jayboy

The former foreign minister, Kasit, has shown an odd sense of proportionality in suggesting that if Thaksin obtains a US visa then Thais should sever all ties with the United States.Even after losing office he is still clearly mad as a box full of frogs.

Wow, you say the Thai police don't meddle in politics. They do the opposite. That's what my post was all about. They let the red shirts do whatever they want. THAT is meddling in politics.

In comparison with the army's deplorable record there is no comparison.It's not even up for debate.

I should add there are examples of both the army and the police disobeying, ignoring or going slow on the lawful instructions of the government of the day.

Agree with both but don't forget that the Thai Police is, and always has been, on Thaksin's side. Corrupt loves to work with corrupt I guess. When the reds moved in, the police vanished. Never forget that. It was all planned from the start. That is the ONLY reason the reds could slowly build their camp. That is the ONLY reason the situation went out of control and finally the army had to clean up the mess the Police left behind.

Not strictly true.Thaksin certainly has strong police associations but there are many senior police officers (and ordinary policemen) who have no allegiance to him.I agree that the police force is in need of root and branch reform.Two positive factors in the police's favour is that unlike the army they do not meddle in politics and are ideologically neutral.(This wasn't always so, certainly in the two decades after WW2).As for corruption one obviously tends to have more personal experience of police misdemeanours.However anyone who believes the Thai army (specifically its top brass) isn't equally compromised (more so in fact) is laughably naive, ill informed or (there are one or two about) an uncritical army groupie.

the only argument that being in bangkok at the time will automatically win you, is what it was like in bangkok at the time... that's it, nothing more.

So media trumps real experience does it?

I don't think so.

what are you even on about?

seriously?

same old shhh on this forum.. you say something - and you get "oh so you have to mean this then don't you?"

boring.

i bet you couldn't even clarify the point you were making so that it counters the point i was making, but that's not your aim is it.

and 'real experience', how would you define that? experience of seeing it in bangkok, yeah? experience of what it was like in bangkok at the time, yeah??

Experience of the facts, not the colored propaganda, facts that those without direct experience try to rewrite in their ignorance. Or is it deliberate, wilful ignorance? Heaven forfend. So we have a phalanx of absentee experts telling eyewitnesses what they saw and experienced. Hypocrisy at the least, and downright lies and cynical propaganda at the worst. Nurofiend, another who would decry eyewitnesses. Where are you? What have you actually seen? Go ahead, spout off in an experiential vacuum, but we who were here know what we saw and those are the real facts. They just don't suit your case, do they? Not the new facts that support some dogma or subterfuge. Your trying to rewrite the facts from a remote location stinks to high Heaven of collusion, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. You should be ashamed of yourselves. But i'm sure you're incapable of shame. You just swallow your pride, if you ever had any, and like streetwalkers do what you must and take the money. After reading months of your bs, that is the only logical conclusion.

The trouble is that eye witnesses are not consistent and are capable of being misled as anyone else.Your own observations can easily be challenged by others with equal if not better credentials.This is not unusual as any educated student of street conflicts (or even of fully fledged battles) knows.This fog of war issue is understood by most people.Having said that individual accounts are always useful and contribute to the larger patchwork picture.Obviously in this instance as in others any preconceived prejudices or politics need to be taken into account.So far the only credible overall report has been that produced by HRW, and even that is flawed though has the merit of being fairminded and not dodging awkward questions.The Thai army has not properly cooperated in any enquiry though its incompetence and criminality is steadily becoming more apparent.The question of the government's responsibility for civilian deaths remain unclear but for the usual reasons we can be sure Abhisit and his colleagues will never be subject to adequate interrogation on this mastter.Of course the redshirts have their own axe to grind as well.

Dear Thai Politics.

1) Grow up

2) Put the Hiso Fools in jail where they belong

3) Look at the calendar - it is 2555, not 2255.

4) Grow some balls and a conscience.

Do the above and everything will work out nicely.

sooooooo.... all is lost?

Of course not. Things will go on as they are and always have done. One mob of Hiso fools in power. The other mob of HiSo fools see their income drop. Call up Army, have a coup. They get in. Previous hiSo fools see their income drop, call up the reds, mob rule, army come in to stop it; they get. This can and will go on forever. There will come a point though when all the populace will get tired of this, but they will not as long as they think that the inherent extortion and corruption is their personal saviour as opposed to trying to create a society where the people in power at least try to some good things for the country some times and not only for their own pockets.

Chuan

Sonthi

Surajud

or Abhisit are hardly hiSos, they come from a poor to middle class background

Abhisit's family is certainly wealthy but not hiso in the sense normally understood because they tend to follow useful careers and are not much interested in a glittering social life.Good for them.

Amazing the abject denials of what was clear to all on Live Television.

But honesty is as little valued in TVF political disputes as it is in Thai political circles.

The few relatively honest men.... get called then worst names of all.

One needed to be in Thailand at the time to watch the live television.

The Red Spin came after the television footage.

.

There were many of us in Thailand at the time, both watching live TV coverage and in my case visiting the site (from a safe distance).There were also several top flight media correspondents who observed and drew conclusions.Given the circumstances it is scarcely surprising that participants subsequently attempted to put a spin on events.This was obviously not confined to the redshirts - both the army and the government put great effort to propagate their version of events.However one thing is for sure - it is virtually impossible to establish exactly what happened without an impartial judicial type enquiry.That has been shown over and over again from Kent State to Bloody Sunday.Certainly a few farang running around with special pleading for one group or another hardly inspire confidence let alone credibility.Actually the only grouping without an axe to grind were the foreign correspondents who needless to say were roundly abused.

Abhisit and the Democrats appeal to the middle class and educated Thais who are keen to see a true democracy and a blanced society. Unfortunately the masses of voters especially from the North and Isan are still not ready to appreciate these values and are narrow minded and focused on short term economic promises such as vote buying. The middle classes and democrats have a hard task ahead of them and that is to educate their fellow Thais to appreciate the meaning of true democracy and balanced society and where each has to work hard to gain his social standing. Unfortunately, the vote buying affects such desperate voters and polarises them to the red camp (Thaksin camp) In any case as a foreigner I can only watch. But if I could cast a vote, it would be for the Democrats.

The allegiance to the Democrats is rather more complex than you suggest.In many parts of the country there is a solid working class vote for the Democrats.Equally there is very significant middle class group that has supported parties associated with Thaksin.Although once the Democrat party was liberal by Thai standards,the intelligentsia is now deeply sceptical .

You may have overlooked the reality that in Thailand the resources of the state are massively skewed to the urban middle class.In every society the argument has been made the uneducated masses are too dumb to understand democracy, almost always by those who are doing well by the status quo.Each interest group tries to get the most possible out of the system.The educated are no different from the uneducated in this respect.

I also find the suggestion that only the Democrats understand true democracy to be ludicrous.It is the Democrat Party and its patrons in the military and feudal elites that have benefited from coups and judicial activism at the expense of democracy.

.

Those conflicts were the result of ethnic/ tribal tensions. Hopefully Thailand at least does not have those.

Really? You cannot have been aware of PAD rallies where there were many "Sons of China" banners, hateful racist language about certain ethnic groups - particularly those with darker skin colouring than the typical middle class Sino-Thai.Even now on the social media there is a great deal of ugly racist and class stereotyping.I'm not aware that once has Abhisit appealed to his supporters to end this.

Although these types of comment are condemnable, I'm afraid they exist in all civilisations.

In the UK we have the Jocks and the Taffies - and across the water the Frogs and the Micks

Within England Manchester, Liverpool, London, Newcastle

Even in London it can depend whether you're north or south - east or west

and if you're a female from Essex, well, enough said!

An Irishman and an Essex girk were sitting in a bar and the Essex girl notices that the Irishman has "L" painted on his left boot and "R" painted on his right.

Shes asks him "Why is it that you have an "L" on one boot and and "R" on the uvva?"

The Irishman replies "To be sure, it's to remind me which is left and which is right".

After a few minutes of contemplation the Essex girl exclaims "Ah! That must be why I have "C & A" in my knickers!!!!"

What a fatuous and inappropriate response.

Does it have to be made any more clear to you?

I suggest you try Google and search for his resignation .

Allow me to assist now I have finished masticating.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

This subject has been debated countless times before and this Bloomberg article is always referred to by the coup's apologists.I think the circumstantial detail is quite well known including Thaksin's resignation manoevreing.However no serious commentator or newspaper tries to deny the coup was directly aimed at Thaksin ( nor do Thai politicians of any stripe).One only hears this bizarro world nonsense from expatriates on this forum

.

Those conflicts were the result of ethnic/ tribal tensions. Hopefully Thailand at least does not have those.

Really? You cannot have been aware of PAD rallies where there were many "Sons of China" banners, hateful racist language about certain ethnic groups - particularly those with darker skin colouring than the typical middle class Sino-Thai.Even now on the social media there is a great deal of ugly racist and class stereotyping.I'm not aware that once has Abhisit appealed to his supporters to end this.

Chavalit: Chinese

Chuan Chinese

Thaksin Chinese

Surayud

Samak Chinese

Somchai: Don't know

Abhisit Chinese

Yingluck Chinese

If I recall it right, it was "children of China, protect/help Thailand". In a way that means, even they are not the local ethnic they love the country and ALSO protect it like they were Thais.

Hateful speech about what ethnic did you hear???

I heard hateful speeches about people they sell their votes and against corruption. But that is hardly an ethnic.....

And by any chance are you a committed and vocal supporter of PAD (nothing wrong with that)? However, if so, it may suggest to some that your opinion on the racist rhetoric deployed during PAD rallies might be taken with a pinch of the proverbial.

.

Those conflicts were the result of ethnic/ tribal tensions. Hopefully Thailand at least does not have those.

Really? You cannot have been aware of PAD rallies where there were many "Sons of China" banners, hateful racist language about certain ethnic groups - particularly those with darker skin colouring than the typical middle class Sino-Thai.Even now on the social media there is a great deal of ugly racist and class stereotyping.I'm not aware that once has Abhisit appealed to his supporters to end this.

Unfortunately, based on another Nation article I read this morning it don't sound like this dysfunctional govt will be able to make a decision in time...the other Nation article indicates the Cabinet will probably say they must kick the decision (the can) to the Parliament. By the time someone in this govt possibly makes a decision, NASA will have competed the projected by just skipping Thailand....a project which could have provided Thailand and other IndoChina nations valuable weather data. Oh well, TiT...a progressive nation (compared to a snail crawl).

Whatever the errors of the government on this issue (and I agree your summary of the project's usefulness) it is peverse not to mention the disgraceful performance of the Democrats, seeking to make political capital on a scientific proposal which would have been to Thailand's benefit.Incredibly the MOA to cooperate was signed by the Abhisit government.

Fortunately, we have JB et al at the ready to make sure we never forget to slag on them.

Frankly, they are all idiots, but you guys who only think "the other side" has the idiots - keep on keeping on.

Not quite clear what your point is here.Are there mediocre people on all sides of the poitical spectrum? Of course there are.

In this instance the government has prevaricated and the opposition has played party politics.If I understand you correctly, you object to the latter being mentioned.

If there is a rationale for the Democrats position it would be interesting to know (other than a woolly anti-Americanism and automatic kowtowing to paranoic Chinese sensibilities).

Giving our father's land and territorial sovereignty away for scientific research?

I rather Thailand live without scientist.

Don't worry.Thailand is in no early danger of becoming a country known for its scientists, let alone becoming a hub for scientific research.

Unfortunately, based on another Nation article I read this morning it don't sound like this dysfunctional govt will be able to make a decision in time...the other Nation article indicates the Cabinet will probably say they must kick the decision (the can) to the Parliament. By the time someone in this govt possibly makes a decision, NASA will have competed the projected by just skipping Thailand....a project which could have provided Thailand and other IndoChina nations valuable weather data. Oh well, TiT...a progressive nation (compared to a snail crawl).

Whatever the errors of the government on this issue (and I agree your summary of the project's usefulness) it is peverse not to mention the disgraceful performance of the Democrats, seeking to make political capital on a scientific proposal which would have been to Thailand's benefit.Incredibly the MOA to cooperate was signed by the Abhisit government.

Not sure why the redshirts would want a government overthrown by violence when it was evident their interests could win a general election - which had happened before and would happen in the future.

The reason was two-fold. For one, they were very impatient. Elections take time to organise at the best of times, and they were worried about the things that might happen with them no longer at the helm, even if only for six months. For two, they were looking for a way to totally discredit the opposition and in doing so, help vindicate Thaksin and promulgate the story of him being the good guy and the forces against him that kicked him out as being the bad guys. Peaceful elections being organised with the losers standing down and handing over power doesn't really speak evil, does it?

What better way to achieve their aims than with a blood bath in the capital city with the international media looking on?

We have seen that even with Thaksin's own party back in power for coming up to a year, and his very own sister as PM, the job of restoring Thaksin to anything close to his former position in business and politics, or even being allowed the dignity of living in his own country without having to face up to his legal problems, is proving a hard nut to crack and i'm not sure he is any closer now than he was a year or so ago.

Winning elections doesn't always solve all your problems. It certainly hasn't solved all of Thaksin's. Not yet anyway...

Thoughtful post though I note you believe it's all about Thaksin.Some details I would argue with quite strongly but at least you put forward a reasoned view - completely subjective of course and I think wrong (my subjectivity I agree).

Funny how you seem to forget the violence of the 2009 protests and also the case of the 111 banned politicians of TRT (incuding Thaksin) who indeed tried to make sure there would never be a fair election again! They were caught red handed bribing smaller parties!

Sometimes it is only necessary to wait a while before someone, ostensibly hostile to one's viewpoint, makes one own point very effectively.

Nevertheless it is worth repeating that some extremists do often suggest that it was part of the Thaksin grand plan never to hold fair general elections having secured power.To be fair there were legitimate concerns at Thaksin's meglomania which in an extreme and peverse form were reflected in the PAD political platform.However the big problem for the Elite was not that Thaksin intended to suspend elections (no evidence of this whatsoever) but that his party was too successful in winning them, and furthermore their chosen agency,the Democrat Party under Abhisit, could not win the support of the Thai people when general elections were held - despite attempts to rig the process by directed courts and a politicised army.

Oh dear you have suddenly become rattled and changed the subject as some people do when confronted with difficult to digest truths.

I don't think there is much denial in the way you suggest.We know Thaksin supported the redshirt movement.The question of the MIB remains under consideration as we were discussing before you threw a wobbly.There are different points of view about the legitimacy of the Abhisit government (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum).Personally I doubt if the redshirts were seriously trying to overthrow a govenment through violence.Wasn't their demand a fairly conducted general election - which their interests easily won when it was eventually held.Is the fate (entrenched interests, assumption of permanent political influence etc etc) of a good number of people threatened by a fairer and more just political system in Thailand? Of course it is.

Not sure where you got the impression of me being rattled or throwing a wobbly. Was merely responding to your selective highlighting of silly arguments that get made. Walking into bullets is certainly one of them, although i'm not sure if that has been subjected to some artistic license, as it is hard to imagine anyone arguing something in quite that way. Murdering themselves? Well if the MIB were responsible for any protester deaths, that would quite possibly be akin to the same thing. Not sure therefore why you find it so far-fetched.

Difficult to digest truths that i am avoiding? Please clarify, with regards the events of 2010, which are the "truths" you presented me with that you think i have a problem with.

As for your having difficulty in believing the red shirts were trying to topple the government through violence, i think the fact that they refused an offer that though not without condition, was very reasonable and a massive compromise on the part of the government, and instead continued to hold the capital city hostage as fighting escalated more and more, tells the story. Whether it had of been by military intervention, or whether it had of been by the government standing down itself through inability to govern or through international pressure, the result would have been much the same: government toppled through violence.

Apologies if I misread your position.The tone of exasperation and change of subject may have given me the wrong impression.Anyway it's not important.

Not sure why the redshirts would want a government overthrown by violence when it was evident their interests could win a general election - which had happened before and would happen in the future.Abhisit's offer of elections has been much discussed and the matter is complex.Street protests in the face of injustice are not restricted to Thailand.The way Abhisit came to power was in many ways a disgrace.Even if his administration had fallen in 2010, the position would be that the people of Thailand would select the government through a general election.The nuttier community argue that it would have never happened because Thaksin would have seized totalitarian power and there would never be a fair general election again, a odd and complete reversal of the truth - which is that the Elite refused to recognise the Thai peoples democratic will (still don't actually).

The Economist has an article in its latest edition

http://www.economist.com/node/21556940

- essentially suggesting that the tablets are a mostly irrelevant gimmick and identifying the appalling flaws in the Thailand educational system which has resulted in its falling further and further behind its Asian neigbours.No solution in sight either.

Thread here:

http://www.thaivisa....blet-computers/

Sorry and thanks.I missed that thread.

If this Economist article was published a couple of years ago no doubt some genius would have been suggesting it was a Thaksin organised conspiracy (through his house newspaper The Economist and his look nong Howard Moon) to belittle the Thai educational system.

Sometimes the sheer nuttiness of some takes a little while to sink in!

On the positive side there now seems clear consensus (the army apart of course, not surprising given its recored of criminality and lying) that the army was responsible for many civilian deaths, a change from the position of a year or so ago where some of the usual suspects were still arguing the redshirts murdered themselves or walked into bullets.

Talking of ridiculous arguments by usual suspects, i wonder if there has been any shift towards acceptance that Thaksin did indeed support and fund the armed and violent insurrection that attempted to topple by force the legitimate government of the day, in full knowledge of what that would mean for the fate of a good number of people? Or are there still those stubbornly in denial, arguing that if you don't have proof on a piece of paper, they won't believe it?

Oh dear you have suddenly become rattled and changed the subject as some people do when confronted with difficult to digest truths.

I don't think there is much denial in the way you suggest.We know Thaksin supported the redshirt movement.The question of the MIB remains under consideration as we were discussing before you threw a wobbly.There are different points of view about the legitimacy of the Abhisit government (rehearsed ad nauseam on this forum).Personally I doubt if the redshirts were seriously trying to overthrow a govenment through violence.Wasn't their demand a fairly conducted general election - which their interests easily won when it was eventually held.Is the fate (entrenched interests, assumption of permanent political influence etc etc) of a good number of people threatened by a fairer and more just political system in Thailand? Of course it is.

As someone who claims to avoid making specific judgements on the events of 2010 in terms of what happened at the "street level", this statement above surprises me. Quite how you can state with any certainty what army casualties should or would have been, i don't quite know.

One thing firing on your own people, another thing intentionally firing upon your own people who happen to also be women, children, medics, journalists and innocent passerbyers. I don't think doing so can be described as usual or common military practice, although if you search hard enough in the history books, no doubt you can find an example for every possible freak event.

You're right.I have been drawn into commenting more on specifics than I had intended.Nevetheless it's a very curious anomaly that scarcely any soldiers were killed or wounded given the circumstances.

As to historic practice there are plenty of examples.And remember we are talking about the Thai army which has a record of murdering its own people and then lying about it.Indeed the generals presiding over these incidents have often been honoured and rewarded

The Economist has an article in its latest edition

http://www.economist.com/node/21556940

- essentially suggesting that the tablets are a mostly irrelevant gimmick and identifying the appalling flaws in the Thailand educational system which has resulted in its falling further and further behind its Asian neigbours.No solution in sight either.

If they were "somewhere in between" the army casualties would also have been greatly higher.The trouble is that when a narrative is built on lies (and that applies to both sides) even the slightest scrutiny throws up anomalies.

<snip>

Why would "somewhere in between" lead to higher army casualties? It all depends on what their aim was. Was their aim to kill as many soldiers as possible, or was their aim to provoke the army to shoot back?

I have no idea, nor with respect do you.

If ,hypothetically, the MIB intention was to provoke the army rather than wound or kill soldiers does it not follow that the underlying motive would be to do as much murderous damage to the redshirts as possible (to trigger a wider confrontation and in doing so serve Thaksin's interests).No way for knowing for sure without capturing MIB, finding out who they were and who - if anybody - paid for their services.Frankly it defies credibility that this interrogation has never taken place, and that we still have only haziest understanding of who the MIB were.If one continued with this hypothetical game one could play the "who benefits" card, and that would surely be the Elite which through the presence of MIB has muddied the redshirt cause.Actually I no more believe this than I do your provocation theory.To date the only credible account is the HRW report though it still leaves many unanswered questions - including the one referred to above (who exactly were the MIB, what was thir intention, and who paid for them?)

On the positive side there now seems clear consensus (the army apart of course, not surprising given its recored of criminality and lying) that the army was responsible for many civilian deaths, a change from the position of a year or so ago where some of the usual suspects were still arguing the redshirts murdered themselves or walked into bullets.

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

" professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army"

Where was that suggested?

The propaganda line spun by the Elite

and their lackeys has been that the MIB were ruthless professionals , indeed the excuse for the army's murder of unarmed civilians.Is that in fact untrue and the MIB were in truth just incompetent buffaloes like the rest of the redshirts! Hmm

Or just somewhere in between?

If they were "somewhere in between" the army casualties would also have been greatly higher.The trouble is that when a narrative is built on lies (and that applies to both sides) even the slightest scrutiny throws up anomalies.

In response to Gentleman Jim I'm afraid the lesson of history is that ordinary soldiers will take orders instructing them to fire on their own people.Nev ertheless I agree it is an issue that keeps the Elite awake at night sometimes given the preponderance of Isaan people in the military.In the short term the problem can be avoided:thus in the murderous events of 2010 units of the RTA were moved in on the basis they were "reliable" - ie did not shrink at murdering their fellow citizens, and other units were sidelined because they were not so perceived.In a limited confrontation this kind of juggling works:on a larger scale it doesn't.

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.

" professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army"

Where was that suggested?

The propaganda line spun by the Elite

and their lackeys has been that the MIB were ruthless professionals , indeed the excuse for the army's murder of unarmed civilians.Is that in fact untrue and the MIB were in truth just incompetent buffaloes like the rest of the redshirts! Hmm

when you apply that question to the men in black.. what would they have to gain? the death of innocent protesters would give sympathy to the movement and make the government look terrible.

but why bother shoot at the army at all then?

would it not have been better for that cause if no soldiers were killed and it was only dead protesters?

If the black shirts had not shot at the soldiers, the soldiers may not have fired back. If they didn't fire back, then it couldn't have been soldiers that killed the protesters. The black shirts needed the soldiers to be shooting.

Also, the grenades and the shooting at the soldiers caused confusion. If the black shirts hadn't been caught on camera shooting at the army, a lot of it could have been blamed on friendly fire.

how much would the red movement lose if the men in black were caught killing innocents?

everything, the whole protest would have been a lost cause as the government would be seen as completely in the right in their crackdown.

something that always strikes me as strange is that the army's excuse of using fire was only when they were under fire, yet not one black shirt was killed, not one.

in all the exchanges, the army didn't manage to kill one?

How do you know that? If one was shot, did the army have the chance to go an collect him? If he was taken to hospital or the morgue, do you think they would have taken him there with guns still strapped to him?

now i do fully believe there were instances of black shirts engaging the army, and it wasn't always just the army shooting without being provoked.

what i don't swallow is that the black shirts were shooting protesters as well, as i've said, if this was their false flag style objective then shooting at the army would completely defeat the purpose of that objective.

so imo, you can either believe the black shirts were shooting at the army or shooting at civilians.

but logic and reason should mean that you can't believe both, as it makes no sense whatsoever.

As suggested above, the black shirts needed the army to be shooting. The way to do that was to shoot at them. Maybe the army wasn't killing enough protesters (or enough innocent looking ones) to make the appropriate impact.

So the black shirts shoot at the army. The army shoot back. The black shirts shoot a couple more protesters. And viola! "The army was shooting and killing protesters indiscriminately".

Strange how with all that out of control redshirt violence, professionally trained MIB snipers firing at army etc the number of soldiers killed and injured was tiny.Something doesn't compute.I don't pretend to have the answer to this anomoly, just another reason for an independent enquiry in which all sides are compelled to participate under oath.