15Peter20

At a news conference 15 mins ago an apparently high ranking police officer was saying that many CCTV cameras have been destroyed by protesters.

Posted Today, 12:09

RT @AndrewHurd: sadly, we all must RT @PKinbangkok: "Yingluck must die" - announced on the stage of the #PitakSiam rally.

Oh dear - Looks like the Pitak leaders are catching the same 'stage fever' the red shirt leaders caught two years ago. Cue years of tedious references to calling for the death of the PM when the main thrust of the movement is different to that.

Or should we now infer that everyone who didn't leave when they heard this now supports the killing of the elected Prime Minister? TV logic hard at work....

mmm sure i had previously posted on this thread.

You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!

-serling

Am I wrong in thinking that it cannot be allowed to go off peacefully? Massive loss of face involved for Chalerm and the government if it does. All the precautions they have been taking makes me think it is almost certain that troublemakers will start something. Now, I am not naive enough to think that some of the 500,000 who are supposed to be attending might want to cause a bit of aggro, but it has looked more likely that someone or some groups have been planted to start trouble.

You are right on it can not be allowed to be trouble free. As you say lose of face, Yingluck claiming they have a plan to kidnap her. The Government doing every thing in it's power to make it look like the protesters are as low as the red shirts in 2010.

There is no way they can allow it to be peaceful. It will make them look like chicken little who ran around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling in that old bed time story for kids.

Lacking morals the trouble makers will be putting on yellow shirts over their red shirts. After they have got it stirred up they will sneak around and take the yellow shirts off and come back pretending to help stop the trouble they have stirred up.

I wouldn't put it past them to invade another hospital before they take their yellow shirts off,

Lacking morals the trouble makers will be putting on yellow shirts over their red shirts. After they have got it stirred up they will sneak around and take the yellow shirts off and come back pretending to help stop the trouble they have stirred up.

So no matter what happens, any violence can only be the red shirt's fault. Fascinating. And so simple! What happens after that? This is gripping stuff...

Considering what they got up to last time out likw hijack 4 international airports + close Government house for 6 months.

ISA probably is the minimum precaution.

Failing that may be equip soldiers with automatic weapons and 7mm sniper rifles and close all yellow media outlets.

oops sorry wrong regime that was 2010.

It's not so much a question of how many security measures the government attempts to bring to bear on the situation, it's a question of how determined the security agencies are to implement those measures. When the airports were taken it was clear that neither police or army had the stomach - or should I say political allegiance - to carry out their orders. This time I'd say there's more of a chance they'll do their job as this government has made far more effort than previous Thaksin-oriented governments to please the generals during its tenure.

Whether they've done enough to get police/army to dirty their hands in order to apply the law this weekend remains to be seen - I think they have - but we're sure as hell gonna find out soon.

Its not even about that.

At some point in all these protests courts have passed judgments that they have gone beyond reasonable protest and are illegal.

At a point it isn't legal anymore for people to sit in public areas and inconvenience the general public.

However, the leaders don't care because there its no legal consequence. I for one would make it the case that once it goes beyond that point anyone arrested entering the protest should be arrested.

Then any damage caused in breaking up the protest is paid for by the protesters.

Would anyone have stayed of they were on the hook personally for damaging Central or the airport? It is the fact that everyone stays put for so long that the tension rises.

A couple of days and disperse completely. If you life come back again next week. But no sit in for Weeks and months. everyone defies the courts with impunity us effectually chaos.

Thank you very much for your response. Some things I agree with, some things I don't but thanks all the same.

Considering what they got up to last time out likw hijack 4 international airports + close Government house for 6 months.

ISA probably is the minimum precaution.

Failing that may be equip soldiers with automatic weapons and 7mm sniper rifles and close all yellow media outlets.

oops sorry wrong regime that was 2010.

It's not so much a question of how many security measures the government attempts to bring to bear on the situation, it's a question of how determined the security agencies are to implement those measures. When the airports were taken it was clear that neither police or army had the stomach - or should I say political allegiance - to carry out their orders. This time I'd say there's more of a chance they'll do their job as this government has made far more effort than previous Thaksin-oriented governments to please the generals during its tenure.

Whether they've done enough to get police/army to dirty their hands in order to apply the law this weekend remains to be seen - I think they have - but we're sure as hell gonna find out soon.

Perhaps we can agree to mutually avoid the pomposity in our posts?

Particularly since you seem to misunderstand it's meaning with your continued distortion of what was posted at the time regarding Aung San Suu Kyi. Review the posts and show us the posts that confirm what you erroneously say I posted. That's why it doesn't compute to you. It didn't happen.

I agree that your unsupported "snub" claim is silly business.

Well, it all went down hill after a promising opening.

Why don`t both of you stop this silly bickering?

Yes, but do you have any proof that it went downhill after the opening?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Okay, how about we all agree on the following:

1) Not meeting Abhisit wasn't a 'snub'.

2) The Democrats got zero mileage out of Obama's visit.

3) The Prime Minister and to a lesser extent the PTP got kudos out of Obama's express endorsement.

Anyone disagree with these points?

Obama bought a yellow silk tie with blue elephants on it.

And I bet it looks splendid on him, too.

Okay, how about we all agree on the following:

1) Not meeting Abhisit wasn't a 'snub'.

2) The Democrats got zero mileage out of Obama's visit.

3) The Prime Minister and to a lesser extent the PTP got kudos out of Obama's express endorsement.

Anyone disagree with these points?

Actually that subject is generating a great deal of interest.Why exactly did Obama not meet Abhisit since it is absolutely normal, indeed protocol, to meeet the leader of the opposition on visits like this?

In the UK for example Obama met up with Ed Miliband and of course in Myanmar today he met both Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi.Some have argued that this apparent snub to Abhisit and the Democrats was simply because no time was available though even on such a short visit this isn't really credible.Others have argued that Obama and Hilary Clinton are simply making a point about democracy, elections and the need to abandon military interference.I doubt whether it's anything personal.Abhisit made an excellent impression on Bill Clinton when Chuan visited Washington during the former's presidency when Abhisit was his chief aide.

My hunch is that in the eyes of some foreign leaders Abhisit is damaged goods not so much because of his rather murky path to power (though his reliance on extreme right wingers and military thugs can't have helped,) but more because he is tainted by the events in Bangkok of early 2010.

OR, it could just be that with only 10 waking hours in Bangkok and meeting His Majesty the King and the PM, and the widely-reported Wat Arun tour...plus a couple of meals, and commuting time between the aforementioned, there really wasn't much time left.

.

Although hunching for some deeper meaning on a superficial issue can be entertaining, sometimes things just really are what they logically and literally seem.

.

It could be of course and quite often, as you suggest, there is less than meets the eye in these things.Nevertheless in this case despite being a short visit Obama managed to find time to do a great many things including a long chat with a monk at Wat Pho.I think that if had wanted to squeeze Abhisit in it would not have been impossible.No, this has all the signs of a "snub", actually probably too strong a word but at least making a point.But if you have any hard evidence to the contrary let's hear it.What's undeniable is that the perception of rejection is out there.I am afraid that the Democrats and particularly Abhisit cannot shrug off as easily as they would like the deaths of so many in early 2010 but equally important Obama recognised that Yingluck had, unlike Abhisit, a proper democratic mandate.I'm not making a party political point here:If hypothetically Thaksin had been around, I don't think Obama would have seen him either at a personal meeting

Incidentally talking about "hunching for hidden meaning" weren't you the one trying to persusade the forum that when Aung San Suu Ky visited Bangkok it was all terribly significant that her schedule included a meeting with Abhisit before one with Yingluck? That's not "hunching": thats rolling around on the ground!

A review of the non-misrepresentative reality of those posts reveals I simply asked the question if it was significant, certainly far from the "ground rolling" you're doing in this thread.

Without anything to effectively justify the term, you're right about "snub" being too strong. Could you point out any examples of this "perception of rejection" that are supposedly "out there"?

With the extreme time constraints and his trip's focus more important Myanmar leg, it's quite understandable he didn't meet with Abhisit. Have the other U.S. presidents that visited Thailand also met with opposition leaders?

Parts of this post are quite breathtaking, IMHO..

The phrase 'non-misrepresentative reality' could only be used by one who is well acquainted with the concept of 'misrepresentative reality'.

The spirit of Rumsfeld is alive and well on TV, it seems.

BTW, not visiting an opposition leader can in some cases be seen as a snub, in others not - in my opinion.

I urge all journalists to ignore Chalerm, cover nothing he says, report nothing about his activities. The world will be a better place.

Perhaps you and others who agree with you could get the ball rolling by ceasing to be interested in the guy. Subjects of no interest rarely get any attention from the press.

Or there's always media censorship, if that's what you're driving at - it's sure made Myanmar a 'better place' for those who decide these things.

'North of Chiang Mai' - made in the eighties I believe. Decent in an extremely loose sense.

Saw evidence of high Honda demand today at a car show. Waiting time for Civics - 1-2 months. Waiting time for Citys - 6 months.

Really? I reserved a Honda City yesterday. It's scheduled for delivery in early January,

This was in Chiang Mai. Congrats on your purchase.

Saw evidence of high Honda demand today at a car show. Waiting time for Civics - 1-2 months. Waiting time for Citys - 6 months.

"wot they used to be"? I don't get it.

Congratulations if the surgery is successful or even close to it.

Fingers chopped off for asking for 300 Baht - has the world gone mad?

Yes the world has gone mad but in Thailand such madness is unfortunately the norm.

Half the time its just plain uneducated and inbred moronic stupidity and the other half its a case of face-saving on steroids!

Pfffhh - other cultures, eh? Whadya gonna do with 'em?

So funny hearing now that people who wear communist insignias aren't necessarily communist from posters of the same ilk as those who paraded images of communist-insignia wearing red shirts over the previous months and warned everyone of the communist menace of the red shirt movement. How things change...

Some things don't change.

Could you reference one or two from this "parade" of images that occurred here during the past seven weeks that you've been a member?

Well I just spent about 10-15 minutes trying to find one but couldn't be bothered trawling through anymore threads - maybe I need to upgrade my search skills. Anyway, I believe myself and plenty of others can remember postings containing images of red shirt supporters wearing communist insignias and using that to suggest that the red shirt movement was all about communism. Maybe you don't remember that.

I am flattered by your attention to the length of my membership but fail to see what significance it has to this particular debate.

What I do remember is that there have been occasional images (as opposed to a "parade") that reflected the undeniable reality that a notable faction of Red Shirts are communists and that none of those images have been posted during your weeks here on the forum.

What I don't remember is anyone posting the Red Shirts were "all about communism."

Fair enough, if that's your recollection.

By the way, I would think most people's time here on the forum did not begin on the day they signed up. Some people just like to browse without making a contribution, you see.

Let's make it very simple then.I have an open mind on the subject.The question is this - why did a bunch of old communists pitch up at the Siam Pitak rally.If it is obvious to you please share the insight.

Wearing a hat doesn't make you a communist, just like joining UDD fails to make you a democracy supporter. It could be they just like the hat, it is the uniform of their sporting team, or it could even be that they are communists who have the moral fortitude and political insight to object to a pack of thieves plundering their country under the guise of communist-style ideals.

So funny hearing now that people who wear communist insignias aren't necessarily communist from posters of the same ilk as those who paraded images of communist-insignia wearing red shirts over the previous months and warned everyone of the communist menace of the red shirt movement. How things change...

Some things don't change.

Could you reference one or two from this "parade" of images that occurred here during the past seven weeks that you've been a member?

Well I just spent about 10-15 minutes trying to find one but couldn't be bothered trawling through anymore threads - maybe I need to upgrade my search skills. Anyway, I believe myself and plenty of others can remember postings containing images of red shirt supporters wearing communist insignias and using that to suggest that the red shirt movement was all about communism. Maybe you don't remember that.

I am flattered by your attention to the length of my membership but fail to see what significance it has to this particular debate.

I think the confusion is someone else's - a phenomenon that occurs when rather obvious facts are inconvenient to the argument and mindset.

Let's make it very simple then.I have an open mind on the subject.The question is this - why did a bunch of old communists pitch up at the Siam Pitak rally.If it is obvious to you please share the insight.

Wearing a hat doesn't make you a communist, just like joining UDD fails to make you a democracy supporter. It could be they just like the hat, it is the uniform of their sporting team, or it could even be that they are communists who have the moral fortitude and political insight to object to a pack of thieves plundering their country under the guise of communist-style ideals.

So funny hearing now that people who wear communist insignias aren't necessarily communist from posters of the same ilk as those who paraded images of communist-insignia wearing red shirts over the previous months and warned everyone of the communist menace of the red shirt movement. How things change...

Well done Chiang Mai University.

They've moved on from a puppet to robots.

Yeah, as automated as your put-downs.

Well done to the students. Hopefully this will inspire others to do likewise.

Will This be the Red Shirt School flag?

I hope that is not serous, but there have been many Nazi Germany reference in Thailand recently so could be true realistically.

What are these Red Schools? This is a serous question, please avoid going on a political rant/rave.

Image taken in Northern Thailand 13 months ago. Are these possible red school recruits?

Students dressed in Red at a school in Northern Thailand in 2011 with a hail Hitler salute to an, invisible "dear Leader".

http://www.telegraph...1.html?image=36

That is not a 'red school'.

I wasn't attempting to create any confusion over which cause the grizzled old communists were supporting.

I was just showing the communists back both, your so-called fascist movement AND the so-called democracy movement.

Instead, we are treated to your usual tired old misrepresentations of other peoples' posts. Big yawn.

Did I suggest you were trying to confuse? The question I posed was a simple one - why are these old communists attending the Siam Pitak rally?I could undrstand it if they had renounced communism (which is opposed to all Siam Pitak stands for) but that is apparently not the case - they seem positively proud of it.Can you (vain hope of a sensible reply) or anybody else explain the thinking involved?

As for the communists in the redshirt camp one may like it or not like it but very misguided though they may be, there isn't an ideological inconsistency (furthering the cause of the great unwashed etc)

The Siam Pitak commies are just a puzzle.

I could venture an explanation but it's just a guess.It would go something like this.Given the history of Thailand in the last half century all sorts and conditions of men became involved on one side or another of the CPT struggle.Some quite surprising, General Surayud's father for example.After the total CPT defeat in the 1980's some hardliners sought a home in another anti democratic controlling ideology.

Could I venture an explanation? ... There are a lot of people in Thailand that have no understanding what a little green hat with a red star means ... and these people wear them to different rallies.

I quite agree, but were you venturing that explanation when only red-shirted bearers of communist insignia were pictured on TV? I think a lot of posters here were alive during the era when communism was considered a realistic global threat, before it's main sponsors either softened their implementation of it (China) or completely abandoned it (Russia), but still can't get that fear out of their heads.

I believe it would be helpful if - taking your explanation as evidence - posters understood that the introduction of the kind of communism present during the cold war is pretty far from any of these groups' plans. More authoritarian rule than the present day perhaps, but not out and out communism in my opinion.

Fear not, brave keyboard warriors. Not only are the reds not under your beds, they're not even in the factories that made them.

Most close family (Thai) call me I Wan (problem with V)

Mother in law (when in good mood) Hindee (Happy)

'I Wan', that's very rude ...... 555!

Depends on how the 'I' is pronounced. If it's like 'I' as in 'Igloo', it's not rude. If it's 'I' as in 'I am', then I believe it is very rude, yes.