Jump to content

Pheu Thai prepares for worst-case scenario


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Two different things because the coups here in Thailand the last few have been without blood. I supported a coup without violence and blood. Now if you can find where i supported a bloody coup then be my guest.

 

 

A nice splitting of hairs robblok but I'm afraid it dosn't work here. There was no bloodshed because Prayuth had the guns backing him up, threatening violence if there was resistance. The politicians surrendered rather than seeing blood shed.

If Prayuth had announced there was a coup and Yingluck, Abhisit etc had asked him where the soldiers were with guns, and Prayuth replied, 'There are no guns, no soldiers, just me on my own,' then indeed that would have been a non violent coup.

But then Prayuth might have lost the ensuing wrestling match with one of Yingluck's MPs  or even Abhisit if Yingluck was cheering him on.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bannork said:

A nice splitting of hairs robblok but I'm afraid it dosn't work here. There was no bloodshed because Prayuth had the guns backing him up, threatening violence if there was resistance. The politicians surrendered rather than seeing blood shed.

If Prayuth had announced there was a coup and Yingluck, Abhisit etc had asked him where the soldiers were with guns, and Prayuth replied, 'There are no guns, no soldiers, just me on my own,' then indeed that would have been a non violent coup.

But then Prayuth might have lost the ensuing wrestling match with one of Yingluck's MPs  or even Abhisit if Yingluck was cheering him on.

I guess you and I have a different idea of what violence is.

 

actual violence and the threat of violence are not the same. 

 

Do you think me telling you im going to smash your face in and me doing it are the same ? (no real threat intended just making a point here).  

 

So there was no actual violence and later the coup was made legal (don't ask who we cant discuss that)

 

So i don't feel i support violence

 

furthermore.. the coup put en end to violence.  (important)

Edited by robblok
Posted
6 minutes ago, robblok said:

I guess you and I have a different idea of what violence is.

 

actual violence and the threat of violence are not the same. 

 

Do you think me telling you im going to smash your face in and me doing it are the same ? (no real threat intended just making a point here).  

 

So there was no actual violence and later the coup was made legal (don't ask who we cant discuss that)

 

So i don't feel i support violence

 

furthermore.. the coup put en end to violence.  (important)

The threat of violence in a coup is so obvious, overwhelming and indeed essential, to a coup as to be part of the very act, whether there was physical violence or not.

If Prayuth had come bearing flowers and nothing else, would the coup have been successful?

You say you 'feel you don't support violence' yet you support an act in which violence is an essential part.

Definition of a coup by Oxford dictionaries: A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, bannork said:

The threat of violence in a coup is so obvious, overwhelming and indeed essential, to a coup as to be part of the very act, whether there was physical violence or not.

If Prayuth had come bearing flowers and nothing else, would the coup have been successful?

You say you 'feel you don't support violence' yet you support an act in which violence is an essential part.

Definition of a coup by Oxford dictionaries: A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

 

What has an dictionary to do with the actual facts.

 

Can you tell me how many bullets have been fired how many wounded and other casualties.. and now that the coup is legal (been made legal) is it then still a coup as described in the dictionary ? 

 

You have to look at what really happened not what a definition says. 

 

Anyway lets agree to disagree.

Posted
29 minutes ago, robblok said:

What has an dictionary to do with the actual facts.

 

Can you tell me how many bullets have been fired how many wounded and other casualties.. and now that the coup is legal (been made legal) is it then still a coup as described in the dictionary ? 

 

You have to look at what really happened not what a definition says. 

 

Anyway lets agree to disagree.

Look, if a man comes up to you, demands you hand over your money and then cocks his rifle and points it at you, is that a act of violence?

 In actual facts a real threat of violence is 'only a shot away' from real violence, a distinction only made possible by the submission of the threatened party.

  • Like 2
Posted
38 minutes ago, bannork said:

The threat of violence in a coup is so obvious, overwhelming and indeed essential, to a coup as to be part of the very act, whether there was physical violence or not.

If Prayuth had come bearing flowers and nothing else, would the coup have been successful?

You say you 'feel you don't support violence' yet you support an act in which violence is an essential part.

Definition of a coup by Oxford dictionaries: A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

 

To say there were no violence as a result of the coup is a gross understatement

no matter how Rob tried to argue his point. The military dealt harshly with their those who opposed the coup by rounding up Yingluck, politicians and activists. Protests in Bangkok were meet with armed soldiers and detained. The press only reported what the military allowed. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/24/thailand-coup-yingluck-detained-as-roundup-by-military-continues

  • Like 1
Posted
On 10/29/2018 at 6:59 AM, YetAnother said:

the junta's goal all along; thaksin stupidly walked right into it

I think you have that the wrong way around.

 

Do you think that if the government disbands the PTP the voters will vote for the government?

 

There will be up to perhaps 15 or more million very unhappy people out there who may vote for any other party that rejects the current government.

 

The government can keep dissolving political parties until there is only the government party and the Democrats left but it will never be a free and fair election and it certainly won't reconcile the country but make the split deeper and harder to mend.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 10/30/2018 at 6:10 PM, JemJem said:

Hey Phue Thai top-level folks, how about starting by cutting off all ties with, or at least by distancing yourselves and the party as much as possible from Thaksin as soon as possible ? Yeah, right, as if that's going to happen !

 

Prayut is no angel, but we have to remember that the situation now is mostly the fault of Thaksin, who caused so much division in Thai society. Many folks in the forum seem to have forgotten about how corrupt he was, or about the human rights abuses he was responsible for.

Really?

 

So 12 successful military coups in the last 86 years brought the people of Thailand together every time and ONLY Thaksin divided the country.

 

You don't seem to know that much about Thai history.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 11/5/2018 at 6:57 PM, OneMoreFarang said:

Please list the names of the convicted criminals of the "opposition".

 

Personally I think all convicted criminals should go to jail.

It seems you want that the red mob decides who is a criminal and who not. Interesting idea...

 

Many of the opposition to the PTP granted themselves an amnesty for "ALL past, present and future" acts with NO time limits.

 

Something that Thaksin never did and when he tried for an amnesty it was stopped in parliament and by the courts, something that has not happened yet.

 

Nor did he tear up the constitution and rewrite it in has favour giving him supreme power over everyone.

 

You seem to believe that the current government has the sole right to decide who is a criminal and are quite happy with that.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, robblok said:

I guess you and I have a different idea of what violence is.

 

actual violence and the threat of violence are not the same. 

 

Do you think me telling you im going to smash your face in and me doing it are the same ? (no real threat intended just making a point here).  

 

So there was no actual violence and later the coup was made legal (don't ask who we cant discuss that)

 

So i don't feel i support violence

 

furthermore.. the coup put en end to violence.  (important)

Back along there was a joke on the lines of "Fighting for peace is like <deleted> for virginity!" Other gently aging hippies (I've always struggled with the contradictions inherent in being a "military hippy" - a boss of mine once used the phrase in the pen picture part of my annual report) may remember it. It was an ironic and wryly amusing comment on the slogan, I believe, of the US strategic bombing arm! Anyway, excuse my rambling, but Roblock old chap, your attempts to claim that the military coup which installed this junta was not inherently violent remind me of that joke

  • Haha 2
Posted
3 hours ago, robblok said:

Great.. complaints of the junta that i totally agree with. You still don't get it.. i don't like the junta.. I just don't like Thaksin too and see him for what he is as bad as they are just less powerful. Remember he said it himself democracy is not his goals. 

 

Anyway I have seen no proof of the junta helping her escape.. its plausible.

 

Nobody should have an amnesty Thaksin not the Junta not.. but just because the junta got one does not mean Thaksin should get one too. It should mean people should complain about it pressure them ect to get that amnesty gone.

 

The tired old red propaganda of they did it so Thaksin should get it too is so tiresome and leads to nothing. Neither should have an amnesty and neither should be corrupt and if they are no matter who should be in court for it and convicted.. and of course not allowed to run.

"... junta helping her escape.. ..."

 

Several cops were convicted a long-time back for actively helping her to escape. 

2 hours ago, tomta said:

You supported the coup therefore you support violence.

Another one very quick to conveniently twist what has been said / posted. 

Posted
1 hour ago, bannork said:

Look, if a man comes up to you, demands you hand over your money and then cocks his rifle and points it at you, is that a act of violence?

 In actual facts a real threat of violence is 'only a shot away' from real violence, a distinction only made possible by the submission of the threatened party.

No its a robbery according to your dictionary..

 

That is what i mean quit looking at a dictionary and tell me how many people got killed in this and previous coup. Then tell me about the level of violence i support. 

 

If there had been bloody coups in recent history I would not have supported a coup but given the recent history that no real violence was used.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, JAG said:

Back along there was a joke on the lines of "Fighting for peace is like <deleted> for virginity!" Other gently aging hippies (I've always struggled with the contradictions inherent in being a "military hippy" - a boss of mine once used the phrase in the pen picture part of my annual report) may remember it. It was an ironic and wryly amusing comment on the slogan, I believe, of the US strategic bombing arm! Anyway, excuse my rambling, but Roblock old chap, your attempts to claim that the military coup which installed this junta was not inherently violent remind me of that joke

I am happy to have brought up funny memories. I am saying the coup was NOT violent as nobody got killed or wounded. 

 

Was there the treat of violence yes. Was there actual violence and casualties.. nope. 

 

The last time it was the same.. so i expected a coup without bloodshed and one that would not last long. I was wrong about the duration not the violence. I would certainly NOT have supported it i expected bloodshed. 

 

Just going by a definition in a dictionary without looking at the facts is just wrong.

Posted

Does "I support military coups as long as they are not violent" make sense? You cannot support coups based on hindsight as the past does not dictate the future and there is potential for differences (violence). That is, by their very nature there is a chance of violence and you have no way of knowing absolutely that no violence will arise. Therefore, to support coups, you are supporting the potential for violence.   

  • Like 2
Posted
Two different things because the coups here in Thailand the last few have been without blood. I supported a coup without violence and blood. Now if you can find where i supported a bloody coup then be my guest.
 
 
A bloody coup, or one without apparent violence, both equally illegal and indefensible

Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, robblok said:

No its a robbery according to your dictionary..

 

That is what i mean quit looking at a dictionary and tell me how many people got killed in this and previous coup. Then tell me about the level of violence i support. 

 

If there had been bloody coups in recent history I would not have supported a coup but given the recent history that no real violence was used.

 

It's an armed robbery and a coup is an armed seizure of power. That is violence. Nobody got killed but a lot of people have lost a lot of freedom due to that violent action for what is now coming up to 5 years.

Now, I despise Thaksin and have since he decided to take the quick route to power by buying up parties such as the NAP rather than building up a party of decent MPs, as he could have done with the resources at his disposal, but Prayud's coup following street protests by Suthep that were clearly allowed to continue despite his blatant breaking of laws- Jeez, Suthep even demanded civil servants reported to him not Yingluck!- a clear act of treason- suggest the coup had been long in the making. And now 2 of Suthep's main supporters are holding important positions in Prayuth's government and the BMA!

So after nearly 5 years what reforms have been achieved?

What reconciliation has taken place?

2 things promised by Suthep and the coup makers.

 

  • Thanks 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, bannork said:

It's an armed robbery and a coup is an armed seizure of power. That is violence. Nobody got killed but a lot of people have lost a lot of freedom due to that violent action for what is now coming up to 5 years.

Now, I despise Thaksin and have since he decided to take the quick route to power by buying up parties such as the NAP rather than building up a party of decent MPs, as he could have done with the resources at his disposal, but Prayud's coup following street protests by Suthep that were clearly allowed to continue despite his blatant breaking of laws- Jeez, Suthep even demanded civil servants reported to him not Yingluck!- a clear act of treason- suggest the coup had been long in the making. And now 2 of Suthep's main supporters are holding important positions in Prayuth's government and the BMA!

So after nearly 5 years what reforms have been achieved?

What reconciliation has taken place?

2 things promised by Suthep and the coup makers.

 

Nothing mate, I no longer support the goverment because they failed completely (been commenting on them for a long time now). I just disagree with the opinion that i support violence because i supported a coup without any casualties.

 

My point was you can't just look at a dictionary and take it at face value.

 

Kidnapping for instance is supposed to be violent.. but many dads kidnap their kids to get them home after a divorce. Its called kidnapping (rightfully in some cases but not in others) too but totally different from an other kind of kidnapping where the victim is held against his wel sometimes hurt.

 

Point being that you just can't use the fact that in a dictionary they talk about violence while this coup had no violence. 

 

 

Posted
38 minutes ago, bannork said:

It's an armed robbery and a coup is an armed seizure of power. That is violence. Nobody got killed but a lot of people have lost a lot of freedom due to that violent action for what is now coming up to 5 years.

Now, I despise Thaksin and have since he decided to take the quick route to power by buying up parties such as the NAP rather than building up a party of decent MPs, as he could have done with the resources at his disposal, but Prayud's coup following street protests by Suthep that were clearly allowed to continue despite his blatant breaking of laws- Jeez, Suthep even demanded civil servants reported to him not Yingluck!- a clear act of treason- suggest the coup had been long in the making. And now 2 of Suthep's main supporters are holding important positions in Prayuth's government and the BMA!

So after nearly 5 years what reforms have been achieved?

What reconciliation has taken place?

2 things promised by Suthep and the coup makers.

 

 

Perhaps they had their fingers crossed... seriously though, whenever dealing with someone making promises... ask yourself:

 

1. What nationality are they?

2. What occupation are they?

 

Now, the first answer is 'Thai', and the second is 'politician'.

 

And you still believed them? Seriously?

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, robblok said:

Nothing mate, I no longer support the goverment because they failed completely (been commenting on them for a long time now). I just disagree with the opinion that i support violence because i supported a coup without any casualties.

 

My point was you can't just look at a dictionary and take it at face value.

 

Kidnapping for instance is supposed to be violent.. but many dads kidnap their kids to get them home after a divorce. Its called kidnapping (rightfully in some cases but not in others) too but totally different from an other kind of kidnapping where the victim is held against his wel sometimes hurt.

 

Point being that you just can't use the fact that in a dictionary they talk about violence while this coup had no violence. 

 

 

Never mind the dictionary.

Prayuth seized power by force, by armed power. That is armed robbery which is considered a violent crime.

 

 

Edited by bannork
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, bannork said:

Never mind the dictionary.

Prayuth seized power by force, by armed power. That is armed robbery which is considered a violent crime.

 

'Ah but nobody got hurt,' you say.

More then that.. the previous time nobody got hurt either. So it is a pattern of no casualties and no violence. So i expected and was right.. no violence.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, HalfLight said:

 

Perhaps they had their fingers crossed... seriously though, whenever dealing with someone making promises... ask yourself:

 

1. What nationality are they?

2. What occupation are they?

 

Now, the first answer is 'Thai', and the second is 'politician'.

 

And you still believed them? Seriously?

What makes you think I believed them?

Posted
16 minutes ago, robblok said:

Nothing mate, I no longer support the goverment because they failed completely (been commenting on them for a long time now). I just disagree with the opinion that i support violence because i supported a coup without any casualties.

 

My point was you can't just look at a dictionary and take it at face value.

 

Kidnapping for instance is supposed to be violent.. but many dads kidnap their kids to get them home after a divorce. Its called kidnapping (rightfully in some cases but not in others) too but totally different from an other kind of kidnapping where the victim is held against his wel sometimes hurt.

 

Point being that you just can't use the fact that in a dictionary they talk about violence while this coup had no violence. 

 

 

So armed robbery is not a violent crime if no shots are fired?

 

Really? I'm not so sure about that.

1 minute ago, bannork said:

What makes you think I believed them?

 

Ahhh. My estimation of your IQ just took on another 20 points. I should have known better...

  • Like 1
Posted

The 2010 riots and massacre encouraged by Marky, whom was being managed by the military.

Which subsequently [and deeply associated itself] led to the 2014 coup.

Posted
1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

The 2010 riots and massacre encouraged by Marky, whom was being managed by the military.

Which subsequently [and deeply associated itself] led to the 2014 coup.

 

Makes me angry just to look at him, a stellar example of someone who should never be in politics - as narcissistic as Prayuth and as honest as Dick Turpin.

 

A quisling who deserves to be a gelding.

  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, HalfLight said:

So armed robbery is not a violent crime if no shots are fired?

 

Really? I'm not so sure about that.

 

15 hours ago, bannork said:

I think your definition of violence is skewed. Armed seizure of power is in itself violent.

 

Maybe my definition is skewed or i know to make a distinction you guys can't make. No shot fired.. no casualties.. twice in a row. The average redshirt / yellow shirt demonstration is more violent.

 

Maybe what i call violence is closer related to physical violence than the treat of violence. Could be that we in the Netherlands have a different definition. Because in my country judges make differences for loaded guns.. real violence applied an not. They don't lump everything together like you guys seem to do. 

 

How about kidnapping of kids @halflight  if a father takes his kids from mom... without concent (after divorce) kid wants to go.. no violence no harm nothing. Totally different from something we call kidnapping too where violence is used and what they call kidnapping too. Just definitions don't cut it without looking at actual circumstances.

 

Armed robbery is less violent if a not loaded gun is used. You can't just equate all robberies the same. If what you were saying was true we would not need judges  becuase there are no gradations and everyone gets the same punishment.


Same goes for coups some are bloody and violent (usually African coups) but the last Thai coups have been without casualties. 

 

Maybe i should have said I am against physical violence, because there is of course the treat and that is mental violence.

  • Like 1
Posted
15 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

The 2010 riots and massacre encouraged by Marky, whom was being managed by the military.

Which subsequently [and deeply associated itself] led to the 2014 coup.

Encouraged by Marky... you should ask yourself who put the men in black there and why they were allowed to walk free among the protesters.. 

 

Marky guilty.. sure.. but the other side just as guilty for putting armed black shirts in their midst probably ordered by the man in charge above it all.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, robblok said:

Maybe my definition is skewed or i know to make a distinction you guys can't make. No shot fired.. no casualties.. twice in a row. The average redshirt / yellow shirt demonstration is more violent.

 

Maybe what i call violence is closer related to physical violence than the treat of violence. Could be that we in the Netherlands have a different definition. Because in my country judges make differences for loaded guns.. real violence applied an not. They don't lump everything together like you guys seem to do. 

 

How about kidnapping of kids @halflight  if a father takes his kids from mom... without concent (after divorce) kid wants to go.. no violence no harm nothing. Totally different from something we call kidnapping too where violence is used and what they call kidnapping too. Just definitions don't cut it without looking at actual circumstances.

 

Armed robbery is less violent if a not loaded gun is used. You can't just equate all robberies the same. If what you were saying was true we would not need judges  becuase there are no gradations and everyone gets the same punishment.


Same goes for coups some are bloody and violent (usually African coups) but the last Thai coups have been without casualties. 

 

Maybe i should have said I am against physical violence, because there is of course the treat and that is mental violence.

 

Treason is against the law. There's no point arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, treason is agsinst the law. And the threat of using guns in the hands of the perpetrators makes a crime into a violent crime in any civilised country.

 

Of course, you are free to believe whatever suits you, and for whatever reason it suits you. Because there is a reason, as you know, and that reason will accomodate personal history.

Edited by HalfLight
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, HalfLight said:

 

Treason is against the law. There's no point arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, treason is agsinst the law. And the threat of using guns in the hands of the perpetrators makes a crime into a violent crime in any civilised country.

 

Of course, you are free to believe whatever suits you, and for whatever reason it suits you. Because there is a reason, as you know, and that reason will accomodate personal history.

Point taken.

 

IMHO it's also treasonous for one party to amend laws to try to keep their party in power by deliberately destroying the checks and balances of the pillars of democracy.

 

IMHO it's also treasonous for a party to attempt at 3.00 am in the morning while the country is sleeping to attempt to get an amnesty for a convicted criminal who is also awaiting trial on a long list of other serious charges. 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, scorecard said:

Point taken.

 

IMHO it's also treasonous for one party to amend laws to try to keep their party in power by deliberately destroying the checks and balances of the pillars of democracy.

 

IMHO it's also treasonous for a party to attempt at 3.00 am in the morning while the country is sleeping to attempt to get an amnesty for a convicted criminal who is also awaiting trial on a long list of other serious charges. 

 

 

Agree with all of that except a government (no matter how dishonestly or criminally asserted) cannot commit treason against itself. Not in law anyway.

 

I try not to think about this stuff, it's no skin off my nose whatever happens. It;s Thai business, and Thai business makes precisely the same amount of sense to me as Thai anything.

 

The 3am thing is a law thing. If the law says it's OK, then it's OK, no matter what you or I think about it. No point getting bent out of shape because a few brigands get out of line and outsmart themselves.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 178

      Trump's 'huge lie' shows 'he’s taking everyone for an idiot': analysis

    2. 5

      Renew Thai DL on METV (Now that Embassy no longer gives POR)

    3. 0

      U.S. Senators Introduce Legislation to Counter UN Actions Against Israel

    4. 0

      Essex Police Under Scrutiny for Domestic Abuse Failures Amid Investigation of Allison Pears

    5. 0

      Accusations of Hypocrisy as Private Jet use Doubles Travelling to Cop29

    6. 0

      Council Tax Bills to Increase by Over £100 in April Amid Cap Freeze

    7. 0

      Elon Musk Embraces New Role as the ‘George Soros of the Right’ Alongside Trump

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...