Red-shirt followers gather in memory of those who died in 2010 crackdown

[heybruce]

15 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

No, I was there to watch them and cheer for them. It wasn't necessary to pay me for that.

The yellow shirts helped to get rid of Thaksin. What a beautiful day.

The yellow shirts got rid of democracy in Thailand.  It was not a beautiful day for the country.

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, Thunglom said:

People just regurgitate the same old cliches over and o=ver, basically they have only read te newspaper (EL version) that was tolerated by the government. It doesn't even scrape the surface of what was actually going on at the time or take into account history of the movements for democracy in Thailand - and the crucial role played by the "eastern Tigers - oe needs to look at who they owe allegiance to as well.

Unfortunately people like to look at it as some kind of football match - it isn't helped by trying to classify them as red and yellow shirts - there's so much more to it than that.

There sin reality vey little oe can say about real Thai politics as thee is way too much censorship about/ Not only under law but most of the media in Thailand. especially the English Language media self-censors to avoid being shut down or prosecuted.

"What is inaccurate in the post you quoted?" - so in answer to your question, as I said earlier, if you really want to understand Thai politics you will have to read publications that are not readily available in the Kingdom.

 

BTW - what is a "legal coup"????

So in summary, you think you are much smarter than people who followed the news and lived through the events, lived many years in Thailand before and after the events, know about the Eastern Tigers and other competing factions in the Thai military and also know about the political maneuvering regarding the topic that must not be named.

 

However you have not identified any errors in the posts you criticized.  You just maintain that you know much more about things but can't tell us.

 

No one's buying it.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The Thai electorate didn't protest. The red mob protested and burnt half the city. Is that what you call democracy?

And apart from that, do you think people who vote again and again for corrupt leaders and their family member are smart?

I don't think people who support military rulers who are more corrupt than legitimately elected democratic leaders are smart.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I don't think people who support military rulers who are more corrupt than legitimately elected democratic leaders are smart.

How do you know they are more corrupt?

[jacko45k]

48 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How do you know they are more corrupt?

It is a reasonable presumption.... democratic leaders can be voted out, military ones have no such concerns, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

The benevolent dictator is a rare breed. 

[OneMoreFarang]

33 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

It is a reasonable presumption.... democratic leaders can be voted out, military ones have no such concerns, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

The benevolent dictator is a rare breed. 

So it seems you have no evidence.

 

IMHO almost all Thai politicians are corrupt. Some a little and some more. And if that happens somewhere in the background then that is bad enough but more or less unavoidable.

When Thaksin was in charge he did a lot of that corruption in the open. Like: See, I can do that, and there is nothing you can do about it. Because there was nothing what realistically could have been done while he was in charge. Nobody dared to prosecute him and no judge would have dared to convict him.

 

One of the prime example was Thaksin as PM giving a huge loan to Myanmar so that they could buy a satellite from Thaksin's private company. 

Thai loan to Myanmar helped Thaksin business -judge | Reuters

 

I still think Thaksin could still be PM if he wouldn't have been so greedy. If he would have made some money in the background and let others do the same everything would have been fine or maybe I should say: Thailand as usual.

But Thaksin wanted more and he thought he is invincible. He wasn't.

[jacko45k]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So it seems you have no evidence.

Dunno, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabwe, Gadffi, Putin, 

 

No argument from me about endemic corruption here in Thailand, an honest politician, like an honest policeman, is like finding hen's teeth. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How do you know they are more corrupt?

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/corruption-index

 

The corruption index does not show a clear difference between elected and military rule.  However it is worth noting that the index climbed (meaning less corruption) during Thaksin's final years and fell after the 2006 and 2014 coups.

 

Even if you maintain there are no significant differences between corruption under military vs democratic rule, it speaks poorly of you that you clearly prefer military rule.  Corruption is reduced under democratic rule when the voters decide they have had enough of it.  Military rulers who benefit from corruption have no incentive to reduce it.

 

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

When Thaksin was in charge he did a lot of that corruption in the open.

Of course, It's not like that with the army:! ????

My nephew officially a supplier of the army despite papa army chief, the statues in the army park, my dead friend's watches, incommensurate wealth in relation to an usual army officer salary, etc... All known but not investigated, covered up, or the witness died.

And It's not particular to the current bunch. There is no element of surprise here. In the history of Thailand, nearly all coup makers have been corrupt.-

 

Not to mention Thailand's ranking on the defense corruption index.

"Thailand’s GI ranking in Band E places it in the “very high” risk category for corruption in the defence and security sector.   Since the May 2014 military coup, there has been no independent scrutiny of defence policy by the legislature, a lack of budget transparency, and insufficient institutional measures concerning most aspects of the procurement cycle.   While pre-coup anti-corruption organisations like the National Anti-Corruption Commission still enjoy a quasi-legal status, they lack sufficient influence to curtail military involvement with the proliferation of organized crime in southern Thailand or ghost soldiers.  Taken together, these corruption risks not only pose a serious threat to the stability of the state but fundamentally undermine its accountability to the people of Thailand. We suggest the following urgent reforms of the security sector to minimize corruption risks."

https://government.defenceindex.org/countries/thailand/

 

[poskat]

I had just moved to BKK in Feb 2010, living and working in siam square. So I saw the full progression of it from a happy festival atmosphere into a barbed wired, bamboo spiked encampment when walking though it on my way to work.

 

I lived inside the "red zone" and when the government was making martial law rumblings, got a bus to pattaya. a few days later, the army moved in and chaos ensued. when i got back to bkk a week later, the burned buildings were still on display.

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/corruption-index

 

The corruption index does not show a clear difference between elected and military rule.  However it is worth noting that the index climbed (meaning less corruption) during Thaksin's final years and fell after the 2006 and 2014 coups.

 

Even if you maintain there are no significant differences between corruption under military vs democratic rule, it speaks poorly of you that you clearly prefer military rule.  Corruption is reduced under democratic rule when the voters decide they have had enough of it.  Military rulers who benefit from corruption have no incentive to reduce it.

I would love to see democratic elected honest and competent people to run the county. I think they should also get a very high salary.

But as long as there are only the option of the criminal Thaksin and his family and the military I prefer the military. Obviously they are far from good but IMHO not half as bad a Thaksin. I didn't see any red-shirts in the streets for years, wonderful! 

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So it seems you have no evidence.

 

IMHO almost all Thai politicians are corrupt. Some a little and some more. And if that happens somewhere in the background then that is bad enough but more or less unavoidable.

When Thaksin was in charge he did a lot of that corruption in the open. Like: See, I can do that, and there is nothing you can do about it. Because there was nothing what realistically could have been done while he was in charge. Nobody dared to prosecute him and no judge would have dared to convict him.

 

One of the prime example was Thaksin as PM giving a huge loan to Myanmar so that they could buy a satellite from Thaksin's private company. 

Thai loan to Myanmar helped Thaksin business -judge | Reuters

 

I still think Thaksin could still be PM if he wouldn't have been so greedy. If he would have made some money in the background and let others do the same everything would have been fine or maybe I should say: Thailand as usual.

But Thaksin wanted more and he thought he is invincible. He wasn't.

The biggest question for me is why Thai people don't vote for some honest competent people. Maybe things would get better... 

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I would love to see democratic elected honest and competent people to run the county. I think they should also get a very high salary.

But as long as there are only the option of the criminal Thaksin and his family and the military I prefer the military. Obviously they are far from good but IMHO not half as bad a Thaksin. I didn't see any red-shirts in the streets for years, wonderful! 

Instead of corrupt democracy with the chance of improvement, you choose corrupt military rule with no chance of improvement.

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The biggest question for me is why Thai people don't vote for some honest competent people. Maybe things would get better... 

Because the courts will find a way to rule that anyone that can change things, and rock the gravy boat for the military and elites, gets banned from running for office.  That's how this military government works.

[candide]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Instead of corrupt democracy with the chance of improvement, you choose corrupt military rule with no chance of improvement.

 

59 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Because the courts will find a way to rule that anyone that can change things, and rock the gravy boat for the military and elites, gets banned from running for office.  That's how this military government works.

It's exactly what happened, and is happening, to Thanatorn and Future/Move Forward., despite them (for the time being) not corrupt. Actually these honest politicians are even more threatening for the yellow/green network that they get votes from the Bangkok middle class who used to support them. in the past. The yellow courts will find any reason, to ban o remove an opponent, corrupt or not.

 

And some people still (pretend to) believe the fairy tale that Thaksin would have not been removed if he were not corrupt!

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Instead of corrupt democracy with the chance of improvement, you choose corrupt military rule with no chance of improvement.

What do you mean by no improvement?

I didn't see any red-shirts on the streets for years and hear little about the criminal fugitive and his family. That is a huge improvement. 

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Because the courts will find a way to rule that anyone that can change things, and rock the gravy boat for the military and elites, gets banned from running for office.  That's how this military government works.

So the voters could at least try.

When did the majority vote for a not obvious corrupt politician the last time?

And before some people answer with some names: When a new face supports a well known corrupt politician then the new politician is also corrupt - otherwise he wouldn't support a known corrupt politician. 

[zzaa09]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

The yellow shirts got rid of democracy in Thailand.  It was not a beautiful day for the country.

Some might suggest that there's never been any real working democracy to be rid of - so any of these points would be moot.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

On 4/13/2022 at 2:28 PM, proton said:

Eviidence of?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thailand-political-violence-leaves-3-children-dead/

 

for those with short memories. 

History will likely repeat itself.

[candide]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I would love to see democratic elected honest and competent people to run the county. I think they should also get a very high salary.

But as long as there are only the option of the criminal Thaksin and his family and the military I prefer the military. Obviously they are far from good but IMHO not half as bad a Thaksin. I didn't see any red-shirts in the streets for years, wonderful! 

That's completely illogic. There were no red shirts in the streets when Thaksin or his party (= the only democratically elected governments since 2000) were governing the country.

 

It would be accurate to say: I did not see any yellow-shirt in the street for years! 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What do you mean by no improvement?

I didn't see any red-shirts on the streets for years and hear little about the criminal fugitive and his family. That is a huge improvement. 

Right...making you happy is all that's important for Thailand.

 

Were the redshirts and Thaksin engaged in human trafficking?  The military was:  https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/rise-and-fall-of-general-manas-thailands-top-trafficker

 

But I suppose since that didn't inconvenience you it was ok.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So the voters could at least try.

When did the majority vote for a not obvious corrupt politician the last time?

And before some people answer with some names: When a new face supports a well known corrupt politician then the new politician is also corrupt - otherwise he wouldn't support a known corrupt politician. 

Keeping your head well buried in the sand, aren't you.

 

When was a military government not corrupt?

 

When democracy is allowed in a country that has had extended periods of military rule resulting in endemic corruption, the first order of business is establishing democracy as the norm instead of as an occasional break from military rule.  Only when elected leaders are confident they can move against corruption without triggering another coup can the voters make eliminating corruption a priority when they vote.  Thailand has never been allowed to reach this state.  But clearly that's ok with you.

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Some might suggest that there's never been any real working democracy to be rid of - so any of these points would be moot.

If that is true, it is because of the military and the people who prefer military rule.  It is not the fault of those protesting for democracy.

[OneMoreFarang]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right...making you happy is all that's important for Thailand.

 

Were the redshirts and Thaksin engaged in human trafficking?  The military was:  https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/rise-and-fall-of-general-manas-thailands-top-trafficker

 

But I suppose since that didn't inconvenience you it was ok.

Thaksin was ultimately responsible of the killing of about 2500 suspects. Please don't pretend he is no criminal. 

[heybruce]

55 minutes ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thailand-political-violence-leaves-3-children-dead/

 

for those with short memories. 

History will likely repeat itself.

For those with selective memories:

 

"More than 80 civilians and six soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military violently put down the protest on 19 May. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Thai_political_protests

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thaksin was ultimately responsible of the killing of about 2500 suspects. Please don't pretend he is no criminal. 

Now you are grasping at straws.

 

The true body count of the military's dealing in human trafficking and any other profitable kind of smuggling, "disappearing" of dissidents, violent crackdowns on people demonstrating for democracy, etc will never be known.  But don't pretend it doesn't commit crimes.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, candide said:

That's completely illogic. There were no red shirts in the streets when Thaksin or his party (= the only democratically elected governments since 2000) were governing the country.

 

It would be accurate to say: I did not see any yellow-shirt in the street for years! 

That's a good point.  The redshirt movement arose because of military coups against Thaksin and democracy.  Had there been no coups there would have been no redshirts.

 

Also, the appeal of the Shinawatras was waning by the end of 2013.  Had the yellowshirts allowed the 2014 election it would have resulted in a democratic government in which the Shinawatra family would have had much less influence.  However it would also have resulted in a democratic government with new electoral legitimacy.  For reasons that can't be discussed here the military wouldn't allow that.

 

But some people don't care about political institutions and the future of Thailand.  So long as their little part of the world is quiet and predictable they don't care what damage is being done to the country.

[candide]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thaksin was ultimately responsible of the killing of about 2500 suspects. Please don't pretend he is no criminal. 

This war on drugs was horrible! It should have been investigated and the culprits severely punished!

 

Wait! Why did the different governments linked to the old elite and the military never finished any investigation, if the obvious culprit was Thaksin? Could it be that other people who could not be investigated were involved?