I am a US citizen living in Bangkok. The following information may be useful to those who wish to visit here:<BR><BR>In mid-December, approximately 200 tons of explosives were stolen from a quarry in southern Thailand. Newspaper reports indicate that some of the explosives have been recovered, but I have been unable to find further information, and the quantity recovered by Thai police was not specified.<BR><BR>A friend who was a mining engineer tells me that 200 tons would be enough to destroy totally a medium-sized city. The haul must have been carried away on a number of trucks (one truck can handle what, five tons at the most??) and over some considerable time: this was no small operation, and we can assume that pranksters or small-time thieves were not involved. Who needs 200 tons of high explosives, and who has the resources to carry it off?? <BR><BR>While some resort areas in Thailand are said to have extra security now, Bangkok appears to me to be operating as it always has. The police report that they are paying some attention to the safety of visitors to Khao San Road, a region favored by back-packers (the young, those traveling on the cheap, and those seeking drugs), but I have yet to see any attention paid to the bars here that cater to Westerners. Many of these bars are clustered closely together in a few areas, and it appears to my unprofessional eye that a modest truck bomb could cause hundreds of deaths and many hundreds of wounded. Thailand has a long-standing problem with violence in the south, where some Muslims have used bombs in an off-and-on campaign to separate from Thailand. This waxes and wanes, but in the last twelve months, police outposts in the south have been hit, and a number of officers killed. The occasional bomb goes off in the south. <BR><BR>Thailand has been very slow to admit that it has any potential terrorist problem. We literally do not know what the police are doing, as they prefer to keep that strictly to themselves. Recent criticism in the Thai press has forced a few statements from officials to the effect that things are not perfect, but everyone in authority still insists that terrorists are being watched for and are under control. Meanwhile some press reports indicate that Western intelligence agencies feel a level of frustration with Thai officials (as they did with Indonesian officials before the Bali bombing). <BR><BR>The US embassy here is a fortress. It is, however, the tourist areas, particularly those that can be criticized by Muslim fundamentalists for their sinful activities, that I consider prime targets.<BR><BR>I have advised friends not to visit, or at least to consider the risks before coming. I suggest that if you must see the local night life, bar-hopping should be occasional rather than frequent, and that trips to the local watering holes be concluded before 10 PM. Reduce your risk, in other words. Bangkok is a remarkably safe city when it comes to muggings (one is more at risk from visiting tourists than from the locals), but the potential for a catastrophe seems to have escaped the local law enforcement establishment.

200 tons? What kind of a quarry keep 200 tons of explosives?<BR><BR>Ricin is much better. Did you know that it will kill white people faster because of their thin skin!

I think you are unduly putting fear in peple thinking of traveling to Thailand. US Embassies in EVERY CITY IN THE WORLD ARE A FORTRESS. Take a look at London, take a look at Paris, take a look at Beijing. Take a look at Singapore, a police state of sorts which is activiely working on tracking terrorits and still the US Embassy is a fortress. The US embassy in Bangkok is not doing anymore than any other embassy has done in the past few years since the bombing in Kenya.<BR><BR>Explosives are stolen from work sites all other the world, there is not always a sinister reason. In some cases in the third world, stolen explosives are used by the worksite next store.<BR><BR>The US State Dept warnings are next to useless in my view, becuase they are too all inclusive and not informative enough. Take a look at the countries that are on there.<BR><BR>I agree there are terrorits in Bangkok, but there are also terrorits in Jersey City. There is no safe place in my view, we all have to work together and not let fear rule our lives.<BR><BR>

I agree that no where is &quot;safe&quot; in the sense that the current threat is terrorism, which is, by definition, attacks in places where people are not expecting attacks.<BR><BR>I am recently home from a trip to Thailand and Laos. I have visited Thailand many times over the years. I noted that the resorts in Hua Hin had very obviously increased security. I also noted increased security at my hotel in Bangkok, (Royal Orchid) though it wasn't as noticable as the security in Hua Hin.

My original post should not have made mention of the US embassy in Bangkok, as that allowed a mock refutation of the bulk of my message. My point was to contrast rational security measures with the total absence of security at some highly visibile and attractive potential terrorist targets in Bangkok. As I stated, security outside Bangkok seems to have been upgraded, but I was dealing with problems that I perceive to be inside the capital city, and those problems only.<BR><BR>One can either plan travel in the light of what limited facts are available and determine what perceived risks are acceptable, or plan in total ignorance. No one claims that any spot on the globe is perfectly safe, but it is foolish to imply that somehow all spots must be equally dangerous. <BR><BR>I have no information on what kind of quarry lost the explosives, or confirmation of the amount; the article in the local paper included quotes from some very, very high government officials, and I am sure they would have denied that as much as 200 tons had been lost if that were the case. Instead they simply provided the same responses they always do: &quot;We have things under control, don't be concerned.&quot;<BR><BR>The fact that a large quantity of explosives is missing in a part of Thailand that has a long history of violence, including bombings, may not impress some folks, but it impresses me. My suggestions were made without malice, and I believe they are rational: limit exposure to risk by avoiding prolonged visits to the congested locations where Westerners go to have naughty fun. That is not fear-mongering; it is common sense.

Lawrence: thank you for your posting. I also agree that limiting one's time in the most visible tourist spots is simply common sense. We are going to Thailand in March and a friend who lived in Singapore also warned us to be aware of the potential risks of the region. I think travellers should be aware and informed about their destination - the positives and the negatives.

Lawrence, I suspect a motive here to keep people away from what you view as morally unfit places. Your post above says it is only those areas where Westerners go to have &quot;naughty fun&quot; that are dangerous. That means if I stay at a US chain hotel, and only do my shopping in major shopping centers I should be OK? Why wouldn't a US chain hotel be a major site for a terrorist attack? I quote the following from the US State Department Travel Warnings, January 13:<BR><BR>GERMANY/YEMEN: On Friday, German police commandos detained two Yemeni Al Qaida suspects at the Sheraton Hotel at Frankfurt International Airport. Police moved in on a tip-off provided by US intelligence. Yemen and the United States request extraditions of the two men, one of whom is Mohammad Ali Hassan Sheikh Al Mujahed, the spiritual leader of a large mosque in Sanaa, Yemen, implicated in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.<BR><BR>So guests at the Frankfurt Sheraton may have been in danger! And they weren't at any naughty places! My point being that terrorists can be found anywhere, and trying to scare people into avoiding &quot;naughty places&quot; because there might be a greater terrorist risk has no basis in fact. The bars in Bali were not any naughtier, in my experience, than bars anywhere. People in the World Trade Center were just working at their jobs, for example, not engaging in any morally-questionable activities….<BR>

For additional information on this disturbing topic, see the following URL (it should work if you just click on it here):<BR><BR>http://www.nationmultimedia.com/page.arcview.php3?clid=11&amp;id=72233&amp;date=20 03-01-13&amp;usrsess=1<BR><BR>If this does not work, call up URL www.nationmultimedia.com, and from there go to their archive of articles. Use their search engine and ask for the following: date: 13 January 2003, section of newspaper, All, keyword for search, Chongkittavorn. <BR><BR>The article is chilling.<BR><BR>A quick response to the observation that my post is an attempt to prevent people from having &quot;naughty funquot; would any denial have any credibility? I doubt it, so I'll say simply that the reaction is not correct in my case. As for safety in hotels in Bangkok, and at other common tourist spots in the city: nothing, as has been suggested, is totally safe. My post was an attempt to see the world from the viewpoint of fanatical Muslim fundamentalists, who see the West as corrupt in the extreme, and delight in the deaths of sinful holiday-makers. The &quot;naughty&quot; areas of Bangkok have all that the prigs hate: music (banned by the Taleban, remember), strong Western influences (disco), immorality (females not totally covered by the tents the fundamentalists force on their women) and behavior that is, in the eyes of Muslim fanatics, totally shameless and an insult to Allah. These factors are the focal point of a particularly virulent Muslim hatred of the West: they are literally everything that the lunatics want to destroy. I maintain that the &quot;naughty&quot; areas are, therefore, utterly irrestibile targets. They are also congested, compact, and easy to hit. They would produce far more casualties than would a similar bomb blast almost anywhere else in Bangkok. <BR><BR>You decide how crazy I am. But before you do, read the article I'm trying to point you to. And then remember that I do NOT anywhere in my posts suggest that no one visit the &quot;naughty&quot; areas: I suggest cutting back on the number of visits, and getting out before 10 PM when you do go. Believe me, you can be plenty naughty by 10 PM!!