jayboy

The Democrat/RTA alignment is a figment of your imagination.

Really? Odd then that every serious commentator and contemporary historian, of different political persuasions, think otherwise.If you deny such an obvious connection through either ignorance or dishonesty, one simply loses interest in what follows and moves on to critics of this government who much as one might disagree with them have actually done some homework.

Allowing a political party to have among its more influential and powerful supporters a murderous militia is already a democratic disaster.

You are right but some would say that's not the way to describe the relationship between the Democrats and the Thai Army.You are of course quite correct but you should perhaps find slightly more decorous language to make the same point more effectively.

has to be brainwashing doesn't it.... it just has to be.

any thai person who prefers ptp to the dems must be brainwashed... or maybe, just maybe, they don't agree with your opinion.

anyway as animatic professes... any competeny pollster can skew a result anyway he wants to.

it's general elections that count, democracy, the decision of the people... i'm sure everyone agrees with that.

I don't.

What matters is the Democratic actions performed by the democratically elected Government AFTER the election

you don't? now there's a surprise.

What's a surprise?

That I believe there is more to Democracy than elections? Or perhaps it's because I believe any elected ruling party should put country before party?

The Red drone of 'we were elected by the democratic process so we can do anything'.

Now there's a surprise

Not sure what is meant by the red drone but as far as the current government is concerned most of the evidence suggests,at least on some matters , it is extremely inhibited by checks and balances / very far from being an elected dictatorship though inevitably that is part of the fascist critique - as it always is among those that loathe democracy.

It's perfectly in order for the Democrats to reorganise and improve their political organisation.It would be a mistake however to seek to coordinate their activities with those of the fascists who are currently on the march again.That is more or less what happened in the past with results that are well known.

I do hope Chuan has been misquoted because the comments ascribed to him are foolish.

Earlier in this thread I posted a question for Jayboy seekinh some clarification regarding his understanding of what a fascist is, just incase he didn't see the question here it is again, hopefully I will be afforded the courtesy of an answer.

Jayboy, I have been reading your posts with a growing sense of confusion concerning what you would consider to be a fascist, from what I remember from my schooling and various documentaries as well as seeing some fascist ragimes in power in recent history (Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe come to mind), many of them stared out on a platform of popularist policies, and once elected cemented the people's loyalty by implimenting some of those policies, that is before letting thier true character show by repressing the people and ruthlessly eliminating any who opposed them, please tell me how this equades to the PAD, as far as I am aware there is only one colour here in Thailand that garners the people's loyalty with popularist policies, and they are not yellow shirts. Please share your view of what a fascist is, in a logical manner please, not in a idealogical rant. Thank you.

I did see your post but decided to ignore it.The discussion of the details of fascism are never productive on this forum.If you are serious I recommend Richard Evans' trilogy on Germany as an excellent introduction.Also if you do not mind me saying so the knowledge (neither Mugabe nor Amin were fascists) and thought processes shown in your post did not encourage me to participate in a dialogue.

But Bangkok was not burned down except for a few department stores (and to my eternal regret the Siam Theatre), not one of them worth a human life - whether soldier, Thai civilian or foreign journalist.Many unarmed protestors and other civilians were however gunned down.The social media was alive with middle class calls for redshirt blood.

Citing what has been said on social media is a bit of a silly comparison if you don't mind me saying. All sorts of crap gets posted by anonymous people within that arena and few take it very seriously, or would take a view from there as being representative of what a large group of people, such as the middle classes, actually think (middle class Thais i don't believe wanted red shirt blood, but they did want the government to take control, and understood what that may entail should the protesters ignore all the pleas given to go home).

Standing up on a stage as a leader of a movement before a large crowd, urging violence, destruction and potential death in the manner that Arisman did, and having those views applauded and cheered, is quite a different matter in my view. Any red protester claiming to have peaceful intentions would surely have packed their bags and left upon hearing this sort of hate filled rhetoric.

Sounds reasonable though not sure about your last sentence.I have no brief for Arisman (won't bore you again with how I became immersed in the subject recently!) and he would certainly need to explain himself.

As to the social media aspect I completely disagree with you.A great many natural conservatives - by which I mean well educated people attached to the status quo, both foreigners and Thais, were disgusted by the torrent of disgusting and bloodthirsty language about redshirts from mainly middle class Bangkok residents on Facebook and other social media.Surprisingly little of it was anonymous by the way.The North Korean style hysteria was absolutely appalling.

Like drawing blood out of a stone. While watching the video did you exclaim 'Oh! So that's who Arisman is. I wondered who he was! Nice shirt!'

We are mightily impressed that you think the call from a leading member of the reds to organise to burn down Bangkok was 'nothing very unusual given the circumstances'

A new swerve in evasive tactics for our amusement.

But Bangkok was not burned down except for a few department stores (and to my eternal regret the Siam Theatre), not one of them worth a human life - whether soldier, Thai civilian or foreign journalist.Many unarmed protestors and other civilians were however gunned down.The social media was alive with middle class calls for redshirt blood.

As mentioned earlier I had barely heard of Arisman and had never seen the video.It only registered when you told a bare faced lie about my posting record (followed by a stream of bad tempered posts when your dishonesty was exposed).Having seen it I don't really give it the significance you accord it.Of course there are extremists in Thai politics and Arisman may well be one, but the record of violence and bloodshed is almost entirely on the military backed side.

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

4.There is a major distinction between political and non political violence.Im not suggesting that the drug war deaths were in the main less regrettable but they fall into a different category as do deaths on the highways or as a result of snake bites.

Sure. And you hardly know who Arisman is either. Somebody? anybody believe you?

It sure is a lot of effort not only to deny seeing a video lasting less than 2 minutes, the link for which is has put under your nose several times in this thread.

Now why are you going to extra-ordinary lengths to deny seeing it?

Because you know what is in it and that it blows your red-supporting contributions to smithereens.

ie that the reds did not prepare for violence in 2010.

Without the denial of seeing the video and knowledge of Arisman as a key figure in the reds, the position which you hold is toast.

So much for intellectual integrity. Kaput.

Actually I have seen the video now following my exchanges with Rixalex, nothing very unusual given the circumstances. Whether you like it or not, whether it reflects badly on me or not I hadn't seen it until today.People may not like my political views but I do my best to be honest.

I had admittedly a rather highly strung exchange yesterday with you simply because you lied about my posting record, puzzling even those who share your reactionary views, and then compounded your dishonesty by refusing to apologise when called to account.

My response on the drugs war point was subsequently added to my reply

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

You state that the deaths during the war on drugs were in a completely different category to the deaths during the 2010 protests, but give absolutely no indication of why that is.

Briefly answering all yr questions

1.Let it be agreed that the majority of PAD rank and file were not fascists.A minority were and most of the leadership was.

2.You may be flabbergasted but I have never seen the video.Of course I have a rough idea what it's about from other people's comments.

3.I know from experience it is futile to attempt a serious discussion on the nature of fascism on this forum.My knowledge is mainly based on the work of Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans.I would agree it is unwise to press parallels too far though there are some.

4.There is a major distinction between political and non political violence.Im not suggesting that the drug war deaths were in the main less regrettable but they fall into a different category as do deaths on the highways or as a result of snake bites.

See if you can make a comment on the Arisman video now. Here it is again:

https://www.youtube....feature=related

You can't and you won't.

On the contrary, I can and I will (after having studied the clip).

However before doing so given the false accusations you have made, I'm afraid I shall be demanding my metaphorical "pound of flesh", namely an apology from you and recognition that your accusation (see below) was completely untrue

" This is from someone who to this day has refused to acknowledge the existence of Arisman's Burn Bangkok video and has defended to the death the 'peaceful reds' and 'unarmed reds' agenda."

An apology and absence of any sarcasm, reservation or qualification will result in my considered view on your video within 24 hours.I further undertake that my response will be as fair and reasonable as I can make it and will contain no smart alec comments or unhelpful debating points. Any response which does not comply will I am afraid be ignored.

The evasion continues. The key point readers is that he will not comment on Arisman's video urging the burning down of Bangkok even now. Stand by for more 'who is Arisman?' and 'I have have never evaded anything' and so on....

The fact that you have been made a fool of can't really be evaded.If there is any substance to what you say you would be able to show at least one post where I have referred to your beloved Arisman video or indeed any video or redshirt speech at all.You can't.There are many areas where my views can be reasonably argued with or even disproved.You however invented a a position of mine.Some would say essentially lied - and now have to scurry around cleaning up your mess.I knew you were intellectually incoherent.I was slightly surprised to see you are dishonest as well.

jayboy

I see time has not changed you one bit. Ramble on and if asked a question try to change the conversation to unrelated events. Then if still pressed for answers disappear.

Ah, 'the yellow horde and their fascist leadership.' The trouble with this contributor is that though he thinks his nit-picking paints him as Mr Reasonable, as a straight down the line Thaksin apologist, he has to keep the bile buttoned up or at least tries to, until every so often the mask comes off and the snarl is there for all to see. One can also see in response to the resulting comments that we migrated from it was only sarcasm (cover up) to the slow retreat, well they are a little bit fascist, well some of them are fascist, thugs and all and so on. A retreat from a viewpoint which is where he stands. This is from someone who to this day has refused to acknowledge the existence of Arisman's Burn Bangkok video and has defended to the death the 'peaceful reds' and 'unarmed reds' agenda. Korkaew's line of reasoning, Jatuporn et al. They are no strangers, they are a part of Thaksin's team and how he presents his arguments are peas in a pod. Maybe he picked up the phrase 'the yellow horde and their fascist leadership.' from red TV. Certainly sounds like it.

I assume this bad tempered post has nothing to do with the mockery your comical and ridiculous Marxist analysis rightly attracted earlier today.However cross you may feel please dont confuse invective with impertinence.

On the PAD I don't think there's much confusion is there? I've always made it clear the PAD rank and file were at worst naive and at best admirably civic minded.The leadership is a fairly unpleasant bunch with fascist (I use the word with all due care) tendencies but that's not in dispute with most fair minded people.

If you can prove that I have refused to acknowledge Arisman's "burn video" I will ban myself from the forum forever.I can be fairly confident you would find this difficult because not only have I never heard of the video, I am actually barely aware of who Arisman is.Nor do I have any idea about Red TV whatever that is - certainly never watched it.

From someone who thinks he should be taken at face value ie considered to tell the truth. Instead is in a hole and is digging furiously.

So, once more lets hear you say nothing about Arisman and his speech urging the burning of Bangkok.

(For other readers, note that this red apologist and the others have to blank out the message as it upsets their (false) story that the reds were on a peaceful pilgrimage).

https://www.youtube....feature=related

You incorrectly said that I denied the existence of a video urging the burning of Bangkok.I pointed out politely that I had never commented on any such video, and had barely heard of Arisman.

Now you are saying I am digging a hole by saying nothing.Strange because I know nothing, have never commented on, nor frankly am very interested in this video you seem so preoccupied by.

Returning to the theme you refer to anyone with a liberal outlook as red apologists (or a Thaksin apologist).It's an attitude which is commonly known in the older universities as intellectually impoverished, but I suppose passes muster in the blue collar world of internet forums where nuance and scepticism are not prized commodities..I would of course, if asked, be foolish to deny there are some intemperate agitators on all sides of the political spectrum.That includes the redshirts though for sheer nastiness and bloodlust I have seen nothing to compare with PAD supporters remarks in the social media.

Personally I don't recall you saying that or matter of fact any thing on the subject. But if you denied there were burn videos that would include Arisman also. You might want to check some of your previous posts.

You guys are a piece of work.I don't have to check my posts because I have never mentioned (or even thought about) videos let alone denied the existence of any.

Ah, 'the yellow horde and their fascist leadership.' The trouble with this contributor is that though he thinks his nit-picking paints him as Mr Reasonable, as a straight down the line Thaksin apologist, he has to keep the bile buttoned up or at least tries to, until every so often the mask comes off and the snarl is there for all to see. One can also see in response to the resulting comments that we migrated from it was only sarcasm (cover up) to the slow retreat, well they are a little bit fascist, well some of them are fascist, thugs and all and so on. A retreat from a viewpoint which is where he stands. This is from someone who to this day has refused to acknowledge the existence of Arisman's Burn Bangkok video and has defended to the death the 'peaceful reds' and 'unarmed reds' agenda. Korkaew's line of reasoning, Jatuporn et al. They are no strangers, they are a part of Thaksin's team and how he presents his arguments are peas in a pod. Maybe he picked up the phrase 'the yellow horde and their fascist leadership.' from red TV. Certainly sounds like it.

I assume this bad tempered post has nothing to do with the mockery your comical and ridiculous Marxist analysis rightly attracted earlier today.However cross you may feel please dont confuse invective with impertinence.

On the PAD I don't think there's much confusion is there? I've always made it clear the PAD rank and file were at worst naive and at best admirably civic minded.The leadership is a fairly unpleasant bunch with fascist (I use the word with all due care) tendencies but that's not in dispute with most fair minded people.

If you can prove that I have refused to acknowledge Arisman's "burn video" I will ban myself from the forum forever.I can be fairly confident you would find this difficult because not only have I never heard of the video, I am actually barely aware of who Arisman is.Nor do I have any idea about Red TV whatever that is - certainly never watched it.

Why don't you read what I said before posting. I said I don't like their aims (all - for the myopic) except their opposition to the current corrupt lot in power. 'uncritical'? try reading the previous sentence. The wild terms you toss out so easily (contempt for democracy, Chinese triumphalism, feudalism) all can be applied to the Thaksinists who have their fascist dictator all lined up to take the country further downhill politically.

For such 'useful idiots' they have'nt done too bad in preventing the DL's return via amnesty so far. I do feel sorry for those who have swallowed the Thaksin/redshirt propaganda without question.

I understood your post only too well.The supporters of the Nazis said much the same thing ..."don't much like them but at least they deal firmly with the communists, Jews, trade unionists..."Sorry can't accept that as a morally sustainable position.

And to suggest that the unattractive aspects of the PAD I recommended you review are in fact applicable to those they hate, is just silly and lame.

And jayboy, i'm still interested in your response to this, if you care to give it:

So you are talking about the drugs war (I think!).To give you a straight answer I do believe that Abhisit's alleged involvement in murder of protestors would be judged by an impartial observer to be more serious than those of Thaksin in the ill considered and brutal drugs war which, given the misery the drugs trade causes, had the support of most Thais - from the pinnacle to the bottom.That is why he has never been charged - the objective was a sound one.

If we are talking objectives, i don't think there was anything unsound about Abhisit's objective in trying to clear Bangkok's streets of further rioting. Surely the problem wasn't with his objective, it was with how he is alleged to have gone about that task. Thaksin's alleged crime is surely the same. Nobody questions the soundness of the objective of clearing up the drugs problem, people question the methods that were employed, in particular, the alleged shoot to kill policy.

As for the old "it had the support of most Thais" chestnut (that is brought out each and every time the war on drugs is discussed here), it's a complete irrelevance. As if policy popularity with the public somehow removes culpability from those in charge when the policy turns out a tragic disaster. When the government unveils a plan to build a new bridge across the Gulf of Thailand, and it is warmly received by all, do we shift the blame away from the people who built it, when the bridge collapses and kills hundreds, because after all, it is what the people wanted?

Indignation about the war on drugs was generated very late in the day primarily as a means to attack Thaksin.There were some honourable people who criticised the policy at the time but they were rather few in number.It was an awful business but it's in a completely different category from the Bangkok 20120 deaths.I agree that because a policy is popular is not the same as a policy being morally correct.I tend to avoid discussion on this forum because of the infantile tendency of some -not you - to tot up deaths incurred by Abhisit and Thaksin, and conclude the latter was the wickedest because of the drugs war.The two are totally different and non comparable.

The PAD leadership - a truly ghastly group of old geezers - does have fascist characteristics, the rank and file less so.

Rank and file less so? Have you ever met any rank and file yellows that you would truly describe of as being fascists? I have yet to, just as i have yet to meet any rank and file reds who i would truly describe of as being communists. Just another bit of the usual extreme hyperbole. Either that or some people really don't understand the terms they are banding about.

It's fairly standard English for "not really", isn't it.As it happens however I have met yellowshirt supporters who are as close to being fascists as makes no difference.But I agree most aren't.

I'm not surprised rixalex doesn't compare the 'yellow horde and their fascist leadership' with the 'twelve apostles'. If he did he would be really out of touch. You even just mentioning this seem to be out of it somewhat.

It's called sarcasm.He did compare the yellow mob with the occupiers at St Paul's which is lunacy beyond any sarcastic take down I have to agree.Next we'll be hearing that stale old mantra (so popular with dimmer kind of expat reactionary) about the AOT being responsible for the airport close down for elf and safety reasons

Not sure what all the shock horror indignation is all about in response to my reference to PAD fascism.The PAD and yellow shirt leadership showed many of the fascist characteristcs leadership - as does for example Dr Tui currently.To be fair I do not and in fact never have suggested this is the case with the PAD rank and file.Certainly there was a violent thuggish element but most in the early stages were decent if sometimes misguided citizens.

Rubbish. You have no idea when & how the yellow shirts were formed. They started as a protest movement against the corrupt privatisation of PTT around 2003 & included trade union members of SRT & Thai Air. They then grew when Thaksin tried to privatise EGAT without any proper regulator in place. Sonthi & Chamlong joined later, with their supporters. In other words they were a protest group trying to prevent Thailand moving towards a Fascist dictatorship under Thaksin.

They are now a nationalist group who have no fascist leader, unlike the aforementioned Thaksin. I don't support many of their aims except their rightful concerns about the current politically & morally corrupt leadership & where it is leading Thailand.

You seem comically unaware that old style Trade Unions in Thailand are notoriously reactionary.EGAT's unions, often teamed with senior management !!, through restrictive practices, to put back Thailand's energy programme for decades.

I note that you seem to be an uncritical acolyte of PAD yet like many of your sort don't support many of their aims when it is impolitic or embarrasing to do so..Sorry you can't have it both ways or at least spell out what you don't like about them.The racism, the contempt for democracy, the Chinese triumphalism, the feudaliphilia, the exaltation of the army? Take your pick - there's a lot to choose from.

The PAD leadership - a truly ghastly group of old geezers - does have fascist characteristics, the rank and file less so.Not much influence now but could easily revive if the unelected elites decide to wind them up again.Useful idiots in Lenin's famous phrase.

I'm not surprised rixalex doesn't compare the 'yellow horde and their fascist leadership' with the 'twelve apostles'. If he did he would be really out of touch. You even just mentioning this seem to be out of it somewhat.

It's called sarcasm.He did compare the yellow mob with the occupiers at St Paul's which is lunacy beyond any sarcastic take down I have to agree.Next we'll be hearing that stale old mantra (so popular with dimmer kind of expat reactionary) about the AOT being responsible for the airport close down for elf and safety reasons

Not sure what all the shock horror indignation is all about in response to my reference to PAD fascism.The PAD and yellow shirt leadership showed many of the fascist characteristcs leadership - as does for example Dr Tui currently.To be fair I do not and in fact never have suggested this is the case with the PAD rank and file.Certainly there was a violent thuggish element but most in the early stages were decent if sometimes misguided citizens.

And if you seriously believe the protest at St Paul's can be compared to the fascist occupation of Bangkok's airport, you have clearly lost it.

Why have i lost it? Both involved what was on the whole the rather peaceful if not disruptive business of camping out at a place and by doing so, causing it to close because of safety concerns.

As for the "fascist occupation" bit, i refer you back to my earlier comment about exaggerations not serving but rather undermining arguments being made.

I'm surprised you don't compare the yellow horde and their fascist leadership with the twelve apostles.You have truly lost touch with reality.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Thaivisa Connect App

Normally those who illegally participate in the seizure of installations such as airports are known as terrorists.

They didn't seize they occupied. Occupy London did something similar with St Paul's Cathedral last year that caused it to close down because of safety concerns. (note the word similar before all the predictable "ah but that wasn't the same" type comments come rolling in)

If you are going to call someone a terrorist - a serious thing to do right? - i think you should stand by the comment. Don't throw it our there and then quickly sneakily back-track with a "oh yes but i'm not tied to that term" type cop-out comment.

Call him a terrorist then.Call him what you like.Why are you arguing pedantically about this useless and incompetent jerk who undoubtedly deserved a spell in jail for his airport fun.

And if you seriously believe the protest at St Paul's can be compared to the fascist occupation of Bangkok's airport, you have clearly lost it.I don't believe the St Paul's occupiers were doing the country millions of $ damage.

Normally those who illegally participate in the seizure of installations such as airports are known as terrorists.I'm not tied to this term however and would equally be happy with "absurd plonker"

For someone who likes to belittle others on their use of the English language you write interesting constructions. I mean, can one 'legally' participate in the seizure of installations such as airports ?

It's a fair cop, guv.

Normally those who illegally participate in the seizure of installations such as airports are known as terrorists.

...

No, they are not.

Terrorism is the widespread use of terror to achieve a goal. For example threatening to burn down the capital of a country unless the demands of a group are met. But you don't call those people terrorists, do you?

I said I would accept the term "absurd plonker" in lieu of "terrorist".Happy now?

I'm not trying to provoke but I'm genuinely puzzled.Do you mean the drugs war during his premiership, although he has never been charged with that?

What has being charged got to with what crimes he (or Abhisit) is alleged to have committed?

To recap, you stated that Abhisit's alleged crimes were arguably more serious than Thaksin's alleged crimes.

So what is it? You think that Thaksin isn't alleged to have been involved in the deaths of thousands of innocent people, or you think he is, but those deaths, though in far far greater number, were somehow less serious?

So you are talking about the drugs war (I think!).To give you a straight answer I do believe that Abhisit's alleged involvement in murder of protestors would be judged by an impartial observer to be more serious than those of Thaksin in the ill considered and brutal drugs war which, given the misery the drugs trade causes, had the support of most Thais - from the pinnacle to the bottom.That is why he has never been charged - the objective was a sound one.