blue-shirts nothing would have happened in Pattaya that day.

BTW "Both tourists and red shirts were snapping pictures of the scene, some even together. There was no violence in the hotel." Well that makes it a perfectly acceptable event, now doesn't it? Following the same logic, the September 2006 happening saw tourists and Bangkokians making nice shots of smiling people (soldiers, Thai and tourists) around tanks with flowers and all. No violence at all.

Edited February 25, 2012 by rubl

[scorecard]

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.

You surely don't think anybody will believe that the foreign guests at the Royal Cliff meeting would have been thinking 'this all as just a little funny joke, let's all have a giggle'.

Watch the posted video, can you honestly say this looks like a bit of a silly joke to just stir up a few people, just harmless fun?

The guests were in fact numerous ministers of state, dignitaries, etc. You seem to be suggesting that it's OK for red shirt thugs (thugs) to be running around amidst there folks, never mind the image this builds for Thailand, never mind the TV images going out to the rest of Asia, the world, etc.

If you were a visiting person (tourist / dignatory) and mostly unaware of the history involved, would you have believed, it's just a big of a giggle, lets join in and all dance around, all harmless? Please be honest.

No, I didn't suggest that It's OK for the blue shirts to be doing something similar.

Edited February 25, 2012 by scorecard

[tlansford]

- yes, abhisit left before the protesters entered the hotel.

- the blue shirts were overdone, but the govt miscalculated the number needed to effectively counter the red shirt protesters. It has been stated that the govt routinely dismissed the real number of red shirts to be attending/present by their own sources, so they had 300-400 blue shirts, but there were 4000-5000 red shirts in Pattaya.

- the blue shirts were there so that exactly that could happen, that the govt was not seen a an aggressor against the protesters, and if problems occurred, then the govt could plausibly deny they had anything to do with the blue/red violence. The video posted here clearly shows the blue shirts retreated behind the army lines which is a clear indication of how they had been organized. Additionally, reporters on the scene recognized the blue shirts as PAD guards and military conscripts.

- the blue shirts were a govt created entity. The govt could have used normal crowd control techniques with the police and army, but chose not to. The blue shirts added an uncontrolled element of conflict to the event. The govt abdicated its official responsibility for crowd control, and the video shows the result.

Another posted asked where the police were. They were present, too. The police were the first line of control and the military the second line of control.

the govt did not roll over and play dead. Instead they created and deployed the blue shirts to confront the red shirts. The govt had the option of using official means and standard crowd control techniques. When I say govt, in this case it is clear that Suthep (with Newin) was the driving force behind the blue shirts.

I think the govt shares a large part of the responsibility for the results.

There is some pretty good information available on the events of April 2009. I'm sure you'll find it if you are interested.

Soon someone will surely say that if it wasn't for the blue-shirts nothing would have happened in Pattaya that day.

BTW "Both tourists and red shirts were snapping pictures of the scene, some even together. There was no violence in the hotel." Well that makes it a perfectly acceptable event, now doesn't it? Following the same logic, the September 2006 happening saw tourists and Bangkokians making nice shots of smiling people (soldiers, Thai and tourists) around tanks with flowers and all. No violence at all.

The blue shirts that day attacked the protesters, so yes, if they had not been there, and if the govt had just used normal control techniques, then the day would have ended in a very different way, perhaps without the incident at the hotel and the evacuation of the delegates.

We won't know, that is not what happened.

Your second quote was in response to scorecard's about "severely intimidating" the guests in the hotel and my response was to point out that this was not the case, although I could imagine some tourists with no idea about the Thai political situation might have been surprised to see the hotel full of red shirts (speculation on my part). It is not a statement regarding the acceptability of the event, but simply to state that, as reported, there was no violence in the hotel.

And while protesters are responsible for their protests, the govt, in this case, is responsible for creating and deploying an armed, "counter-protest group" and perhaps even directing it - at the least allowing it - to attack the protesters at the ASEAN summit.

Due to this, I believe that the govt has significant responsibility to take for the events of that day.

[tlansford]

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.

You surely don't think anybody will believe that the foreign guests at the Royal Cliff meeting would have been thinking 'this all as just a little funny joke, let's all have a giggle'.

I don't pretend to know what they thought as individuals, but tourists in the hotel posed for as well as took pictures of the protesters. It doesn't seem like they were too intimidated by the protesters as you stated above.

[rubl]

Due to this, I believe that the govt has significant responsibility to take for the events of that day.

Yes, yes, not our fault at all:

"Storming Asean hotel was self-defence, says red shirts' leader"

http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/112/article_3450.asp

[rubl]

From our local reporter Nick Nostitz:

"But the Hotel incursion happened hours after, the clashes with the Blue Shirts were completely over. The Blue Shirts at no point pushed the Red Shirts into a “confined space”. There was no “confined space”. There was no panic under Red Shirts, the plan by Newin (and Suthep, and the Supreme Command) went completely to shit, and the reasons why i have elaborated on in my book.

The Red Shirts sat for several hours in front of the Hotel while Arisaman held a press conference inside the Hotel with a sack of blue shirts the Red Shirts found on the way to the Hotel.

Red Shirts stormed into the Hotel grounds (some of them have been resting already at the hotel golf course), and pressed against the entry door, which broke.

I have all this documented by photos, and with my text, in my book.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/03/09/nick-nostitz-on-thailands-political-awakening/

"

[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?

Edited February 25, 2012 by waza

[whybother]

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? But the blueshirts were a

I don't think they were armed in Pattaya ... and grenades?

[waza]

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? But the blueshirts were a

I don't think they were armed in Pattaya ... and grenades?

If you look at the video I posted you will see the blueshirt ran after an explosive was thrown at them.

[whybother]

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? But the blueshirts were a

I don't think they were armed in Pattaya ... and grenades?

If you look at the video I posted you will see the blueshirt ran after an explosive was thrown at them.

Tear gas. And not being used to fight their way into a resort.

[tlansford]

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.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

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

... end removed

Looking for k. Abhisit, or as k. Arisman said "find him, catch him, do what you like with him' ?

Actually NN didn't mention this in the article I quoted above.

If this would be true, storming a hotel hardly seems a 'peaceful' activity.

[OzMick]

I've often thought it should be a Democrat policy that after winning an election

Winning an election!

Comedy gold mate, keep 'em coming.

Until they do, there will certainly no anti-corruption measures installed on the Police. Chalerm and Thaksin's pet commander like it just the way it is.

[Publicus]

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.

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..