Press coverage of the Bangkok bombings is available here, here, here, here and here. As usual, Bangkok Pundit has a very detailed wrap up of events, with numerous links to other sources. New Mandala will be following this sad development with interest. Hopefully further details and some informed commentary will emerge over the next few days. In the interim some restraint is appropriate before rushing to attribute blame based on pre-established political positions.
UPDATE: I suppose restraint would be too much to expect from the military junta. According to The Nation (thanks Patiwat) members of the Council for National Security are already linking the bombings to Thaksin and using this as a pretext to call for the seizure of his assets:
A security source said the Council for National Security may order the seizure of assets of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to cut money supply for financing disturbance in the country. The source said the CNS believed Thaksin was behind the series of seven bomb attacks in Bangkok Sunday evening.
This despite the fact that intelligence agencies have been unwilling to identify any culprits. I am not going to lose any sleep about Thaksin’s assets, but this is clearly part of a pernicious campaign whereby political leaders and members of a legitimate political party are labelled as subversive and as acting contrary to some vaguely defined national interest. The ongoing campaign against the so-called “undercurrents” – involving increasingly hysterical vilification – is a blatant attempt to silence a legitimate political force.
5 responses so far ↓
1 patiwat // Jan 1, 2007 at 2:46 pm
A meeting between Premier Surayud Chulanont and various security and intelligence agencies on the evening of the 31st failed to identify culprits for the attacks. See here.
The junta’s men are stating otherwise, and are clamoring to have the CNS (not the government) seize Thaksin’s assets. See here.
2 Newley Purnell » Blog Archive » Who’s Responsible for the Bangkok Bombings? // Jan 1, 2007 at 8:15 pm
[...] From the New Mandala blog: … I suppose restraint would be too much to expect from the military junta. According to The Nation (thanks Patiwat) members of the Council for National Security are already linking the bombings to Thaksin and using this as a pretext to call for the seizure of his assets: [...]
3 polo // Jan 1, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I think one has to dismiss most of what the Bangkok media says about attributions, especially in the first 48 hours after any incident. Most of them come from unnamed sources and/or people, high and low level, who often speak off the cuff without thinking or caring what they say and how it is understood. And the journalistic “filter” in Bangkok has become worse/more unreliable than ever in the past 20 years.
For that reason I would ignore all these suggestions that it came from Thaksin-ists until there is clear evidencegiven by top officials publicly.
4 polo // Jan 2, 2007 at 4:33 am
I would add that this statement by Surayuth is pretty weak:
“It is unlikely that it was related to the unrest in the south because the militants are not familiar with the area.”
There is a significant and often even hostile Muslim population in Bangkok and they could have planted any of the bombs in those areas. Indeed, many live on Khlong Saen Saep that puts them right close to the Pratunam -Rajprasong area bombings.
This is in no way to say that Thaksinists did not do it. They may have. But the rush to declare one or another, with not very good evidence made public, should make anyone hesitate to accept any comment, at this point even by Surayuth and Gen. Sonthi.
5 patiwat // Jan 2, 2007 at 4:45 am
How does Surayud know that it wasn’t the Southern insurgents?
The Thai Prime Minister explains, “I don’t think they would come here as they could get lost in Bangkok.” See here.
That has to be the most absurd statement EVER.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.