jayboy

The point of the oriinal quote was simply to point out that there are elite Red Shirts to counter a claim the elites are all yellow shirts.

It's quite an easy point, really. Even 473geo got it.

On the contrary it's a fatuous point

Your typical derogatory and insulting language and Whig discussion aside, I'll defer and abstain from one of your patented bickering sessions.

There's been enough deleted posts in this thread already.

.

I would politely suggest that if you lose or are unable to sustain an argument it makes more sense to accept defeat gracefully rather than descend into personal abuse.On the other hand if you have any serious points to make let's hear them.

The point of the oriinal quote was simply to point out that there are elite Red Shirts to counter a claim the elites are all yellow shirts.

It's quite an easy point, really. Even 473geo got it.

On the contrary it's a fatuous point in which once again meaning is distorted by sloppy use of English and I'm afraid a rather crude understanding of the dynamics to the current political struggle.

If you are suggesting that within the redshirt leadership there are wealthy individuals, that would be correct.Within redshirt supporters as a whole there are far more educated and prosperous people than is often realised or admitted.As a matter of fact rather like the English and American Civil Wars there are often supporters of different causes within one family.It suits the interests of some to maintain otherwise.However in the context of the Thai political crisis it's quite clear that one side has contempt for democracy and progress towards equality and one side doesn't.Then there are the Whigs who stand for the old order but have the intelligence and sense of self interest who understand compromise and slow dilution of wealth/political power is necessary for their interests to survive the transition to a better Thailand more or less unscathed.Of course there are exceptions and overlapping areas as there always are.But the overall position is clear.

However there will always be an element that thinks only in childish terms."Ooh look the redshirts have rich people too, so they're just elite as well, innit" or similar dimbulb stuff.

Thanks to all for the advice on what to carry around.Though a very recent PR I have many friends with PR of long standing.Those I have asked all give advice in line with Camerata and if truth be told none carry more than DL.As I mentioned elsewhere one PR friend told me recently that the only time in 15 years he ever had to show the Red Book - apart from the annual immigration ritual - was when he applied for an international driving license.

Are you married? When I applied in 2004 I was told that you got the reduced fee of 100,000 baht if you have a Thai spouse, even if you are applying in the Business category. I didn't pay any money as a token of appreciation, though.

My experience at the airport is that you can use the Thai passport holders channel if you have PR, but it's a good idea to have your PR book visible in your hand so that you don't get kicked out of the queue by an airport official. Other foreigners will see you in the queue and stand behind you, only to get kicked out again.

I was wondering Camerata what the position is now that most Thais have their passports machine read ? Does this mean holders of PR have to join the foreigners queue (if so chiz chiz as the immortal Molesworth would say).

Have now received PR with latest batch - and proudly hold all the docs.Incredible plain sailing once dam was opened.

The usual suspects loathe NN and find every opportunity to libel him.It's laughable that they feel aggrieved that the widespread admiration for his perception,intelligence and talent is not extended to every foreigner who happened to be wandering round central Bangkok.If they published their observations of the time with a tenth of NN's quality they too would be taken seriously.

Clearly, proximity to any particular event is not relevant to understanding and comprehension. Good information is.

Good information tends to come when it is in its rawest state, not when it has been regurgitated a hundred different times by different people around the world, as is the norm in this day and age of the internet. Of course bad information can still be found in close proximity to an event, but usually those in that area, recognise it for the bad information that it is, as they either witnessed things them self or have friends, neighbours and relatives who did and they pass on what they saw to everyone else. Bad information tends to be more successfully accepted in areas further away, where first hand experiences that contradict that bad information, can not be called upon by anyone, as nobody was there.

Odd that highly educated and well informed foreign correspondents from the famous international outlets (BBC, CNN etc) who spent every day on the barricades talking to redshirts and military representatives were roundly abused by the usual suspects for not understanding Thailand and for being taken in by Thaksin's propaganda.Yet when a few resident foreigners (never clear exactly why they are in Thailand, what their credentials are, what is their level of education or local knowledge) say they were first hand witnesses we are supposed to bow down and genuflect.

The only thing i am struggling to grasp is your constant wriggling.

If that's want you want to call it, so be it.What I believe you are struggling with is set out in my earlier post.

Two points : jayboy is not assuming anything as you claim.

So let me get this straight. Jayboy in the below is categorically stating that the army committed crimes and went on a murder spree, but at the same time, he is not assuming anything about their guilt. Wow. Is your head at a funny angle to the screen?

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

Once again you have difficulty in grasping the point or indeed any kind of nuanced argument.Certainly there is prima facie evidence of criminality on the part of politicians and generals (and of course from some elements within the redshirt encampment).However there has never been a thorough investigation let alone a full judicial inquiry.If such a level of scrutiny came up with results that were at odds with my current understanding, I would certainly accept it.I am perfectly willing to accept that I may have got some things wrong or that I need to understand more elements of the situation.That is what distinguishes me and some others from the usual suspects.

Er, Abhisit has not survived Ratchaprasong "comfortably".He thought he had but increasingly it's looking like the proverbial albatross round his neck.I doubt he will ever again hold high office and his involvement in civilian murders will be a significant contributory factor.

Whatever you think about Abhisit's culpability, to suggest that those 90 odd lives could be the reason why he will never again hold high office, seems a little odd when considering how relatively unhindered Thaksin has been by all the thousands of suspicious deaths that occurred on his watch.

My God he's completely lost it now.He's trying to argue that because fewer people were shot by the army than died in the Drugs War we should let Abhisit off the hook.As though the two things are to be compared.Actually - not that it's relevant - Thaksin's administration had no blood on its hands despite violent and provocative street protests by the PAD fascists and their middle class acolytes.

Thaksin figured out that no Thai government would survive deaths of civilians during its tenure.

October 6th, 14th Black May were precedents.

But Apisit survived Ratchaprasong comfortably because a large percentage of Bangkokians in particular saw the violence of the red shirts first hand and knew the army had no choice but to go in after the police proved to be hopelessly ineffective.

It's possible and I agree quite plausible that Thaksin figured this out.But it's just an assumption albeit a credible one.

Er, Abhisit has not survived Ratchaprasong "comfortably".He thought he had but increasingly it's looking like the proverbial albatross round his neck.I doubt he will ever again hold high office and his involvement in civilian murders will be a significant contributory factor.

When you say a large percentage of Bangkokians I assume you don't mean a majority.(You would be mistaken if this was the case anyway).If you mean a large number of Bangkokian middle class identified with the forces of repression, you would be right - as I think we all knew anyway.

Having said that I think the government was right to break up the redshirt encampment.I was a difficult task and to some extent it was professionsally undertaken.The devil as always in the detail, and there is prima facie evidence of criminality on both sides.We haven't yet had a proper investigation.The recent Commission was a step in the right direction though flawed.

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

If you describe the members of an unruly mob that collectively was responsible for so much destruction, violence, injury and death in the capital city in 2010, as unarmed civilians, or as innocent victims, so be it.

I believe all abuses on all sides be properly investigated and in the case of criminality adequately punished.You and the usual suspects apparently believe criminality on the part of generals and government should get a free pass.No wonder you get agitated when it becomes apparent the rest of the world thinks differently.

Missed the point yet again.It's not a case of making a distinction between the army's treatment of locals and foreigners as I would have thought even the dimmest among us might comprehend.It's an observation on the type of military that turns its guns against its own people, as in the case of the Chinese army in Tianmen Square and the Thai army in 2010..

Let's not even start to go down the route of making daft comparisons. We'll be here all day with that line of argument. Let's stick to the Thai army in 2010. They were asked to step up and do the job that would usually fall on the police. That became their role.

"The military turning its guns on its own people" line is therefore deliberately misleading and deliberately evocative of totally different situations in which militaries are not trying to restore order, as was the case here, but trying to intimidate and violently stamp out free speech and general dissent against peace-loving citizens.

If you think the actions of the Thai soldiers in 2010 were an attempt to stamp out free speech and general dissent (a la Tianmen Square), and not to put an end to the mayhem of violence and destruction that had ensued and taken over the capital city, well then i think you are in the uncomprehending group to which you refer above.

Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.

A great example of something we see a lot of here. Pluck out of the air something you happen to believe, and run with it as if it is a well established fact. It is not. Yes there is no doubt that there are some serving men who have the sympathies you mention, but a majority?

I have my doubts, and i also have my doubts, that whatever sympathies they might hold, they would support the actions that led to fellow officers being dragged out of vehicles and beaten, fellow officers being fired upon by an assortment of weaponry, fellow officers being killed.

In the 2010 killing spree the army engaged in care had to be taken not to involve some units for this very reason.

I find referring to the thankless job the army had to do in which their lives were in danger, not yours or mine, as a killing spree, a really disgusting twisting of reality.

You simply reconfirm your prejudices.And "killing spree' is perfectly legitimate if graphic way of describing the murders of unarmed civilians.

Where do most army conscripts come from? What politics in general do ordinary working class people in these regions espouse? Figure it out.

You come up with a prescriptive definition on Tianmen Square.I wasn't making the point you suggest, simply exposing your foolishness in making an irrelevent distinction between an army firing on locals and foreigners (I admire your gall in talking about daft comparisons)

Mistakes were made by the military and by the government and by the generals, and those who suffered by those mistakes deserve both the truth and some sort of recompense for their suffering.

I don't think however there was ever intention to kill unnecessarily by authorities, and i find your choice of words murder spree, frankly disgusting (the sort of thing i would expect to be coming from the mouths of distinguished gentlemen like Jatuporn or Amsterdam). To speak so flippantly with zero thought for the soldiers who put their lives on the line, is something i find terribly sad.

Seems we are in equal disappointment with each other. Oh well...

If you find the the the gunning down of unarmed civilians a "mistake" rather than a crime, so be it.

I believe that the soldiers were not in the vast majority of situations going in with the intention of using more force than was necessary, or with the intention of killing unnecessarily, but i do believe that the soldiers felt in very real threat of the lives, the soldiers had seen their colleagues getting injured and killed, and the job soldiers were being asked to perform was not a scientific job for which people judging from the safety of their sofas months after the event should be quick to judge. If it was your life on the line, or the life of your son, perhaps you would start appreciating things not only from the position of the law breaking violent mob, but from the position of the authorities and the soldiers trying to restore order in a capital city that had been brought on its knees, and doing so without the benefit of Western policing techniques, skills and equipment in riot control.

Is there any crime the Thai army committed in the 2010 murder spree you would not seek to justify or excuse? Do you believe that those politicians who authorised shooting on civilians and the generals who organised it should not be brought to justice ? How sad you have joined the ranks of the usual suspects.

What has "their own people" got to do with it? Do you think authorities should act differently dependant on whether suspects are foreign? Go easy on locals?

Missed the point yet again.It's not a case of making a distinction between the army's treatment of locals and foreigners as I would have thought even the dimmest among us might comprehend.It's an observation on the type of military that turns its guns against its own people, as in the case of the Chinese army in Tianmen Square and the Thai army in 2010..

In the case of the Thai army it has of course no genuine interest in protecting the country against foreign enemies (there aren't any anyway).It is an agency of internal repression to serve the interests of the unelected elites and of course the business interests of its senior officer class.This isn't to diminish the sterling virtues of many enlisted men and junior officers.Of course the majority of the army serving men are in their heart of hearts sympathetic to the redshirt cause.This is a big worry to the corrupt elites for it means they can never rest easy.In the 2010 killing spree the army engaged in care had to be taken not to involve some units for this very reason.

There is no law that anyone must carry a passport but there is a photo ID law that applies to everyone including Thai citizens.

Yes but it needs to be primary id which for most foreigners means passport, not so for holders of PR. Actual practice is a different matter altogether.

Congratulations!

Are the red books still old and yellowed and threatening to fall apart at the slightest touch?

Ha - yes they appear to be at least 30 years old. An important page in mine fell out on the first day as I photocopied it so glued it back in! So now I've got 4 documents to carry round all the time - passport, work permit, red book and blue book - you need to have big pockets!

Congratulations.But you definitely don't have to carry any of these books all the time.I believe PR like yourself are even exempted from requirement to carry passport - at least that's what my lawyer told me.

Red book is not needed for travel outside Thailand though you will need it if you want international driving license.I was told by a friend this was the only time he needed it other than the annual immigration exercise.

I would have thought one of the lessons of this crisis was not to take as gospel the immediately obvious options or explanations.The attempted murder of Sondhi is a case in point.

I am not taking anything as gospel. I am accepting that there will never realistically be what could be considered as solid evidence, and drawing what i consider to be the most likely conclusions. I have observed you yourself practising this "art" on other matters that also similarly lack solid evidence.

Forgive me, it just seems at times a little convenient the timing of when these "reserve judgment, not enough evidence, i have another theory but can't reveal it" cards get played.

Entirely up to you.I have very little interest in winning points on Thai Visa.If you have to ask the question it's possible you may not have your ear close to the ground.

To quote one part of rixalex's last post,

"beyond that the black shirts were a militant violent splinter group of the red shirts, funded and led from people within that camp"

That is precisely what is not known, and an area that the Commission report does not cast light on.

The commission report does not cast light on a lot of things. Doesn't mean we can't use a bit of logic and common sense to reach the most probable and likely conclusion. Can you suggest a theory that you believe really and truly does offer a more likely and probable conclusion for where the leading and funding came from, if not from within the red camp?

I could but I won't.

I would have thought one of the lessons of this crisis was not to take as gospel the immediately obvious options or explanations.The attempted murder of Sondhi is a case in point.

To quote one part of rixalex's last post,

"beyond that the black shirts were a militant violent splinter group of the red shirts, funded and led from people within that camp"

That is precisely what is not known, and an area that the Commission report does not cast light on.

Perhaps because along with the legitimate questions gets thrown in this contrived and non-existent cloud of doubt about what group they were a part of and who they were fighting for. It's nothing more than a diversionary tactic aimed at shifting blame.

well if there is no cloud of doubt, then there is no mystery.

so 'all knowing' rixalex, who precisely were they?

When did i state i knew precisely who they were? I have already stated a good half dozen times the fact that the names, addresses and phone numbers of the "men in black" are not known (at least not publicly) and i believe never will be... but since when did we know precisely who countless of the red shirts were, since when did we know precisely who all the soldiers were, since when did we know precisely who the snipers were? We don't, we didn't.

Why is it only for the men in black that people suddenly want to know precise details? Yes I admit it would be great to have those details, but we don't have those details for most of the people from all sides of the protest, and yet for them we don't have all these "but who were these mystery people..." type comments. And why not? Well because their role, what they were doing, who they were attacking and which side was backing them, was blatantly obvious.

A "red shirt" wakes up in the morning, puts on a black shirt, picks up a gun, and suddenly they have become mystery figures in some people's eyes. It's a nonsense. They are no more mysterious than their friends, brothers, relatives, villagers who woke up and wore red. They may have been more heavily armed, they may have been better trained in the art of violence, but that still doesn't make them anything more than a "red shirt" wearing a black shirt.

I'm surprised at your line (no mystery about men in black) not only because it has already been discredited but also because you have previously accepted there were many outstanding questions.Yet here you are saying they are no more than redshirts with different coloured shirts.It's an intellectually slovenly approach and unsupported by any kind of critical analysis.The unresolved questions are much more than not knowing the precise details.If you are saying that these people were red sympathisers - or hired by red sympathisers - everybody (except for Amsterdam and a few extremists) would agree with you.However there is so much more that needs to be properly understood.I confess to being slightly disappointed as I had presumed you had the capacity to sift evidence and make rational conclusions unlike many of the usual suspects.Apparently I was wrong and you have simply yielded to confirmation bias..

The reason the TRCT was not able to:

However, its [TRCT] power was limited because it could not issue subpoenas or grant immunity in exchange for testimony

The second sentence is correct but your preamble, "The reason the TRCT was not able to", is simply your personal assumption.It is no doubt part of the problem but not all of it.

An equally plausible reason for the Commission not delving deeply, as another member has pointed out, is that it was just a too sensitive issue in current day Thailand.

Anyway there does seem to be a consensus among forum members that investigative bodies should have fuller powers to summon and interrogate.Naturally this also applies to the army whose senior officers have consistently lied, prevaricated and obstructed all efforts to get to the bottom of events in 2100.

The mystery remains.The whole subject of the MIB remains fuzzy and obscure.We still don't know who they are and the report doesn't take it much further.

But for some even raising legitimate questions about this mystery is " propaganda ".Talk about the sleep of reason!