Why is Russia such a cesspool?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Small bombs - but enough to shake confidence in govt
ATTAYUTH BOOTSRIPOOM

BANGKOK: -- THE EXPLOSIONS outside the upscale Siam Paragon mall in Bangkok's busy shopping district on the night of February 1 pose new challenges to the country.

For the government, the blasts mean it is likely to have more difficulty in running the country from now on. Although it may have a good reason to retain martial law, the road ahead looks to be more and more difficult, a developing major problem for the country and the government as well.

It is too early to speculate who masterminded the explosions that left two people slightly injured. The authorities are still gathering information. They are aware that several different groups have motives to trigger such an incident. And the arguments to support the assumptions are convincing. Initial evidence suggests the attack was politically motivated, but it is not easy to state with confidence which side of the political spectrum was responsible.

The question is: What problems and difficulties will result from the incident? First, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) will face more questions. The main reason why they still enjoy support from many groups in society is because they are seen as capable of maintaining peace and order nationwide.

Before the coup last May, our country was in a situation where there were high levels of unrest. Some foreign observers even predicted a full-scale civil war. There were street protests and violence stemming from the demonstrations. Protesters were attacked with war weapons almost on a daily basis.

However, when compared to the period after the 2006 coup, there was a clear difference this time around. On that occasion, only three months after the power seizure, chaos and violence were common. Many bomb attacks took place during a period before and after the New Year holidays of 2007. Several people were killed or injured.

This time around, eight months have passed after the coup without any violent incident, until the double explosions last Sunday night that severely shook confidence in the government. Many people are afraid this may signal the beginning of a new round of unrest - and that's a big challenge for the NCPO to maintain peace and order.

Some critics have come up with a theory of "drug resistance" to explain the renewed violence. They suggested that the NCPO should use "a stronger drug". If the junta believes in this suggestion, it is likely to take tougher measures, which might do more harm than good.

Moreover, this first violent incident in Bangkok after the coup has adversely affected the confidence of foreign investors. It sends the message to them that Thailand is not as peaceful as claimed by the people in power. The fact that the incident took place in the country's major business district could surely bring negative impacts, with investment from overseas likely to slow down. Prospective tourists will also be discouraged, and some countries have already warned their nationals about travelling to Thailand. As a result, the country's weakening economy could suffer further.

Some democratic countries, particularly those who view Thailand with suspicion over its martial law, are likely to question the merit of maintaining the measure.

If the NCPO fails to control the situation, the road ahead will be even more difficult. A major reason for its existence will be tested, and widespread support for it will be greatly diminished.

What the junta should do is to find the real culprits as soon as possible. If it succeeds, at least it can refute the claim that the authorities had staged Sunday night's incident to justify continuing martial law.

Also, they would be in a position to restore confidence in the public. If they can act swiftly in solving this case, they can create a perception that the explosions were just a random attack at a time when the junta had lowered its guard briefly.

The explosions may caused only small physical damage but the political impact has been much greater. Time will tell if the people behind the incident have been successful in their violent intentions.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Small-bombs--but-enough-to-shake-confidence-in-gov-30253442.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-05

[cloudhopper]

Hysterical assertions by this author.

[bassman]

Pipe bombs are the simplest of explosive devices to make. A section of pipe, two end caps, photoflash/black powder and fire cracker fuze, all readily available in Thailand. They are commonly used throughout the planet for fun, extortion, political and numerous other reasons. Having not caught the perpetrators of the crime and claim political motive is a far reaching conclusion. If the devices had used high explosives such as C-4 or TNT which is far more difficult to obtain, it would give more credence to these off the cuff theories in the absence of fact.

[noitom]

Another poster mentioned "absence of fact." This just about appropriately sums up Thailand's amateur journalism. There rarely is any real facts used as the basis of reporting. They are attempting to craft real stories from hearsay, sound bites from inconsequential people, and opinion.

[rickirs]

Gen. Prayuth has cited nefarious reasons for continued use of martial law despite the lack of any clear coup-directed violence such as "political undercurrents." He believes that even the threat of criticism of the coup and Junta-led government is sufficient reason to maintain a hardcore martial law. And he includes the potential for criticism that might come from foreign-based opposition that would be out of the coup's reach.

We don't know yet the motivation for the two pipe bombs. But as political statements, placing them in a shopping mall likely to have foreigners and a variety of Thai people doesn't seem the best form of political intimidation given the risks for capture. For anti-coup opposition looking to make violent political statements against the Junta I'd expect military and government related facilities and personnel as targets. They are just as vulnerable as civillian facilities and less likely to have CCTV.

Given the lack of any substantial military successes with getting insurgent Malay-Thais in South Thailand to peace talks, the attack may be more anti-miiltary than anti-coup.

[rubl]

Gen. Prayuth has cited nefarious reasons for continued use of martial law despite the lack of any clear coup-directed violence such as "political undercurrents." He believes that even the threat of criticism of the coup and Junta-led government is sufficient reason to maintain a hardcore martial law. And he includes the potential for criticism that might come from foreign-based opposition that would be out of the coup's reach.

We don't know yet the motivation for the two pipe bombs. But as political statements, placing them in a shopping mall likely to have foreigners and a variety of Thai people doesn't seem the best form of political intimidation given the risks for capture. For anti-coup opposition looking to make violent political statements against the Junta I'd expect military and government related facilities and personnel as targets. They are just as vulnerable as civillian facilities and less likely to have CCTV.

Given the lack of any substantial military successes with getting insurgent Malay-Thais in South Thailand to peace talks, the attack may be more anti-miiltary than anti-coup.

Are the injured more happy to be injured by political motivated attacks or by terrorist motivated attacks ?

As for political statements, well maybe since even an impeachment seems to some to be a political statement and political intimidation, shouldn't we call the two bombs just plain criminal or maybe even terrorist activities ?

Maybe it's much more an attack at non-red-shirts, as we have had in the past few years.

BTW what's the difference between 'hardcore martial law' and 'martial law'?

[Robby nz]

What the OP says about the probable and already factual consequences is correct (travel advisories).

Now who could possibly benefit from these ?

Certainly not the present administration, but anyone opposing them and attempting to make them look bad or bring them down, certainly.

So who could that be ?

[visionchaser45]

Someone had confidence in this "government?"