Plus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I liked this quotes from Nirmal's blog: ..former National Human Rights Commissioner Jaran Ditta-apichai:''Even if Thaksin (Shinawatra) stops fighting, the red movement will go on. Reds are not fighting for any leader, they fight for an ideology.'' And as we parted he added cryptically : ''The ultimate ideology.'' Later professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn turned up as well, wearing a black T-shirt with a red baseball cap. He had joined the reds, he said. "The royalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) had its mass base in the middle class ''led by ultra-royalists who believe in nation, religion and king. ...the lese majeste issue converged with the issue of democracy". Reds are pulling all the resources here - pro-Thaksin, pro-Democracy, anti-establishment, all spare hands with nothing to unite them. You can't support democracy and Thaksin at the same time, and anti-roylists can't openly rally the rest under their own banner either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I liked this quotes from Nirmal's blog:..former National Human Rights Commissioner Jaran Ditta-apichai:''Even if Thaksin (Shinawatra) stops fighting, the red movement will go on. Reds are not fighting for any leader, they fight for an ideology.'' And as we parted he added cryptically : ''The ultimate ideology.'' Later professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn turned up as well, wearing a black T-shirt with a red baseball cap. He had joined the reds, he said. "The royalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) had its mass base in the middle class ''led by ultra-royalists who believe in nation, religion and king. ...the lese majeste issue converged with the issue of democracy". Reds are pulling all the resources here - pro-Thaksin, pro-Democracy, anti-establishment, all spare hands with nothing to unite them. You can't support democracy and Thaksin at the same time, and anti-roylists can't openly rally the rest under their own banner either. Wonder what he means by that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Not really. Ultimately he means power to himself, as in "I don't want to listen to anyone, bow to no authority". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) What's missing from the blog can be observed at what images other journalists captured...namely that of wielding flag poles as weapons... Supporters of former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra walk past the Democracy Monument during a protest march to the Government House in Bangkok January 31, 2009. About 5,000 Thai police took up positions around Government House in Bangkok on Saturday ahead of a rally by anti-government protesters trying to force Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva from power. REUTERS Protesters give chase to soldiers while charging towards the Government House in Bangkok in the early hours of February 1, 2009. Thousands of protesters marched on Thailand's seat of government on Saturday and early Sunday, delivering an ultimatum to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to call elections within 15 days or face bigger street demonstrations. Thai media said 30,000 supporters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) were at Government House. REUTERS =============================== the ever-present Red Shirt well-thought-out thinking..... Edited February 2, 2009 by sriracha john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Journalist Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ^ I see someone wielding a flagpole, but I don't see anyone using it as a weapon, or striking an armed soldier with one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I liked this quotes from Nirmal's blog:..former National Human Rights Commissioner Jaran Ditta-apichai:''Even if Thaksin (Shinawatra) stops fighting, the red movement will go on. Reds are not fighting for any leader, they fight for an ideology.'' And as we parted he added cryptically : ''The ultimate ideology.'' Later professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn turned up as well, wearing a black T-shirt with a red baseball cap. He had joined the reds, he said. "The royalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) had its mass base in the middle class ''led by ultra-royalists who believe in nation, religion and king. ...the lese majeste issue converged with the issue of democracy". Reds are pulling all the resources here - pro-Thaksin, pro-Democracy, anti-establishment, all spare hands with nothing to unite them. You can't support democracy and Thaksin at the same time, and anti-roylists can't openly rally the rest under their own banner either. Wonder what he means by that? Communism??? (my thought because they use red color + the known speeches about the royal family) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why not get out into the country and see for yourself. Someone is footing the bill in Buri Ram, where Newin is either loved or hated depending on which district you're in. As I posted before, 500 baht for a banner waver in the front, 200 for a foot clapper waver in the back. Someone arranged for Khorat registered pickup trucks to take them to Bangkok, so as to avoid the checkpoints. As I also posted, some of those who went had recently come back from the PAD protests, changing sides for money. Next time I'd hide in the bushes with my video camera and film it for you, but I don't think I'd last too long if the red thugs caught me. Anecdotal evidence is no proof. And thanks, i often get out "into the country". I have enough similar anecdotal evidence that individual groups of people on both sides do get paid by local networks. I have not seen yet any proof that this is happening on a scale large enough that this would warrant any of the allegations you and your friends come up as an answer to discredit the people who chose a side you did not. Neither does getting paid proof anything beyond that people get money. It does not prove that these people have no convictions of their own, for whatever side they are rooting. Bring irrefutable evidence from independent sources (that does not mean ASTV) that such is happening on a large scale. People on both sides, paid or not, are convinced of their cause. That is a fact, supported by evidence such as interviews, articles and studies more numerous than we can list here. People on Yellow are an undemocratic bunch of terrorists, and foreigners who support them are a sad joke because they ignore the blatant racism of Yellow. That is my opinion. See the difference? If you took your head out of the sand it might help you to breathe easier and then you wouldn't get so riled. Your response is typical of many of the Thaksin loving, red shirt sucking brigade. Someone points out a fact that he saw for himself, not heresay, not information from a friend of a friend, but as an eye witness, and you refuse to believe it happened and start making personal attacks on supporters of the current government, going on about terrorists, racists and sad jokes. Just because you don't think it could happen doesn't mean that it hasn't. I've no doubt that the leaders on both sides are convinced of their cause, and many of the protestors are also sincere, but many more are along for the ride, and the money. Reading is a science that not many master, or it seems so. Go and try to slowly read my post again, and try to answer on what i posted, and not what you imagine that i have posted. Other than people's opinion i still haven't seen any proof that Red Shirts get paid on a scale large enough that would support the assumption that a majority of them have been hired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chowder Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 see what i mean..half-azz protest, monday morning and poof! they are gone, what a waste of time..i don't know why they even protest for, well atleast the red shirt people can make a few buck over the weekend, and have a free bus ride to Bangkok. asking for stupid demand they will get stupid reply, the three stoogest actually 5 stoogest is a laughing stock. people sometime do idiot thing to get pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) ^ I see someone wielding a flagpole, but I don't see anyone using it as a weapon, or striking an armed soldier with one. You're probably right. It's most likely not even a flagpole, but a pool cue and the helpful soldier is just rushing off to go and get some chalk for him after a miscue. Edited February 2, 2009 by sriracha john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ^ I see someone wielding a flagpole, but I don't see anyone using it as a weapon, or striking an armed soldier with one. Questions that should be asked are, why soldiers have been stationed outside Government House, even though it was announced that they were only supposed be responsible for security inside. I haven't seen the emergency decree declared either, why is the military anyhow involved in security against protesters? And, why were soldiers only used to protect PAD at their protest site, and not to hinder yellow protesters from marching and taking over Government House and the airports, as they were used unsuccessfully to stop Red Shirts from a march that was within the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve2UK Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ^ I see someone wielding a flagpole, but I don't see anyone using it as a weapon, or striking an armed soldier with one. Certainly looks aggressive - but not as clear-cut as when their PAD equivalents stabbed police officers in the chest. Does it really need saying yet again that there are, at least, "hot-heads" in most of these demonstrations from whichever group? Still, while SJ is in propaganda mode (when isn't he here?) - I guess we should also see the sheer terror of the police during the evening.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) ^ I see someone wielding a flagpole, but I don't see anyone using it as a weapon, or striking an armed soldier with one. Questions that should be asked are, why soldiers have been stationed outside Government House, even though it was announced that they were only supposed be responsible for security inside. I haven't seen the emergency decree declared either, why is the military anyhow involved in security against protesters? And, why were soldiers only used to protect PAD at their protest site, and not to hinder yellow protesters from marching and taking over Government House and the airports, as they were used unsuccessfully to stop Red Shirts from a march that was within the law? What with the UDD promising crowds of 100,000... it is no wonder that the Army might be added to supplement the police presence. They can't be blamed for believing UDD's overly bloated pre-rally claims. Their presence could be considered prudent, especially with the Red Shirt's historical proclivity for violence (which they repeated even that night with their fence-ramming truck). Edited February 2, 2009 by sriracha john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) What with the UDD promising crowds of 100,000... it is no wonder that the Army might be added to supplement the police presence. They can't be blamed for believing UDD's overly bloated pre-rally claims. Their presence could be considered prudent, especially with the Red Shirt's historical proclivity for violence (which they repeated even that night with their fence-ramming truck). PAD claimed much higher numbers. PAD did ram a pick up truck not just into a fence but into police officers. etc. Anyhow, i wonder about the legal issues of stationing the army at the protest site, and did not ask for opinions. Edited February 2, 2009 by justanothercybertosser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 ^ I see someone wielding a flagpole, but I don't see anyone using it as a weapon, or striking an armed soldier with one. Certainly looks aggressive - but not as clear-cut as when their PAD equivalents stabbed police officers in the chest. Does it really need saying yet again that there are, at least, "hot-heads" in most of these demonstrations from whichever group? Still, while SJ is in propaganda mode (when isn't he here?) - I guess we should also see the sheer terror of the police during the evening.......... Just to compensate for Steve2UK's ever-present apologist mode... I guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken... AFP Reuters Reuters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 did not ask for opinions. perhaps you're in the wrong setting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 On the impact of red rallies, from notthenation: 40 Red Shirts Seize Bus Stop BANGKOK -- Bus services were delayed by about two minutes Wednesday as approximately 40 members of the anti-government UDD took over a covered bus bench at the corner of Sukhumvit and soi 43, demanding the resignation of the Democrat-led coalition... http://notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=715 These guys know how to sum it up in a funny way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Just as every demo of any size is going to be boosted by some paid to play dudes, all demos also attract some complete nutters with no interest in anything beyond the action. All demos also see at least some normally placid people act completley out of character and all demos also include an element of the dedicated who see violence and destruction as legitimate. It doesnt matter which side or who is demonstrating it just happens this way. What actually happened the other night? Who knows! Even if you are there you are limited to what you can see and where you are. However, the important thing is the meme created. Right now organisers, police, government all agree on creating a meme of a peaceful prtest by 20-30K protestors. Therefore that is what most will believe happened. Pictures can be used selectively and framed selectively to present a point of view too as can stories. For the dedicated it will be what they "beleive". For the rest it willbe what the created and dominant meme says. imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve2UK Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Just to compensate for Steve2UK's ever-present apologist mode... I guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken... "apologist" for what exactly? I don't have any horse in this race. I don't "guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken" - I know it. Just as I know selecting which photo's to show also colours the view - precisely the point I was making. Duh.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 What with the UDD promising crowds of 100,000... it is no wonder that the Army might be added to supplement the police presence. They can't be blamed for believing UDD's overly bloated pre-rally claims. Their presence could be considered prudent, especially with the Red Shirt's historical proclivity for violence (which they repeated even that night with their fence-ramming truck). PAD claimed much higher numbers. PAD did ram a pick up truck not just into a fence but into police officers. etc. Anyhow, i wonder about the legal issues of stationing the army at the protest site, and did not ask for opinions. When did the PAD ram a pick up truck into anyone?????? The only thing I know is that, after the police crackdown with 2 dead and 500 injured peaceful protesters one guy tried to run away and hit some policemen. No signs that the PAD planed that, not even signs that this guy was from the PAD. After this (I still don't see any people in the jail for it) the Army promised that such things won't happen again. Since than there was Army together with the police at the demonstrations (PAD demonstrations). Same as here Army didn't do much beside being on standby. So what is wrong with the Army there waiting, just in case their help is necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 When did the PAD ram a pick up truck into anyone??????The only thing I know is that, after the police crackdown with 2 dead and 500 injured peaceful protesters one guy tried to run away and hit some policemen. No signs that the PAD planed that, not even signs that this guy was from the PAD. After this (I still don't see any people in the jail for it) the Army promised that such things won't happen again. Since than there was Army together with the police at the demonstrations (PAD demonstrations). Same as here Army didn't do much beside being on standby. So what is wrong with the Army there waiting, just in case their help is necessary? Good spin. Unfortunately for you though it was caught on camera that the truck was aimed at police officers, ran over some, stopped, and while reversing, drove over the same officers again. You are not alone in wondering why nobody is in jail for this. During the PAD rallies army was on standby, and did not do much, correct. The army actually did absolutely nothing when PAD took over the airports. But as you can see from these photos, army was against the red shirts not just on standby, but actively involved in blocking protesters. But of course, the army is neutral... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h90 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 When did the PAD ram a pick up truck into anyone??????The only thing I know is that, after the police crackdown with 2 dead and 500 injured peaceful protesters one guy tried to run away and hit some policemen. No signs that the PAD planed that, not even signs that this guy was from the PAD. After this (I still don't see any people in the jail for it) the Army promised that such things won't happen again. Since than there was Army together with the police at the demonstrations (PAD demonstrations). Same as here Army didn't do much beside being on standby. So what is wrong with the Army there waiting, just in case their help is necessary? Good spin. Unfortunately for you though it was caught on camera that the truck was aimed at police officers, ran over some, stopped, and while reversing, drove over the same officers again. You are not alone in wondering why nobody is in jail for this. During the PAD rallies army was on standby, and did not do much, correct. The army actually did absolutely nothing when PAD took over the airports. But as you can see from these photos, army was against the red shirts not just on standby, but actively involved in blocking protesters. But of course, the army is neutral... Yes I know the video and I know when it happened. Please show me where you can see that it is a planed attack from the PAD! I only see a man on the run from a terrible violent situation. Please point me to the picture where I can see the army against the red shirts! Yes the army did absolutely nothing when PAD took over the airports. But as well I didn't see them doing anything with the Red one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmugFarangBore Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 On the impact of red rallies, from notthenation:40 Red Shirts Seize Bus Stop BANGKOK -- Bus services were delayed by about two minutes Wednesday as approximately 40 members of the anti-government UDD took over a covered bus bench at the corner of Sukhumvit and soi 43, demanding the resignation of the Democrat-led coalition... http://notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=715 These guys know how to sum it up in a funny way. It's satire, it doesn't "sum anything up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmugFarangBore Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) The army actually did absolutely nothing when PAD took over the airports. Not strictly true. They repeatedly called for the Government to resign while claiming they were not interfering in politics. They also implicitly lent support to the illegal blockades of the airports by refusing to obey orders and by doing so undermined confidence in the elected administration. Edited February 2, 2009 by SmugFarangBore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yes I know the video and I know when it happened. Please show me where you can see that it is a planed attack from the PAD! I only see a man on the run from a terrible violent situation.Please point me to the picture where I can see the army against the red shirts! Yes the army did absolutely nothing when PAD took over the airports. But as well I didn't see them doing anything with the Red one. I doubt that the the leadership of the PAD has particularly ordered this attack, nevertheless, it was a truck aimed and driven into police officers, by purpose. You really appear to have certain problems in what you can see. Your cyberbuddy has posted several pictures that show soldiers in a scuffle with Red Shirts. One of these images is even on this page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The army actually did absolutely nothing when PAD took over the airports. Not strictly true. They repeatedly called for the Government to resign while claiming they were not interfering in politics. They also implicitly lent support to the illegal blockades of the airports by refusing to obey orders and by doing so undermined confidence in the elected administration. You won't make friends here by being reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 It's satire, it doesn't "sum anything up". It does, look at the reaction in today's papers - no interest, "old issues" headline in the Nation, NCCC and EC investigating complains about Witoon and that other guy from Chart Thai, results due this week reagrdless of the red rally, and Kasit is not going anywhere anytime soon. Reds asked to revert consitution to back 1997 eidtion in two weeks - legally impossible, they are just bluffing. Even if they persuade Abhisit to replace the Foreign Minister - what is it going to achieve? Nothing. They'll just run out of reasons to protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Just to compensate for Steve2UK's ever-present apologist mode... I guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken... "apologist" for what exactly? I don't have any horse in this race. I don't "guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken" - I know it. Just as I know selecting which photo's to show also colours the view - precisely the point I was making. Duh.......... Then it's good we both agree that at least for any number of the attendees, violence was the name of the game that night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) It's satire, it doesn't "sum anything up". It does, look at the reaction in today's papers - no interest, "old issues" headline in the Nation, NCCC and EC investigating complains about Witoon and that other guy from Chart Thai, results due this week reagrdless of the red rally, and Kasit is not going anywhere anytime soon. Reds asked to revert consitution to back 1997 eidtion in two weeks - legally impossible, they are just bluffing. Even if they persuade Abhisit to replace the Foreign Minister - what is it going to achieve? Nothing. They'll just run out of reasons to protests. As an aside, please do not forget yesterday's news about EC and Suthep, that Deputy Prime Minister guy from the Democrats: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1082...-against-suthep EC preparing charges against Suthep The Election Commission (EC) is preparing to file charges against Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban over his alleged distribution of student scholarships during an election of the chief of Provincial Administration Organisation (PAO) in Surat Thani. Edited February 2, 2009 by justanothercybertosser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justanothercybertosser Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Just to compensate for Steve2UK's ever-present apologist mode... I guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken... "apologist" for what exactly? I don't have any horse in this race. I don't "guess a lot just depends on when and where the photos are taken" - I know it. Just as I know selecting which photo's to show also colours the view - precisely the point I was making. Duh.......... Then it's good we both agree that at least for any number of the attendees, violence was the name of the game that night. I do hope you include there Government and Army as well under the "any number of attendees" as they were blocking a legal protest that had not the aim of illegally entering government offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 EC preparing charges against Suthep Flies in the face of red arguments, doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts