Bombings in South-Thailand

[vbroker]

By your own admission, you know just about nothing about the situation down there. You've never been there. But you launch into some right-wing neocon rant about fascist Islamic extremists and then some pro-Bush crap. That has nothing to do with what's going on in Southern Thailand.

Right and wrong. I don't know the specifics as you and your "security analysts" do as I don't follow it. But when talk of Muslims, bombings and civilian casualties arises in the same sentence/subject, one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist or a journalist to extrapolate any combination of the words fascist, Islamic and extremist. We, on the right, don't mince words. We call it what it is. It may have nothing to do with what's going on in Southern Thailand; yet. Would it be a stretch to tie Bin Laden, al Zawahiri, al Qaida et al to a Phuket, BKK, Pattaya or Kho Samui attack if it were proven to have come from these southern Thai Muslim militants? The logistics, planning and money would almost certainly need to come from them. I merely pointed to the possibility. With Thailand's political institutions and military in current upheaval, now might be an excellent time for a major terror strike backed by al Qaida.

Neocon is short for new conservative. I voted for Reagan in '83 and would have in '79 if of age. I have been politically active since the Republican Congressional takeover in '94. I fail to see how my conservatism is "new" given I have never had any other political mindset. More liberal B.S.

What opinions I do express, I base on talking to people on the ground and involved in what's going on. You get yours from Rush Limbaugh.

Nonsense. As discussed in prior posts, I have said it is important to listen to many if not all viewpoints and then form your own opinions. I doubt Limbaugh cares to say anything about South Thailand bombings or even much about Thailand in general although I have never listened to his program and therefore this is speculation. I imagine that would change if the scenario I outlined above came into reality.

As for journalists, I've worked with journalists who had successful careers in business, the law, the military and other fields before choosing to enter journalism.

Congratulations. Everyone who bothered to read the post (almost everyone) knows I did not say or imply all journalists have never experienced leadership positions. Re-phrasing, again: There is a SEGMENT of journalists which impacts some journalism that have never been responsible for the welfare/well being of others vis-a-vis their decisions. From my perspective that can erode that journalist's credibility depending on the subject matter he or she is opining on. That segment tends to be dominated by those with political leanings you are sympathetic to in my opinion. You may or may not fall into this category. Obvious exceptions are Wesley Clarke and George Stephanopoulos.

There are reporters who risk their lives to get stories out and dozens of them are killed doing their job every year.

And three quarters of Cantor-Fitzgerald's sales force were wiped out on September 11, 2001 doing their jobs. The difference is the reporters know or should know their occupational risks; a bond salesman would have no expectation his life was in danger sitting at his desk.

Or are only people who run corporations and manage portfolios leaders?

Ridiculous question posing as a hypothetical. Again, everyone who read the post (almost everyone) knows I never suggested here or anywhere else leaders are borne only of corporations and portfolio managers. But the question does allude to these people as leaders as opposed to other common posts here suggesting they are charlatans and rampant criminals. I'll call that progress for the progressive.

Credit given; where it is due:

It's possible seperatists did this, and maybe even one of the gangs vying for power over the area.

But don't rule out the possiblity that army or police officers loyal to Thaksin did this.

With the military reshuffle coming up next month, there ar tensions going on right now over who will hold what posts and where there loyalties will lie.

For quite a while, Thaksin had been successful in putting his classmates and loyalist into key positions in the army.

Recently coup rumors were flying around Bangkok.

Then Chief Privy Councillor Prem Tinsulanonda, a former Prime Minister and army commander in chief, made a speech before graduating cadets telling them where their loyalties should lie. Governments come and go, he said.

A few days later, several officers who were loyal to Thaksin and commanded units around Bangkok were transferred to the boondocks.

Earlier this year when the street protets against Thaksin were at their height, Army Commander in Chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, after a meeting with Thaksin, made it clear he did not want the military to intervene in any way. Word was that officers loyal to Thaksin wanted to.

After the supposed attempt to kill Thaksin with a car bomb last week, (which most people in Bangkok think was a hoax organized by Thaksin himself) papers reported that Thaksin was pressuring Sonthi to once again appoint officers loyal to himself to key positions in the upcoming reshuffle. Sonthi is reportedly resisting.

Thaksin has also assigned Sonthi, who is Muslim, to personally oversee the situation in the south. The bombings make Sonthi look bad.

It weakens him and gives Thaksin more leverage in pressuring him to appoint his classmates and loyalists.

Dont' be surprised if there is an even worse incident in the next few weeks. And notice now that the police have said no street protests will be allowed now that the election campaign period has started.

I'm not saying this is definitely what is behind these latest bombings.

But I wouldn't completelydiscount it.

[zeusbheld]

Neocon is short for new conservative. I voted for Reagan in '83 and would have in '79 if of age. I have been politically active since the Republican Congressional takeover in '94. I fail to see how my conservatism is "new" given I have never had any other political mindset. More liberal B.S.

not to be off topic for too long but as you well know, neocon is a particular ideology within conservatism, as you well know.

libertarianism for example is lumped in with conservatism as is christian fundamentalism, but ideologically both are very separate from neocon ideology. most of your opinions tend to line up with the neocons as opposed to say, libertarians.

your opinions sometimes are measured and reasoned, but honestly, sometimes are canned, unexampined neocon rants. i like the first option better, but do as you wish.

and you can call that 'liberal BS if you wish, but you are then implying anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal. i dont consider myself one (or a conservative either). but if you only own two crayons and can't afford gray, you can call me a liberal.

[sunsnow]

Interesting story:

Thailand rejects U.S. help to quell insurgency

[Horizonte]

US should intervene and the end result should be that Isaan join US Statehood and fly the 51 star flag.

[beej]

A holiday camp with a free orange jump suit maybe?