Yellow Shirts To 'invade' Red Bastions

[Gravelrash]

Bangkok Post

The People's Alliance for Democracy will "invade" political strongholds of its opponents to stamp out the influence of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, its leaders say.

Speaking to a PAD rally in Udon Thani yesterday, PAD key leader Sondhi Limthongkul said rallies would be held next in Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai, probably in May.

The two provinces strongly support Thaksin.

Source: Bangkok Post

[henryalleman]

Its not all yellow shirts fan who went to the meeting. I have a GF (middle class bussiness woman)in Udon who went there last night out of curiousity about what they will say, she always has been a Thaksin fan. But I think many Thai people are realists and know very well that the the Thaksin era is over and out.

Tonight in our daily chat I will now some more.

[Briggsy]

PAD backers (Army, some BKK Chinese very wealthy families, unmentionable, etc.) have ordered Sonthi out to the provinces to ram home the advantage. Last thing they want is so-far-unimpressive Mark to balls it up and lose an election to their mortal enemy, Thaksin.

[jdinasia]

PAD backers (Army, some BKK Chinese very wealthy families, unmentionable, etc.) have ordered Sonthi out to the provinces to ram home the advantage. Last thing they want is so-far-unimpressive Mark to balls it up and lose an election to their mortal enemy, Thaksin.

Please give us some citations for your claims ((any of them))

[Briggsy]

PAD backers (Army, some BKK Chinese very wealthy families, unmentionable, etc.) have ordered Sonthi out to the provinces to ram home the advantage. Last thing they want is so-far-unimpressive Mark to balls it up and lose an election to their mortal enemy, Thaksin.

Please give us some citations for your claims ((any of them))

Are you saying you don't think the Army et al is backing the PAD? Why do you think they refused to do anything when first Government House and later the airport was invaded. I'm not supporting either side. However only a blind person would claim the military was not heavily supporting the PAD.

[jdinasia]

PAD backers (Army, some BKK Chinese very wealthy families, unmentionable, etc.) have ordered Sonthi out to the provinces to ram home the advantage. Last thing they want is so-far-unimpressive Mark to balls it up and lose an election to their mortal enemy, Thaksin.

Please give us some citations for your claims ((any of them))

Are you saying you don't think the Army et al is backing the PAD? Why do you think they refused to do anything when first Government House and later the airport was invaded. I'm not supporting either side. However only a blind person would claim the military was not heavily supporting the PAD.

I think that you are making HUGE claims of things that are obviously not accurate.

Did the "Army" back the PAD? no

Was there apparently some affinity for the PAD in some Army elements? yes

Did they back the PPP government? no

Did that work to the advantage of the PAD? yes

Why? They were smart enough to get an injunction over Gov't house etc .. (plus it's not the Army's job to deal with that .. that's the Police's job ... but if you were not being disingenuous you wouldn't be playing this game.)

As for the 'et al' --- if you can't name them then don't bother mentioning some vague conspiracy theory.

[justanothercybertosser]

Why? They were smart enough to get an injunction over Gov't house etc .. (plus it's not the Army's job to deal with that .. that's the Police's job ... but if you were not being disingenuous you wouldn't be playing this game.)

Not exactly.

When Samak ordered the emergency decree during the clash at Sept. 2nd, the army would have been permitted to "deal with that" situation at Government House. Which it didn't (refused to?).

And, strangely enough, when the Red Shirts marched to Government House recently, the Army did "deal with that" by attempting to block the Red Shirts. Yet there was no emergency decree that would have permitted the Army to do so. Actually, none of the necessary levels of alert were given, and the legality of the Army at the streets confronting protesters that night is more than dubious. But who cares about the small print when one has the power?

Anyhow, there is no direct proof that the Army has supported the PAD, but there is more than enough evidence to safely claim that. Evidence such as Gen. Pathumpong having appeared on the PAD stage in full uniform without any disciplinary actions, before directly joining PAD after his retirement, etc...

[h90]

PAD backers (Army, some BKK Chinese very wealthy families, unmentionable, etc.) have ordered Sonthi out to the provinces to ram home the advantage. Last thing they want is so-far-unimpressive Mark to balls it up and lose an election to their mortal enemy, Thaksin.

Please give us some citations for your claims ((any of them))

Are you saying you don't think the Army et al is backing the PAD? Why do you think they refused to do anything when first Government House and later the airport was invaded. I'm not supporting either side. However only a blind person would claim the military was not heavily supporting the PAD.

You spoke about they ORDERED Sondhi and now instead of answering you change the topic.

Please give us some citations for your claims ((any of them))

[jdinasia]

Why? They were smart enough to get an injunction over Gov't house etc .. (plus it's not the Army's job to deal with that .. that's the Police's job ... but if you were not being disingenuous you wouldn't be playing this game.)

Not exactly.

When Samak ordered the emergency decree during the clash at Sept. 2nd, the army would have been permitted to "deal with that" situation at Government House. Which it didn't (refused to?).

And, strangely enough, when the Red Shirts marched to Government House recently, the Army did "deal with that" by attempting to block the Red Shirts. Yet there was no emergency decree that would have permitted the Army to do so. Actually, none of the necessary levels of alert were given, and the legality of the Army at the streets confronting protesters that night is more than dubious. But who cares about the small print when one has the power?

Anyhow, there is no direct proof that the Army has supported the PAD, but there is more than enough evidence to safely claim that. Evidence such as Gen. Pathumpong having appeared on the PAD stage in full uniform without any disciplinary actions, before directly joining PAD after his retirement, etc...

Wasn't it the Police that attempted to stop the red's in their recent march?

Didn't I state that there was some support of the PAD by some elements of the Army?

The courts had already issued an injunction at Gov't house on Sept 2nd (and yes that was an attempt by Samak to manipulate the military and police and it failed)

You could as easily say that the Army supported the Reds since they had our bomb tossing contingent and the active duty military speaking out about bombing the PAD (but that would be just as poor of an analogy).

Many of you that overtly support Thaksin yet claim not to seem to want to state it is all or nothing with other people. The Army didn't support the doomed PPP government .. that is all you can fairly say about them.

Edited February 16, 2009 by jdinasia

[justanothercybertosser]

Wasn't it the Police that attempted to stop the red's in their recent march?

Didn't I state that there was some support of the PAD by some elements of the Army?

The courts had already issued an injunction at Gov't house on Sept 2nd (and yes that was an attempt by Samak to manipulate the military and police and it failed)

You could as easily say that the Army supported the Reds since they had our bomb tossing contingent and the active duty military speaking out about bombing the PAD (but that would be just as poor of an analogy).

Many of you that overtly support Thaksin yet claim not to seem to want to state it is all or nothing with other people. The Army didn't support the doomed PPP government .. that is all you can fairly say about them.

Police first, and also army tried to stop the recent march. Before you ask, there is proof of that.

The is no proof who that "bomb tossing contingent" was, and the general who made the statements in the press has been reprimanded.

If you are not facetious with that statement, than i can only return your most favorite statement - in case you believe that there was only "some support by some elements of the Army" than you really have not the slightest idea about Thailand.

With only "some support by some elements of the army" the blockage of Government House and the airports would never have been possible.

[justanothercybertosser]

Many of you that overtly support Thaksin yet claim not to seem to want to state it is all or nothing with other people.

I can't figure out what you are trying to say here. Can you please be a bit more clear.

Edited February 16, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[jdinasia]

Wasn't it the Police that attempted to stop the red's in their recent march?

Didn't I state that there was some support of the PAD by some elements of the Army?

The courts had already issued an injunction at Gov't house on Sept 2nd (and yes that was an attempt by Samak to manipulate the military and police and it failed)

You could as easily say that the Army supported the Reds since they had our bomb tossing contingent and the active duty military speaking out about bombing the PAD (but that would be just as poor of an analogy).

Many of you that overtly support Thaksin yet claim not to seem to want to state it is all or nothing with other people. The Army didn't support the doomed PPP government .. that is all you can fairly say about them.

Police first, and also army tried to stop the recent march. Before you ask, there is proof of that.

The is no proof who that "bomb tossing contingent" was, and the general who made the statements in the press has been reprimanded.

If you are not facetious with that statement, than i can only return your most favorite statement - in case you believe that there was only "some support by some elements of the Army" than you really have not the slightest idea about Thailand.

With only "some support by some elements of the army" the blockage of Government House and the airports would never have been possible.

You are again making an either/or statement that is not credible.

That the Army by NOT backing the gov't was in fact backing PAD doesn't follow.

I think they answered that quite well with the 'we are staying neutral' remarks

Sorry but there was an ACTIVE DUTY senior member of the military stating there would be bombs, when there would be bombs etc ... and guess what, there were bombs when he said there would be! He was 'reprimanded', OUCH! Didn't they make him teach aerobics or something? He threatened violence that in fact happened, and after it happened he kept stating it would happen and when. Your sense of how to read things would suggest that "The Army" was backing those bomb attacks and I doubt anyone believes that "The Army" was backing those actions even though some active duty members of the military do seem to have been involved.

Your Army not the Police argument falls flat too regarding the recent red march .. as it was the Police ... (but even if it were the Army, then they let it happen so by your arguments they were backing the reds!)

[justanothercybertosser]

Your Army not the Police argument falls flat too regarding the recent red march .. as it was the Police ... (but even if it were the Army, then they let it happen so by your arguments they were backing the reds!)

You are wrong, again. Here is clear proof:

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/2/1/red...d-strong-signal

[jdinasia]

Your Army not the Police argument falls flat too regarding the recent red march .. as it was the Police .. (but even if it were the Army, then they let it happen so by your arguments they were backing the reds!)

You are wrong, again. Here is clear proof:

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/2/1/red...d-strong-signal

LOL .. quoting Nick NoTalent etc in blogs .....

but there is a reason we don't quote blogs in here much ... Nowhere does it mention who the 'military' or army was ... for all you or I know from that article is that there were some 'army' emblazoned riot shields. Were they on loan to the Police? were there actual troops on loan to the police? But NO Army interference was noted in that entire article ... just a few pics showing riot shields

save us the poor blogs in the future

But your argument still falls flat since the Army didn't route the reds means by your reasoning that they were in colusion.

[justanothercybertosser]

Nowhere does it mention who the 'military' or army was ... for all you or I know from that article is that there were some 'army' emblazoned riot shields. Were they on loan to the Police? were there actual troops on loan to the police? But NO Army interference was noted in that entire article ... just a few pics showing riot shields

Yes, and the earth is flat...

[justanothercybertosser]

and here is further proof:

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/searc...p?picId=8074138

Edited February 16, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[justanothercybertosser]

You are getting a tad bit liberal with your usage of my board handle.

Anyhow - point here is, you have been wrong - army was involved. No need to be cranky. Just admit it.

Secondly, point raised was that the present Government has not called in the emergency decree, yet army was used against protesters, which is legally very dubious.

[jdinasia]

You are getting a tad bit liberal with your usage of my board handle.

Anyhow - point here is, you have been wrong - army was involved. No need to be cranky. Just admit it.

Secondly, point raised was that the present Government has not called in the emergency decree, yet army was used against protesters, which is legally very dubious.

Sorry ...

But you need to scroll up and address the posts.

Again what army was involved? Were they army? If so someone should know what units etc!

but again you quote my posts stating I am wrong (changing the font etc) AND fail to adress the second half of what you quoted.

I have taken your silliness down point by point. So the POLICE were involved and so far as I can tell no others that I can clearly identify as being anything else (yes I saw 'army' printed on riot shields... I also have underwear in my drawer that says 'police'). YET, If there were others involved like the Army, were they on loan to the police? Did they have separate leadership or orders? Did their allowing the reds access mean that they were SUPPORTING the reds?

Now kindly drift back to the topic

[justanothercybertosser]

I have taken your silliness down point by point. So the POLICE were involved and so far as I can tell no others that I can clearly identify as being anything else (yes I saw 'army' printed on riot shields... I also have underwear in my drawer that says 'police'). YET, If there were others involved like the Army, were they on loan to the police? Did they have separate leadership or orders? Did their allowing the reds access mean that they were SUPPORTING the reds?

Now kindly drift back to the topic

You can see from the photos, and the captions, that it was army, and that protesters had to push through the army. That means, push, not allowing access. Reuters says so as well, or are Reuters also now in your 'no-talent' category?

They are army. Get it?

A R M Y.

MILITARY. Not Police. Not your underwear.

Jeezas Christ...

Edited February 16, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[jdinasia]

I have taken your silliness down point by point. So the POLICE were involved and so far as I can tell no others that I can clearly identify as being anything else (yes I saw 'army' printed on riot shields... I also have underwear in my drawer that says 'police'). YET, If there were others involved like the Army, were they on loan to the police? Did they have separate leadership or orders? Did their allowing the reds access mean that they were SUPPORTING the reds?

Now kindly drift back to the topic

You can see from the photos, and the captions, that it was army, and that protesters had to push through the army. That means, push, not allowing access. Reuters says so as well, or are Reuters also now in your 'no-talent' category?

They are army. Get it?

A R M Y.

MILITARY. Not Police. Not your underwear.

Jeezas Christ...

and again not addressing the post .... I looked for any article stating the military was involved and didn't see any. But if they were ... (see above)

Now kindly quit sidetracking and get back to the topic ...

ps (Rueters buys photos .. but there was no real info with that photo) ((army unit? leadership? orders? where? etc))

[justanothercybertosser]

ps (Rueters buys photos .. but there was no real info with that photo) ((army unit? leadership? orders? where? etc))

This is getting infantile.

Have a nice night.

[jdinasia]

Your Army not the Police argument falls flat too regarding the recent red march .. as it was the Police .. (but even if it were the Army, then they let it happen so by your arguments they were backing the reds!)

You are wrong, again. Here is clear proof:

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2009/2/1/red...d-strong-signal

Here's the post of mine (that you modified) and it includes the point you didn't address ..... but thanks for the bad blog link!

Please ... either do the courtesy that is done for you .. answering issues raised like I did all the way through this attempt of you to sidetrack in favor of the reds.

[justanothercybertosser]

Please ... either do the courtesy that is done for you .. answering issues raised like I did all the way through this attempt of you to sidetrack in favor of the reds.

My last post here to you:

As i have already posted, reuters has stated in the caption of the image that the protesters had to push through the army, therefore did not allow the Reds access, and therefore were not supporting the Red Shirts.

Basically - you are wrong. Your logic is faulty.

And that should clarify the issue.

[jdinasia]

Please ... either do the courtesy that is done for you .. answering issues raised like I did all the way through this attempt of you to sidetrack in favor of the reds.

My last post here to you:

As i have already posted, reuters has stated in the caption of the image that the protesters had to push through the army, therefore did not allow the Reds access, and therefore were not supporting the Red Shirts.

Basically - you are wrong. Your logic is faulty.

And that should clarify the issue.

LOL they were allowed to 'push through' that would imply the "army" had orders not to stop them wouldn't it?.. but what "army" was that? Were they in fact the army? If so were they on loan to the police? If not what units and who were the commanders?

but still staying off topic and not addressing the issues, it really is sad

[Journalist]

.. but what "army" was that? Were they in fact the army?

Maybe they were imposters en route to a Village People concert?

[cmsally]

.. but what "army" was that? Were they in fact the army?

Maybe they were imposters en route to a Village People concert?

Maybe we could just tie this thread up to the Gay parade in Chiang Mai, and have done with it.

[hammered]

In between all the usual pettiness we get on these threads, does anyone have any analysis of why the yellows want to invade the red centers? Nothing in politics happens in isolation and nobody does things just to rub noses in it. So what is it really all about?

[blaze]

In between all the usual pettiness we get on these threads, does anyone have any analysis of why the yellows want to invade the red centers? Nothing in politics happens in isolation and nobody does things just to rub noses in it. So what is it really all about?

One of the PAD leaders said that this initiative is to educate the people about "New Politics'. But why wouldn't he be concentrating on more receptive audiences?

First, many of those who supported PAD- at least on the side lines, are quite happy with Old Politics- now that they have a government more to their tastes.

But also- and maybe more cunning- Sonthi is playing an interesting little game here:

By inciting animosity for the mere presence of PAD rallies- ie, New Politics Information Seminars- , he is hoping to demonstrate to the country that those who oppose New Politics are hillbilly Thaksinistas- eventually this becomes a kind of 'meme' (thanks Dawkins by way of Hammered)- and thus when he brings his act (which is fundamentally aimed at overthrowing the present system of government- not just the government) to the more enlightened pockets of the nation (Bangkok)- the polarity will be set: either you support New Politics- or you are a Thaksinista.

Just a thought.

[justanothercybertosser]

In between all the usual pettiness we get on these threads, does anyone have any analysis of why the yellows want to invade the red centers? Nothing in politics happens in isolation and nobody does things just to rub noses in it. So what is it really all about?

Provocation was always one of the main strategies of PAD. PAD moves into the main bastions of Red Shirt support, and tries to provoke their opponents into attacking them. That way they will discredit the Red Shirts, and give the government an excuse to use a very heavy hand against the Red Shirts, both upcountry, and in Bangkok.

Even without PAD being attacked, it will still be a PR victory, showing that PAD is a superior force, and Red Shirts only paper tigers. Of course, as in Udon, the vast majority of attendants were not locals, and the event was only possible because the massive presence of several thousand partly armed Guards. This is a strategy of fear, and has nothing to do with political education, as PAD claims.

The democrat government will of course pay lip service by weakly denouncing such moves by PAD, but will do nothing against PAD members and supporters in their own party, and therefore in reality supporting PAD.

[Ricardo]

Last thing they want is so-far-unimpressive Mark to balls it up and lose an election to their mortal enemy, Thaksin.

I didn't realise that Thaksin was eligible, to stand in an election, within the next few years, after having been banned for 5 years, for reasons we don't need to go into here. Do you have a source for his change-of-status ?

Yes, and the earth is flat...

This is getting infantile.

Well you said it !