jayboy

They will remember the Extremist PAD and that they called for the resignation of Abhisit --

I think we will remember a lot more than that about the PAD (I reject your subdivision into extreme and not extreme).If you have forgotten or overlooked the full horror I will gladly jog your memory.

I'm afraid so.The multi-colored are essentially just the yellows, an arm of PAD.

The same nationalist hysteria, the same hatred and fear of the rural majority, the same susceptibility to extremist leadership.

They think that, for example, being on Facebook makes them sophisticated and "educated".Pasty faced wanke_rs who think the creep who drove Daddy's Porsche into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators was a hero.

In your second paragraph you accuse others of hysteria and hatred, and then in your third you yourself exhibit all the signs of those exact characteristics, and do so using the type of language that does you no credit.

It was a bit extreme wasn't it, but strangely enjoyable to write and containing more than a grain of truth.I don't know if you read Thai but it's really instructive to see what some of these "normal" and "educated" Bangkok youngish m-class types write on Facebook.Pure hatred of rural Thais and crazy nationalism, straight out of the PAD playbook - although most profess to be multi-colored.Sad thing is some are my colleagues and friends.When I attempt to query their position, they look at me pityingly and say "Dear Khun Jayboy, how difficult it must be for foreigners - even someone like you - to understand the complexities of Thai politics."

It seems they are being dismissed as an arm of PAD. Are they?

I was, foolishly, hoping they were a real, neutral, peace movement coming out of the Mute Majority.

I'm afraid so.The multi-colored are essentially just the yellows, an arm of PAD.

The same nationalist hysteria, the same hatred and fear of the rural majority, the same susceptibility to extremist leadership.

They think that, for example, being on Facebook makes them sophisticated and "educated".Pasty faced wanke_rs who think the creep who drove Daddy's Porsche into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators was a hero.

I can at least semi-understand lessening the enforcement of law by not forcefully dispersing the mob to prevent a possible civil war. But to ignore rule of law for terrorists and riot inciters is cowardice. No force would be involved. Where is the danger?

For God's sake Thailand this is a golden opportunity (at this moment) to begin to restore some regard for rule of law in this country. Don't weasel out of it! NO AMNESTY! Let the Reds roast in the sun and in their own waste and garbage before accepting that!

If you are so anxious to restore the rule of law, a start could be made by arresting the criminal generals who launched the last coup (and then pardoned themselves), the Quisling and land cheat Surayud, the PAD leadership and other fascist elements.I jest of course.

Fortunately the country is now being led by a highly educated, wise and measured statesman, who thinks in a more analytical and measured way than many of the Forum's ranting (though often barely articulate) old codgers from the West.

AOT closed the airport when the yellows were still outside protesting only, the official who did it was a relative of Thaksin.

I made a facetious post recently about the closure of the airport, with a sarcastic take on the hypocrisy and lies of the yellow thugs.

However even my parody can't better the real thing - see above.

An honest question. Did any of the yellow shirt leaders actually call for the closure of the airport? Or, was it a mass action of the protesters once they arrived there?

No it was the Airports Authority (AOT) that ordered the airport closed down.Clearly this was an irresposible and politically motivated action, probably the result of illicit payments from Thaksin.The small band yellow patriots were simply paying a quick courtesy call and quite infairly ended up being blamed by the red apologists for Thaksin.The AOT's pleas that the action was taken in line with international safety standards are just so much eyewash.And as for the suggestion that the yellow heroes contained numbers of brutish thugs should be dismissed for the lie it is.Similarly few travellers were put to any inconvenience and those detained for days and weeks enjoyed the unexpected opportunity to observe Thai democracy in action.

There, is that the answer you want?

One can see through all of this thread that the forum red cheerleaders are uncomfortable.

Your argument is difficult to follow (that's being polite) but one cheerleader group that might be feeling uncomfortable is the one that saw this conflict in one dimensional terms, and that notwithstanding this infantile approach was still baying for bloodshed.All credit to Abhisit who has played a blinder despite pressures from all sides and perhaps from above.To a more more civilised poster I suggested some time ago that Abhisit couldn't win the forthcoming election.I suppose that's still my view but I pray that he does, and especially that the Reds show proper compromise in this delicate phase of negotiations.Abhisit will need on his side to keep the deeply unattractive and dangerous Suthep on a leash and in particular puncture (behind the scenes if necessary) dishonest conspiracy plot the latter is peddling.

In every country the 'powers that be' make these decisions. Like Thailand's government, they are (hopefully) legally in power. Yes, when governments believe that their citizens have crossed a line, they will take action against them. I'm not sure that the revolution you're predicting is quite ready to fly. The millions of Thais who want to tell anyone to go will have an opportunity at the next election like the civilised people that they are. (I believe it might be early due to the adroit handling of Phi Abhisit).

I'm puzzled by your response.The "powers that be" aren't normally considered to be represented by just the government in Thailand, or anywhere else for that matter.Free speech is considered a right in democracies and cannot be given or taken away by a government, even accepting your doubtful definition.I didn't predict a revolution, simply pointed out that old style Thai deference is collapsing.And as for the election you comically believe will bring Abhisit a second term....bring it on.

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm talking about situations like hate-speech, or sedition or such like. The 'powers that be', i.e the government enact the laws to provide the boundaries of what is acceptable in free speech. If people break these laws they are arrested by the police and tried by the courts (all of which are ultimately under the control of the government). I'm not talking about free speech suddenly being restricted, but the response when existing laws are broken.

BTW I don't believe that Abhisit will necessarily get a second term. It's a possibility though.

I think Hextac was making a political point about his perception of the current administration's abuse of free speech.

Okay I see what you mean.Perhaps "hatespeach", a useful term, should be discussed on its own.Let's face it there has been a good deal of hatespeach from all sides.I was intrigued to note that some of my Thai friends(middle class Sino-Thai) on Facebook have referred to the Red threat in terms which clearly suggested the "uneducated buffalos" from Isaan were not "proper Thais".

The lower classes in the south both rural and urban are big majority anti-red shirt in the extreme

Round where I live in Chonburi the red backers are primarily small business or petty borgeoisie while the urban working class are majority anti-red or neutral

In the lower north where the family is the farmers are either pro-Thaksin with a smaller sub group of this group pro-red and the rest neutral in the extreme while their kids working in Aytuhaya tend to be neutral to anti-red

When talking about class it probably helps to define what you mean by class first of all as the aspirations of rural young and old differ and the urban working class and rural farming class are two totally different groups. It is also complicated by regional divides

I tend to use class in a UK way which identifies the Thai middle class as smal and the urban class as significant compared to a US defuinitioon where the middle class may seem a lot larger.

The other problem with labelling what is happening right now is you have several thing sgoing on at the same time: power struggle, Thaksin struggle a signifact part of the rural poor from certain regions struggling to improve their lot and a few things best not talked about and all of these have become entangled meaning imho a more nuanced view of what is happening needs to be made as it is very complicated. There are also groups who could change sides.

Interesting, particularly about the Chonbri urban working class.You are right too about the need to understand the nuance and context of class affiliations, but amidst all the clutter I think what we're seeing is certainly a class challenge to the unelected elite.

Sometimes I feel a great weariness at this TV debate between foreigners on Thai politics.One is reminded of the line at the end of Kubrick's great movie, Barry Lyndon.

"It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor they are all equal now"

Kraisak's article is good and he is correct in asserting that this is not fundamentally a class struggle, although there are elements of the Redshirts who would like it to be portrayed as one.

To deny this is at least mainly a class struggle is simply absurd.No serious observer thinks otherwise.That doesn't necessarily make it a cause worth supporting and of course there are complicating factors not least the poisonous influence of Thaksin.But Thaksin would never have gained traction unless there weren't huge class resentments at an unelected elite's domination of power and resources.It always amazes me that apparently sensible foreigners believe that Thailand, where exploitation is much worse than most places, should somehow be mysteriously exempt from frictions that have moulded every contemporary society.

Two links which show during the current state of emergency that whatever content they contained has been blocked. Standard practice worldwide in cases of national security. So two questions:

i. What was the point of posting these links?

ii. What has this got to do with Dr Tui being hunted by a pack of armed individuals with bad intent?

I never understand why people do things like this. Just undermines your own credibility.

Blocking websites in standard practice in repressive states or states where democracy is struggling.Thailand falls in the latter category.National security is always the justificating lie.

Again this happens. Obtuse 'reasoning' by the red shirt apologists. What TAWP is trying to explain to you Jayboy, is that the right to free speech involves letting people say what they want. If at some time society (i.e, the powers that be) decide that what is being said is detrimental to the society, then they will revoke the right to free speech for some individuals, within (hopefully) transparent boundaries. Thai society has not yet decided that the propagation of Dr Tui's views are unacceptable, therefore he is free to speak and travel where he wishes, no matter how repulsive you, I or Tawp may or may not find the man. You're right; the Dr's character is of interest, but not central to the issue. His views are by no means 'precisely the point'

So in Thailand "the powers that be" define what is free speech and what is or isn't tolerated, and what is detrimental to society.And there unwittingly you have identified why Thailand is on the verge of civil war with millions of Thais now prepared to tell the "powers that be" to take a hike.

No, in Thailand "the powers that be" define what is free speech and what isn't tolerated. Understand?

You repeat the ambiguities in the original post, but without explaining them.

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

Jayboy, you are the only one, with exception ONE single obviouse quite biased website slagging him.

No sign of ANYONE else saying his is this racist monster. Not common knowledge at all.

I suggest you LINK to these accusations from reputable sources, rather than just say google them.

I did and they ain't there so... Rule 15) I don't see this as true, put up or shut up.

You can apologise for people like this as much as you like.It simply confirms your prejudices.

There are means of research other than the internet.

In every country the 'powers that be' make these decisions. Like Thailand's government, they are (hopefully) legally in power. Yes, when governments believe that their citizens have crossed a line, they will take action against them. I'm not sure that the revolution you're predicting is quite ready to fly. The millions of Thais who want to tell anyone to go will have an opportunity at the next election like the civilised people that they are. (I believe it might be early due to the adroit handling of Phi Abhisit).

I'm puzzled by your response.The "powers that be" aren't normally considered to be represented by just the government in Thailand, or anywhere else for that matter.Free speech is considered a right in democracies and cannot be given or taken away by a government, even accepting your doubtful definition.I didn't predict a revolution, simply pointed out that old style Thai deference is collapsing.And as for the election you comically believe will bring Abhisit a second term....bring it on.

Nice deflection.

First, are you saying that he has held any speeches of this nature now? That is why you dislike the man?

Secondly, the fact of the matter is that it does not matter if he has, as a free man has the right to travel without being attacked etc.

You call it a nice deflection, but you are the one avoiding the point.And we still have to hear your views on Dr Tui.I don't suppose we ever will.

First point.His views are on the record, and easily researched.Why are you asking me why I dislike the man? Is it ignorance or do you share his views?

Second point.I agree that he can travel where he likes but if he openly peddles his racist, reactionary and hysterical views I shouldn't lose very much sleep if someone in righteous anger threw something pungent in his direction.

Again this happens. Obtuse 'reasoning' by the red shirt apologists. What TAWP is trying to explain to you Jayboy, is that the right to free speech involves letting people say what they want. If at some time society (i.e, the powers that be) decide that what is being said is detrimental to the society, then they will revoke the right to free speech for some individuals, within (hopefully) transparent boundaries. Thai society has not yet decided that the propagation of Dr Tui's views are unacceptable, therefore he is free to speak and travel where he wishes, no matter how repulsive you, I or Tawp may or may not find the man. You're right; the Dr's character is of interest, but not central to the issue. His views are by no means 'precisely the point'

So in Thailand "the powers that be" define what is free speech and what is or isn't tolerated, and what is detrimental to society.And there unwittingly you have identified why Thailand is on the verge of civil war with millions of Thais now prepared to tell the "powers that be" to take a hike.

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

So by calling me a Red, is this your way of dodging the Dr Tui issue? Do you have a view on Dr Tuiu? I should be interested to hear it.

You are confused.

It doesn't matter if he is The Devil himself, he still has the right to travel to the town without threat of violence.

You call him a fascist but support actions that are carried out by fascist-like groups, interesting...

His views are not the point, his right to express them is.

So as I expected you duck out of giving a view.His views are precisely the point.I agree also in free speech as a general principle.However, since I was earlier talking about Thammasat in 1976, I wonder whether your apparently unqualified belief in free speech would include the late Khun Samak urging the fascist thugs on to murder university students and radicals?

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

You try so hard that your face turns red...how fitting.

So by calling me a Red, is this your way of dodging the Dr Tui issue? Do you have a view on Dr Tuiu? I should be interested to hear it.

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

Ah could we assume that the likes of Jatuporn would also deserve what Moseley got outside of his circle of scumbag admirers bearing in mind of course that there are plenty of decent people in both the red and multicolour movements and we arent trying to label them all;)

No of course we're not.We were talking about Dr Tui.This thread completely omitted any reference to this person's belief system.Hopefully I've encouraged a few members to do some research.

the German's tactics of control seems closer to the Reds' gameplay, what with storming hospitals and hunting for people like Dr Tul who try to voice dissent than it does to the Thai gov'ts "softly softly don't do anything to set of the crazy people with grenades and stolen war weapons" approach.

I wonder whether you have any idea what sort of person (Dr Tui) we are talking about here.On another forum he is described as "a vicious and dangerous whack job, Thailand's Lysenko". He is a deplorable reactionary trading on nationalist hysteria (not a commodity missing in Thailand) and if he tried to provoke trouble outside his scumbag circle of admirers he certainly deserves what Oswald Mosley got when he tried something similar in London's East End with his Blackshirts.What you laughably call voicing dissent is straight out of the 1976 gameplan.Find a better example if you are preaching about free speech.

i can not know why many falangs like fascist in power in thailand with no vote but cannot like the same in countrys they are from.

To be fair I think the vast majority of foreigners here and on this Board are decent people who would have no truck with wickedness, as for example was on display at Thammasat in 1976 in Bangkok.They would be genuinely shocked to know about the elite elements - some still active and rabidly anti red - that supported and financed those fascist murderers.The problem is that many have no historical memory or comprehension of Thai history (or even sometimes the intellectual ability to process information and draw conclusions) and thus make their judgements broadly on what is happening moment by moment.So typically they would condemn the PAD occupation of the airport and more recently the huge disruption of inner Bangkok by the Reds.That would be perfectly valid but not enough for a full understanding.Some who have genuine roots here have been absorbed either into the generally red supporting North East or the yellowish (or multi-coloured: broadly the same thing) middle class urban Sino-Thai world.It's almost as though we are children wandering in a world we only partly understand taking our views from the adults that surround us.But by and large I think those on this forum try to be fair and say the right thing.Of course there are one or two who scream "liar" at every contrary opinion or label even moderate red sympathisers as "Thaksin apologists".But these people aren't really significant and condemn themselves through their own intolerance.

It seems odd that in this thread nobody has commented on Dr Tui's record and character, quite legitimate to discuss since he is a public figure.Google is your friend and the political webboards also have content.Suffice it say he embodies the fascist, hyper-nationalist and violent end of the nutty reactionary spectrum.

Last I checked this thread is about a PAD spokesman who had to flee an airport that was blocked by a red caravan. This thread is not about France. This thread is not about various democratic systems. Please stick to the topic guys.

I don't agree at all.Comparitive politics is often extremely relevant indeed, and I salute the intelligence of moderators who understand this.I agree that comparisons with situations abroad must indicate why they are relevant to Thailand and obviously common sense should be used in terms of cuttiing off in reasonable time.

Common knowledge, boychik. Google it yourself.

Samak was on the sidelines in 1976, admittedly egging on violence in a disgraceful way.It remained a shadow over his whole political career.

However if you really want a detailed debate (which under the rules of the forum we can't) on 1976 events,specifically who financed and supported the Red Gaurs and other savage murdering thugs the results would surprise many without longish memories. I have a feeling you would find the same forces including some still active players thirsting for a bloody crackdown on the Reds, and the reasons would essentially be the same as in 1976.

On the Chula invasion? There's no possible excuse for this.

That Thaksin would end up as Charles I in 1649 one can only hope for.

Charles 1(aka the Martyr) was executed in 1649 as you suggest.The Restoration took place in 1660 when his son acceded to the English throne.The regicides' bodies, including that of Oliver Cromwell, were dug up and then drawn and quartered.Cromwell's head was stuck on a pike.Since then the monarchy in England has never been seriously challenged.And the relevance to your unpleasant little assasination fantasy? To destroy someone, they need to be ridiculed,marginalised or ignored.Heaven knows there was much to ridicule in Thaksin.You do not thrust martyrdom on them because like Charles 1 and the Stuart dynasty it just strengthens what they stand for.Is that what you want for Thaksin and his legacy?

Frankly I didn't find your post at all coherent so forgive me if I don't respond in detail.With respect your opinion (and for that matter mine) don't matter in the scheme of things.You are of interest only because of your obsessive and unhinged preoccupation with Thaksin almost to a comical degree, and to some extent this also can be seen in some sections of the Thai elite.It's foolish and intellectually bankrupt because it confuses a symptom with a cause.Thaksin was a wily and immoral opportunist but for every opportunist there has to be an opportunity.Thaksin's chance was the elite's greed, sense of entitlement and selfishness.Without that fertile ground Thaksin would have been just another politician.So by all means attack Thaksin but don't overlook the greater crime.