Ready To Tear The Country Apart

[Siripon]

wow excuse this novice, I have just learned to read and write so forgive me for not knowing the clipping forum is written in some mystical English that only long term posters can understand.

Now correct me if I am wrong SJ, since you have not pointed me to exact figures regarding who has been more violent, you have merely pointed me towards more of the same guesswork, like steve says there is no exact league table and it would be impossible to do one, can you know admit that your statement that the reds have been more violent than the yellows is pure guess work, and is an opinion and not a fact?

h90 if this is so tedious and has been gone over many times already why did you comment on it? Is it just that you do not want to say its pure guess work and speculation on your part, it's ok to say it, anyone reading your avoidance of a simple question can see it.

It is simply an opinion formed by PAD supporters with no evidence to turn it into a fact, we have already seen how an opinion can be formed based on what violence is construed as, lets just leave it as your opinion then

Defining violence as a physical attack on an individual I can think of the red shirt attacks in an Udon park on the PAD, very nasty beatings with sticks, etc; the murder in Chiang Mai of the father of the local PAD chapter, the attack on the PAD at Makkawan bridge with knives and staves. The attack on a middle aged woman from Udon a few days ago near Government House, the attack yesterday on the local government official from Phangna at the same location.

The Udon and Chiang Mai attacks in particular were horrific.

[redscouse]

wow excuse this novice, I have just learned to read and write so forgive me for not knowing the clipping forum is written in some mystical English that only long term posters can understand.

Now correct me if I am wrong SJ, since you have not pointed me to exact figures regarding who has been more violent, you have merely pointed me towards more of the same guesswork, like steve says there is no exact league table and it would be impossible to do one, can you know admit that your statement that the reds have been more violent than the yellows is pure guess work, and is an opinion and not a fact?

h90 if this is so tedious and has been gone over many times already why did you comment on it? Is it just that you do not want to say its pure guess work and speculation on your part, it's ok to say it, anyone reading your avoidance of a simple question can see it.

It is simply an opinion formed by PAD supporters with no evidence to turn it into a fact, we have already seen how an opinion can be formed based on what violence is construed as, lets just leave it as your opinion then

Defining violence as a physical attack on an individual I can think of the red shirt attacks in an Udon park on the PAD, very nasty beatings with sticks, etc; the murder in Chiang Mai of the father of the local PAD chapter, the attack on the PAD at Makkawan bridge with knives and staves. The attack on a middle aged woman from Udon a few days ago near Government House, the attack yesterday on the local government official from Phangna at the same location.

The Udon and Chiang Mai attacks in particular were horrific.

all attacks are horrific for the victim,but let me remind you of the PAD murder near government house, the beating captured on camera where the put tarpaulin round, the shooting on viphavadi road, the policeman stabbed at parliament, the policeman run over, the PAD supporter beaten at swampy, I could go on but you would still deny it and say they never happened

[sriracha john]

I asked a straightforward and IMO relevant question. As others have said (including myself), there appear to be thugs-a-plenty on both/all sides - and I certainly agree that it's pointless to try to establish some kind of macabre tit-for-tat league table of who are the thuggiest........ just as it's mind-numbingly banal to say that one side is still doing it now when the other side aren't even on the streets/holding rallies to have even the occasion to be doing it now. As he seems to enjoy sporting analogies so much - I'd say that's rather like comparing the number of fouls being committed by two teams in a given period........ a period when one of the teams is not playing any matches. Still........ no surprise there.

Somebody please correct me if I mis-state this, but it seems to me that (so far) the response to my request for some credible demonstration of the so-often claimed UDD/DAAD responsibility for these bomb/grenade incidents (shameful and to be condemned as they are - whoever perpetrated them) is that someone predicted it/they would (could?) happen - and then it/they did. Another member who normally has no problem whatever in whistling up multiple posts, articles, quotes, re-quotes of quotes to score make a point with the usual repetitive sledgehammer blows is....... silent. With what should be a wealth of all-too-familiar electronic scrapbook material from which to draw, we get (seemingly in response to another member's query)........ "review this" ("this" being the entire News Clipping sub-forum).

Well, I know that there are many (hundreds, I would guess) of claims from posters in News Clippings that the "Reds did it" - but I can't recall a single bit of anything that would go to demonstrate let alone reasonably verify the truth of those many oft-repeated claims. I wasn't even asking whether anyone had been arrested/charged/convicted for these crimes - I would expect to remember reports of that. Not even any "police investigated/questioned xyz but did not proceed to charges owing to lack of evidence"? That wouldn't be (let alone prove) anything much, but at least it would be something to go on.

So, thus far, it seems to boil down to wannabe conjecture. As always, a bunch of people wanting something to be true and loudly/repeatedly asserting that it is true......... doesn't make it true.

Perhaps if you ask your questions directly to a specific person that you had questions about instead of tossing them out into the general discussion, you'll get a better response.

You'll probably also get better results if you specifically name people you speak of instead of the thinly-veiled unnamed flaming you seem to favor these days.

btw, I didn't make the claim you had questions about and thus didn't respond to it earlier...

lastly, if you are unaware that the Yellows continue to have big gatherings or rallies, you're not keeping abreast of the news.

Edited April 2, 2009 by sriracha john

[seri thai]

House Speaker Chai Chidchob on Thursday hinted that political chaos will possibly be solved after Songkran Festival as "a person with a lot of clout" will act as a mediator between conflicting parties.

He did not reveal the name but said all parties would find the person acceptable.

Chai was speaking after allowing parliament officials to wish him a Happy Birthday. Chai is 81.

"a person with a lot of clout?"

"all parties would find the person acceptable?"

Must be Newin then

No relation, shurely?

Dont you just love these unnamed exalted person code words

"Supreme Being"

"Mysterious third/dark hand"

"Higher Authority"

"The Black Fingernail"

"He who cannot be named" (Thats a Harry Potter literary reference, Ed)

I see it all now, Vote Orange, Vote for the Kingfish, Vote Newin

Come back <deleted> Manchu, all is forgiven!

[Plus]

PAD murder near the govt house - ill fated midnight attack by red shirts. They thought PAD would just run away like in Udon, but this time PAD had armed guards, and plenty of them. One of the attackers lost his life.

I can stress it again - it was an attack by armed red shirts in the middle of the nigth that went wrong.

Beating captured on camera - the man was caught with an air-rifle hidden in his bag, he was making a "shortcut" through the heavily protected camp and refused to show what he was carrying. The guard beat him up. However unfortunate - they didn't go out and snatch him off the street like Chiang Mai reds did on several occasions.

Shooting on Vibhavadi - it was an ambush on PAD convoy, the attackers got more than they expected - the guards were shooting back! Overreaction, true, but still, a reaction to an attack.

Policeman stubbed at parliament - have no idea.

Policeman run over - it was an all out war with people dying, explosions, severed limbs, blood everywhere. What happened? Police tried to disperce PAD rally, PAD fought back, one member got hold of a truck and used it as a weapon.

PAD supporter beaten as Swampy - pad supporter. huh? Internal squabbles?

>>>>

With all these examples, I don't see a case for PAD, as a movement, instigating violence, but rather reacting to it.

When they were not attacked, from late 2005 until middle of 2008, there was no violence whatsoever. Doesn't it say something?

I wouldn't call occupying govt house or even the airport as violence. Civil disobedience, but not violence. They didn't break their way in, like they did with NBT, and that was unacceptable, but Redscouse somehow didn't mention it. Even some PAD leaders didn't know it was happening, btw, anc certainly not the mass of protesters.

Somebody please correct me if I mis-state this, but it seems to me that (so far) the response to my request for some credible demonstration of the so-often claimed UDD/DAAD responsibility for these bomb/grenade incidents (shameful and to be condemned as they are - whoever perpetrated them) is that someone predicted it/they would (could?) happen - and then it/they did.

Yes, except it's not someone, you can flip a few forum pages back, there's plenty of info on Sae Daeng. If you've seen a photogallery posted a couple of days ago, Sae Daeng's larger than life posters are right there at the current red rally.

What you seem to completly miss, however, is that reds are not condemning the bombings, far from it, they are glorifying them as a genuine method of achieving their goals. That attitude should clearly demonstrate the difference between reds and yellows when it comes to violence.

>>>

Brilliant piece by Connors, btw.

[Plus]

Check out the invisible hand.

Pity there's not big size version yet.

[Steve2UK]

Somebody please correct me if I mis-state this, but it seems to me that (so far) the response to my request for some credible demonstration of the so-often claimed UDD/DAAD responsibility for these bomb/grenade incidents (shameful and to be condemned as they are - whoever perpetrated them) is that someone predicted it/they would (could?) happen - and then it/they did.

Yes, except it's not someone, you can flip a few forum pages back, there's plenty of info on Sae Daeng. If you've seen a photogallery posted a couple of days ago, Sae Daeng's larger than life posters are right there at the current red rally.

What you seem to completly miss, however, is that reds are not condemning the bombings, far from it, they are glorifying them as a genuine method of achieving their goals. That attitude should clearly demonstrate the difference between reds and yellows when it comes to violence.

So - still nothing to demonstrate the truth of the repeated claims....... apart from someone who looks a likely suspect? Perhaps he was interviewed by the police? Yes? No

[Edit - the Connors piece is excellent]

Edited April 2, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Plus]

What claims? That Sae said bombs would go off?

[redscouse]

PAD murder near the govt house - ill fated midnight attack by red shirts. They thought PAD would just run away like in Udon, but this time PAD had armed guards, and plenty of them. One of the attackers lost his life.

I can stress it again - it was an attack by armed red shirts in the middle of the nigth that went wrong.

Were you there and did you witness this act? The fact is a man was murdered by PAD who were civilians and had no right to be armed, two wrongs don't make a right.

Beating captured on camera - the man was caught with an air-rifle hidden in his bag, he was making a "shortcut" through the heavily protected camp and refused to show what he was carrying. The guard beat him up. However unfortunate - they didn't go out and snatch him off the street like Chiang Mai reds did on several occasions.

The guy was walking on a public road through an illegal gathering, the person who stopped him had no legal right to do so and had no legal right to search the man, he was beaten for no reason, they found the air rifle so why dispense with caveman justice, the guy should have been handed to the proper authority. provide proof of red shirts snatching people off the street please

Shooting on Vibhavadi - it was an ambush on PAD convoy, the attackers got more than they expected - the guards were shooting back! Overreaction, true, but still, a reaction to an attack.

it was an ambush after the PAD had attacked the taxi driver radio station, also to shoot back you need to have been shot at first, the only shots fired were by PAD thugs, also the bike taxi was assaulted and had a knife held to his throat. so by your reasoning it is ok to seek revenge for an ambush so the red shirts were justified after the taxi radio station was attacked.

[redscouse]

cont.

Policeman stubbed at parliament - have no idea.

maybe you shouldnt be speaking without full knowledge of the facts

Policeman run over - it was an all out war with people dying, explosions, severed limbs, blood everywhere. What happened? Police tried to disperce PAD rally, PAD fought back, one member got hold of a truck and used it as a weapon.

It was a night time attack, driven at police walking along the road, there was no fighting at this time, again maybe you need some facts before talking

PAD supporter beaten as Swampy - pad supporter. huh? Internal squabbles?

no, not internal squabbles, the guy wanted to leave and was beaten and forced to stay

>>>>

[redscouse]

cont.

With all these examples, I don't see a case for PAD, as a movement, instigating violence, but rather reacting to it.

yeah right, thats why they had so many weapons, thats why the hired thugs as guards, thats why the tresspassed on government property, thats why so many police were injured

When they were not attacked, from late 2005 until middle of 2008, there was no violence whatsoever. Doesn't it say something?

it says they had not hired their thugs and had not escalated their campaign of violence.

I wouldn't call occupying govt house or even the airport as violence. Civil disobedience, but not violence. They didn't break their way in, like they did with NBT, and that was unacceptable, but Redscouse somehow didn't mention it. Even some PAD leaders didn't know it was happening, btw, anc certainly not the mass of protesters.

They did break in to the compound and into the buildings hence the damage and theft of property inside the buildings, gld you agree the tresspass on the tv station was not acceptable, sorry for not mentioning it although I fail to see how that weakens my argument, it only strenghtens it.

Also since its ok to do things if the leaders don't know then I suppose that must go for the reds also

sorry its 3 posts, only a few quote boxes are allowed

[h90]

cont.

With all these examples, I don't see a case for PAD, as a movement, instigating violence, but rather reacting to it.

yeah right, thats why they had so many weapons, thats why the hired thugs as guards, thats why the tresspassed on government property, thats why so many police were injured

When they were not attacked, from late 2005 until middle of 2008, there was no violence whatsoever. Doesn't it say something?

it says they had not hired their thugs and had not escalated their campaign of violence.

I wouldn't call occupying govt house or even the airport as violence. Civil disobedience, but not violence. They didn't break their way in, like they did with NBT, and that was unacceptable, but Redscouse somehow didn't mention it. Even some PAD leaders didn't know it was happening, btw, anc certainly not the mass of protesters.

They did break in to the compound and into the buildings hence the damage and theft of property inside the buildings, gld you agree the tresspass on the tv station was not acceptable, sorry for not mentioning it although I fail to see how that weakens my argument, it only strenghtens it.

Also since its ok to do things if the leaders don't know then I suppose that must go for the reds also

sorry its 3 posts, only a few quote boxes are allowed

you are in the wrong time......everything 1000 times discusses

[jayboy]

You'll probably also get better results if you specifically name people you speak of instead of the thinly-veiled unnamed flaming you seem to favor these days.

btw, I didn't make the claim you had questions about and thus didn't respond to it earlier...

lastly, if you are unaware that the Yellows continue to have big gatherings or rallies, you're not keeping abreast of the news.

This is a ridiculous charge.Steve2UK - with whom I have never had any contact -is one of the best mannered and non-flaming types on the forum.Your own record...well it speaks for itself.I suggest you avoid personal attacks and if you really feel you have something useful to say stick to the subject at hand.

[h90]

House Speaker Chai Chidchob on Thursday hinted that political chaos will possibly be solved after Songkran Festival as "a person with a lot of clout" will act as a mediator between conflicting parties.

He did not reveal the name but said all parties would find the person acceptable.

Chai was speaking after allowing parliament officials to wish him a Happy Birthday. Chai is 81.

"a person with a lot of clout?"

"all parties would find the person acceptable?"

Must be Newin then

No relation, shurely?

Dont you just love these unnamed exalted person code words

"Supreme Being"

"Mysterious third/dark hand"

"Higher Authority"

"The Black Fingernail"

"He who cannot be named" (Thats a Harry Potter literary reference, Ed)

I see it all now, Vote Orange, Vote for the Kingfish, Vote Newin

Come back <deleted> Manchu, all is forgiven!

:D Yes most probably Papa Chai got a new good idea....Yes most probably....

OR or the fat smiling cat Chavalit. I didn't hear something from him for weeks, there must be something coming.

[redscouse]

well h90 it appears it is still relevant when people are making statements that the reds are more violent than the yellows, i know it goes against your beliefs and belittles your argument somewhat that the yellows are all angels that committed no offences whatsoever, but I am not posting to please you. if you feel I am incorrect in my thoughts (bare in mind I am responding to one of your yellow buddies, not just dragging things up for the sake of it) then feel free to enter into a reasoned debate with me, however I won't hold my breath if your responses to reasonable questions up to know are anything to go by. If you have nothing sensible to add to the debate then don't add anything, it's not rocket science mate

[Steve2UK]

What claims? That Sae said bombs would go off?

No, Plus............... The claims specified in my post(s) one of which you have yourself already quoted - i.e. "the so-often claimed UDD/DAAD responsibility for these bomb/grenade incidents".

[kenai]

I dont have any doubt that each group has used violence in the past there can be no denying it on either side.

Considering what is at stake for each side, and considering that the government has changed so many times and has been so frail its not real surprising.

Anyone who thinks proving one side is more violent than the other is going to prove which side is in the right is mistaken - IMO. There are some things people find worth fighting for. Thailand does not have a democratic government, has not had one, and has moved backwards from that direction. History can tell us that good people can do ugly things in the situation present.

Its ignorance to think Red good yellow bad or vice versa. These are honest hard working citizens that feel a need to protest and gather in order to make change. First its the yellow now the red. It comes down to a government not being led by the people and for the people - and claiming it is, its been this way for...

What is a possible best case and realistic solution to resolving this conflict? I dont see a clear good or bad side in all of this, I can only hope for the best. Im concerned about further violence and hope positive change can be made without it.

[redscouse]

good post kenai

[DaleBlue]

It comes down to a government not being led by the people and for the people - and claiming it is, its been this way for...

Will a fresh constitution and election solve this re-occuring problem?

[Plus]

RedScouse, you are unbelievable.

The night time attack on PAD was widely reported, several hundred men, visibly drunk, armed with knives and machetes. PAD mobilised their guards and met them in force. One was beated to death.

What were they supposed to do? Roll over and play dead? PAD hired guards precisely to thwart this kind of attacks. Or do you mean they should have left their members unprotected?

One thing you seem to understand though - they were forced to hire the armed guards after a spell of violent attacks by various reds. It was necessary self defence, it was their leaders responsibility.

[sriracha john]

You'll probably also get better results if you specifically name people you speak of instead of the thinly-veiled unnamed flaming you seem to favor these days.

btw, I didn't make the claim you had questions about and thus didn't respond to it earlier...

lastly, if you are unaware that the Yellows continue to have big gatherings or rallies, you're not keeping abreast of the news.

*post edited.

Nevermind... you're not worth it.

Edited April 2, 2009 by sriracha john

[Steve2UK]

I asked a straightforward and IMO relevant question. As others have said (including myself), there appear to be thugs-a-plenty on both/all sides - and I certainly agree that it's pointless to try to establish some kind of macabre tit-for-tat league table of who are the thuggiest........ just as it's mind-numbingly banal to say that one side is still doing it now when the other side aren't even on the streets/holding rallies to have even the occasion to be doing it now. As he seems to enjoy sporting analogies so much - I'd say that's rather like comparing the number of fouls being committed by two teams in a given period........ a period when one of the teams is not playing any matches. Still........ no surprise there.

Somebody please correct me if I mis-state this, but it seems to me that (so far) the response to my request for some credible demonstration of the so-often claimed UDD/DAAD responsibility for these bomb/grenade incidents (shameful and to be condemned as they are - whoever perpetrated them) is that someone predicted it/they would (could?) happen - and then it/they did. Another member who normally has no problem whatever in whistling up multiple posts, articles, quotes, re-quotes of quotes to score make a point with the usual repetitive sledgehammer blows is....... silent. With what should be a wealth of all-too-familiar electronic scrapbook material from which to draw, we get (seemingly in response to another member's query)........ "review this" ("this" being the entire News Clipping sub-forum).

Well, I know that there are many (hundreds, I would guess) of claims from posters in News Clippings that the "Reds did it" - but I can't recall a single bit of anything that would go to demonstrate let alone reasonably verify the truth of those many oft-repeated claims. I wasn't even asking whether anyone had been arrested/charged/convicted for these crimes - I would expect to remember reports of that. Not even any "police investigated/questioned xyz but did not proceed to charges owing to lack of evidence"? That wouldn't be (let alone prove) anything much, but at least it would be something to go on.

So, thus far, it seems to boil down to wannabe conjecture. As always, a bunch of people wanting something to be true and loudly/repeatedly asserting that it is true......... doesn't make it true.

Perhaps if you ask your questions directly to a specific person that you had questions about instead of tossing them out into the general discussion, you'll get a better response.

You'll probably also get better results if you specifically name people you speak of instead of the thinly-veiled unnamed flaming you seem to favor these days.

btw, I didn't make the claim you had questions about and thus didn't respond to it earlier...

lastly, if you are unaware that the Yellows continue to have big gatherings or rallies, you're not keeping abreast of the news.

As my post made clear, I was referring to the many claims from many posters about alleged UDD/DAAD responsibility for the grenade/bomb attacks. Why on earth would I direct the question to just one specific poster who says it? It was an open invitation to all to respond - and not "to a specific person that you had questions about". There are no questions about a person - only about what many have said. The message and not the messenger(s) - get it?

You repeatedly accuse me of flames - when there aren't any. I suggest you do as I do and the next time you see what you regard as a flame - use the report button; I find the Mods are very clear about what is flaming and what isn't. On that basis, IMO they are unlikely to regard as flaming my self-evidently accurate references to your repetitive self-quoting, duplicate posting and frequent disregard for forum rules - not to mention your self-serving reminding of others to follow the same rules which you so often flout yourself. Maybe I'm wrong and they will regard it as flaming - try your luck, why don't you.

If you have no comment to make about something which you yourself didn't claim (leaving aside the - mainly TOC - articles you have made a point of quoting that do at least imply it), then of course feel free to say nothing. I note that in Nation/Post and other reports, the term almost invariably used about the perpetrators is "unidentified". I acknowledge your wide knowledge of media reports and, accordingly, it seems natural to assume that your silence about anything that would "finger" UDD/DAAD as the perpetrators reinforces my original point that the claims (made explicitly and frequently by others) appear unfounded. If you don't have the "smoking gun" - who would? Feel free to correct the assumption if you know different.

Your last point about the "Yellows" rallies is partially fair comment (in that I should not have used the word "rallies") - though none of them of which I am aware has been a protest/demonstration since they left GH and the airports........ any more than UDD/DAAD rallies at, for example, Sanam Luang or the 700 Year Stadium in Chiang Mai were. Also fair comment?

[DaleBlue]

It is a know fact that the Yellow bomb themselves to get sympathy and call for more donation.

Not unlike some people in Thailand that cut off their children body parts so that they can beg for more money on the street.

[Steve2UK]

You'll probably also get better results if you specifically name people you speak of instead of the thinly-veiled unnamed flaming you seem to favor these days.

btw, I didn't make the claim you had questions about and thus didn't respond to it earlier...

lastly, if you are unaware that the Yellows continue to have big gatherings or rallies, you're not keeping abreast of the news.

This is a ridiculous charge.Steve2UK - with whom I have never had any contact -is one of the best mannered and non-flaming types on the forum.Your own record...well it speaks for itself.I suggest you avoid personal attacks and if you really feel you have something useful to say stick to the subject at hand.

jayboy - thank you for the compliment. I am not into flaming nor do I enjoy seeing "bickerfests" on what could/should be an adult forum - let alone do I want to trigger/participate in them.

I have just posted my reasoned response to the post which you highlighted. Let's leave it there and try to get on with the discussion as best we can, OK?

(And I confirm that you and I have never had any direct or even indirect contact! )

[animatic]

It is a know fact that the Yellow bomb themselves to get sympathy and call for more donation.

Not unlike some people in Thailand that cut off their children body parts so that they can beg for more money on the street.

I can assume this is acute undiluted sarcasm....

Otherwise you are veering dangerously close to koo82 territory.

[Steve2UK]

It is a know fact that the Yellow bomb themselves to get sympathy and call for more donation.

If only in the interest of balance - I'll say that, in terms of evidence, that notion has even less (than zero) evidence going for it.

[h90]

It is a know fact that the Yellow bomb themselves to get sympathy and call for more donation.

Not unlike some people in Thailand that cut off their children body parts so that they can beg for more money on the street.

[Pierrot]

Going for history

By: Michael Connors

Having long hoped for an intra-elite solution to his circumstance, and having failed dismally, Thaksin Shinawatra has now opted for history making. And he's inviting the people to make it with him, to bring back "true democracy".

War is the continuation of politics by other means

"Thailand Needs Change," read the banner behind the ex-prime minister as he delivered his address from an unknown location to his red-shirted supporters gathered around Government House in Bangkok on Monday night.

On screen he attacked the Privy Council and the military.

Having promised to name his opponents when he fled to England last year, it has taken visa revocation, further legal stings and the termination of two crony governments by the courts to untie his tongue.

At this point it's clear that the author of this blog is far from impartial

The will to take on a system fully and in name is a watershed moment, but Thaksin is only half there, reserving his fatal revelations only for the Privy Council.

Thaksin has rarely looked like the bourgeois revolutionary that others have hoped him to be. His pledges of loyalty to the monarchy, his prostration before a picture of the king while in exile in Hong Kong, and his government's genuflection to sufficiency economy while in office do not suggest a republican sentiment. Ideologically speaking, Thaksin never had a republic in mind, and his continued public declaration of loyalty to the monarchy should not be taken as a ruse.

Obviously the author has very little understanding of Thailand and the special place of the Monarchy here.

But now, with all the fervour and emotion of focus-group demographics, he is striding forth as the symbol of that promiscuous variable - democracy. This, even as some in the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) have long believed that Thaksin uses the popular movement for his own ends. They too are willing to use him.

The question to ask is why does a self-declared democratic movement fall back on someone like Thaksin, a gifted but impulsive political operator so frightfully contradictory that any popular movement that returns him to power would need to watch its back?

An easy answer, who else ?

The answer to that question, and to progressive acquiesce to rival elite camps more broadly, lies in organisation and politics.

As long argued by Ji Giles Ungpakorn, there is a lack of independent pro-democratic and left-wing forces of sufficient size and clarity to intervene in struggles in such a way as to advance a progressive agenda. In such organisational absence, individual leftists and progressives have joined both the yellow and red camps, seeking a free ride through history for their more radical politics.

It's not a communist revolution, again the author has very little understanding on what's really going on.

In doing so, they have momentarily ironed out contradictions, refused to reveal their politics, and failed to come to terms with the limits of their influence. This strategy of simplification reveals itself as a politics of alliance, silence and accusation; alliance with the "lesser evil"; silence on the former and on their own politics; accusations directed at the "greater evil."

They have surrendered in part the responsibility to offer criticism publicly (necessarily circumspect) of things they criticise privately. Both red and yellow movements are partly led by phrase-coiners and image-makers who deliberately, on message, manage and distort, seeking to win support by insincere argument and selective truth.

This is politic, where does the author live ? In Wonderland ?

This raises the question of the place of honesty and openness in social change. And it raises the issue of political adventurism, for a failure to fully appreciate the social forces at play in street politics is prone to dangerous consequences.

Definitively in Wonderland !

The People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) may be episode one in this scenario, the UDD episode two.

Now the author believes he's George Lucas. May the force be with him ....

Since the coup of 2006, each incident has been grist for the mill of partisan interpretation. Countervailing facts are not to get in the way of propaganda, winning an argument, or making the case for the anti- or pro-Thaksin forces. Moreover, there has been moral and peer compulsion to take sides, with people's commitment to democracy questioned depending on the perspective of the judge and executioner.

"Democracy lovers" the world over have rallied hard and long for the pro-Thaksin forces (red-shirts, politicos and an amorphous mass), while painting the anti-Thaksin forces as reactionary and under the control of conspiratorial elements in the military and Privy Council. There is little recognition of the democratic and liberal impulse that mobilised thousands of people.

At least he recognizes that the outside world is siding with Thaksin ...

Moreover, pro-Thaksinites or pro-red shirts have painted NGOs as stooges and out of touch, long-time human rights activists are maligned by those who judge their work to be tainted by political bias, and one time pro-democracy heroes are denounced as fascist demagogues.

Ask NGO about Thailand and they will reply you Rohingya refugees, Harry Nicolaide ... So far the only PM having trouble with NGOs is Abhisit

Given the events of the last three years, it is not hard to see how a plausible case can be made that the principle struggle now unfolding is between democracy and authoritarianism (with pro-Thaksin forces awkwardly assuming the democracy mantle).

The facts seem to speak for themselves: coup, contested constitutional referendum, party annulment of TRT and PPP, and the recent installation of a Democrat-led coalition as government.

Back to Alice in Wonderland ...

To that case, the famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci has the best response: "A given socio-historical moment is never homogeneous; on the contrary, it is rich in contradictions."

The "democratic versus authoritarian" narrative that has captured international attention is as misconceived as it is overbearingly homogenous.

The world doesn't get it but Mr Connors is going to explain us what's really going on ...

Little attention has been given to the contradictions that exist in Thailand today, with political discourse captured by yellow/red-coloured politics of illusion/delusion, and their respective cheer squads.

The struggle has multiple dimensions, no doubt, but a dominant feature of recent events has been the pacting of statist conservatives and elite liberals against the emergent competitive authoritarianism that Thaksin represented before his fall from office.

"elite liberals" Say no more !

The politics of the recent past have not been a war of the rich against the poor - a view that has oddly become popular - but of regime type against regime type.

The statist-liberal pact is a historical compromise of some weight, with various institutional and ideological mechanisms in place (including network monarchy/royal liberalism). Since the 1980s liberals and statists have cooperated and contested regime form. After May 1992 and successive defeats, statist conservatives and liberals moved to an uneasy compromise represented in the 1997 Constitution. As history now records, that attempt to politically engineer the emergence of liberal democracy with a "strong executive" partly assisted Thaksin's authoritarian rise.

Basically it's the PAD platform.

And so now it is back to the future, with the current situation being one of liberals and statists occupying a complex political terrain of contest and cooperation (something short of an alliance). They seek to return Thailand to a path that is mutually acceptable, some form of elite liberal-conservative hybrid democracy.

Mutually acceptable by who ? The conservative and the liberal elite ? Hybrid maybe, democracy definitively not !

They may not succeed in this.

Hope so !

Protests led by the UDD may intensify and develop the infrastructure required for political mobilisation. Open sentiment against aristocratic privilege and bureaucratic/military power may become a political force. The shoddy ambitions of a one-time authoritarian leader might well morph into a more enduring egalitarian ethos that comes to challenge the historical pact of statists and liberals.

But where such politics will end, in the absence of principled political leadership which can speak openly about the failings of its chosen symbol, which can come to terms with the democratic malaise (2001-2006) under the man who promises to return Thailand to a "true democracy," no one knows.

For most of us 2001-2006 was just called democracy, the "malaise" was just for a few ...

Michael Connors teaches in the Department of Asian and International Studies, City University, Hong Kong.

Source: http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/search?q...l+compromise%22

[Ijustwannateach]

I would encourage those participating in the discussion to remain adult and reasonable. I would also encourage posters to stay on the topic, and not be commenting about each other.

[kurtgruen]

It is a know fact that the Yellow bomb themselves to get sympathy and call for more donation.

Not unlike some people in Thailand that cut off their children body parts so that they can beg for more money on the street.

You are one sick, demented individual. No wonder visa laws get tightened up in Thailand...to get rid of idiots like you.