Ready To Tear The Country Apart

[Steve2UK]

"POLITICAL IMPASSE

Person with alot of clout ready to mediate : Chai

By The Nation

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.

He said he expected no violence on March 8 when anti-government protesters who have rallied at the Government House since last week scheduled to have a mass rally.

Responding to a report that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Theugsuban extended an olive branch to fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Chai said it was a good sign for the country."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/02...cs_30099502.php

[Plus]

starting with the Chiang Mai case were the red beat one guy to dead.

On that day they dragged the father of pro PAD radio anchor out of his car, beat him and then shot him. They regularly set road blocks and searched the cars for PAD members. Once they beat up a judge, he was in the van and was wearing a yellow shirt.

That Chiang Mai group has a long history of violence. They have joined the current Bangkok rally.

But that wasn't really the start. The start was when the crowd of red shirts led by radio host on the government payroll and a brother of local MP attacked PAD rally and beated several people to pulp with flagpoles. While this was going on, the organisers offered money for killing PAD leaders, over the PA, so that everyone heard it.

The leaders are in Bangkok, too.

It was that violent incident that prompted PAD to cancell upcountry activities, gather in Bangkok, and hire armed guards. And then some people accuse them of violence.

>>>

No one has ever been caught in those grenade attacks on sleeping PAD protesters. What we have, however, is Sae Daeng threat to bomb them, and reds acceptance of his strategy.

They are ready to kill, now, they are not ashamed of it. So what if Sae Daeng hasn't been caught before? That shaves what, 10% of the credibility of the current threat?

[redscouse]

I fail to see how the word *proportionally* makes any difference to your post, even if it is *proportionally* you still say the reds have been more violent than the yellows.

So I have questions:

1. Do you think the reds have been more violent than the yellows (proportionally or substantially)?

2. If you answer 'yes', is this your opinion or do you have facts to back this up? (bare in mind there are no facts to back this up, its subjective)

[Journalist]

A revolution is not a dinner party.

The martyrs' blood that is shed to obtain liberty is a price worth paying. I daresay both sides understand that.

[Plus]

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.

He said he expected no violence on March 8 when anti-government protesters who have rallied at the Government House since last week scheduled to have a mass rally.

March bloody 8!

>>>

It's not the mediators credibility, it's the conditions of the deal, that matter. It's the deal that has to be accepted by both sides. So far there's really nothing to negotiate. At most House Dissolution and elections, and even that is implausible, for a whole lot of reasons. Even Suthep rejected it.

[Plus]

The martyrs' blood that is shed to obtain liberty is a price worth paying. I daresay both sides understand that.

So far reds understand that about shedding yellow blood, they think it's absolutely necessary.

[redscouse]

No one has ever been caught in those grenade attacks on sleeping PAD protesters. What we have, however, is Sae Daeng threat to bomb them, and reds acceptance of his strategy.

Do you have any proof that bombs or grenades were thrown at PAD by red shirts? If so then forward it to the authorities, my guess is that you have no proof.

Do you have any proof that the PADs own guards were not responsible for throwing these incendiary devices? It would serve as propaganda. I mean if these guards were as good as some think they are how on earth did the red shirts manage to get close enough to throw these devices and then manage to escape? also take into account the explosive left behind by the PAD at government house so it is feasable that they attacked their own employees, opps sorry, protesters

[redscouse]

The martyrs' blood that is shed to obtain liberty is a price worth paying. I daresay both sides understand that.

So far reds understand that about shedding yellow blood, they think it's absolutely necessary.

and the yellows felt it necessary to spill the blood of reds, and policemen, and harm the economy etc etc etc.

bare in mind all this was done in the knowledge that the courts were due to disband the PPP so it was pure unwarranted violence on the part of the PAD. Now the reds, they have no choice, there is no third party lurking to pass judgement. they have not entered GH, they have not taken over the airports, yet people still see them as worse than the criminals in yellow. unbelievable

[Plus]

There's no proof that it was Sae Daeng men who actually threw the grenades, he only publicly predicted that someone would.

There's, however, red approval of bombing sleeping people. That seems to escape you.

The theory that yellows bombed themselves didn't stand the ground - a one off event, maybe, theoretically, but daily bombings that brought absolutely no benefits?

And let me remind you that PPP tried to secretly push for amnesty bill for Thaksin and co, and rescheduled the session for the next week when PAD stopped them in their tracks, and the court judgment wasn't expected for a couple of weeks, so it was do or die situation.

[Steve2UK]

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.

He said he expected no violence on March 8 when anti-government protesters who have rallied at the Government House since last week scheduled to have a mass rally.

March bloody 8!

That's the quality of reporting/subbing at The Nation for you......... The equivalent Bangkok Post article which I have just seen mentions next Wednesday - i.e. April 8.

To avoid falling foul of Forum rules, I'll post that Bangkok Post article separately.[see Post #223 below]

[edit to add reference to post containing article]

Edited April 2, 2009 by Steve2UK

[MyphuketLife]

There's no proof that it was Sae Daeng men who actually threw the grenades, he only publicly predicted that someone would.

There's, however, red approval of bombing sleeping people. That seems to escape you.

The theory that yellows bombed themselves didn't stand the ground - a one off event, maybe, theoretically, but daily bombings that brought absolutely no benefits?

And let me remind you that PPP tried to secretly push for amnesty bill for Thaksin and co, and rescheduled the session for the next week when PAD stopped them in their tracks, and the court judgment wasn't expected for a couple of weeks, so it was do or die situation.

It really escapes me that the actions (Violence, taking over airport 4 in total, taking over the government house, raiding TV stations) is ok for the yellow side as it was "do or die" and you guys defended their actions...

But its not ok for the REDS to stand infront of the GOV house blocking the entrances???

Both sides have done bad things, both have been violent, only one side (yellow) caused havoc in BKK...

[Steve2UK]

"Chai says Suthep's offer righteous

By: BangkokPost.com

Published: 2/04/2009 at 11:22 AM

House Speaker Chai Chidchob says acting Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has done the right thing in offering to begin talks with Thaksin Shinawatra, but he does not expect a quick resolution of the political conflict.

The veteran politician said on Thursday he would like to see love and unity in Thailand, and called on all sides to jointly bring peace back to the country.

He expressed concern over former prime minister Thaksin's accusations against Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda."

Continues at:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/13...ence-at-protest

[cmsally]

"POLITICAL IMPASSE

Person with alot of clout ready to mediate : Chai

By The Nation

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.

He said he expected no violence on March 8 when anti-government protesters who have rallied at the Government House since last week scheduled to have a mass rally.

Responding to a report that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Theugsuban extended an olive branch to fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Chai said it was a good sign for the country."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/02...cs_30099502.php

The only problem with these olive branches is that they always have empty Xmas stockings hung on them

[redscouse]

There's no proof that it was Sae Daeng men who actually threw the grenades, he only publicly predicted that someone would.

There's, however, red approval of bombing sleeping people. That seems to escape you.

The theory that yellows bombed themselves didn't stand the ground - a one off event, maybe, theoretically, but daily bombings that brought absolutely no benefits?

And let me remind you that PPP tried to secretly push for amnesty bill for Thaksin and co, and rescheduled the session for the next week when PAD stopped them in their tracks, and the court judgment wasn't expected for a couple of weeks, so it was do or die situation.

we are talking about a group of thugs who were trying to force a military coup so its not unreasonable for daily bombings (although they were not daily occurrences but it seems facts are not your strong point while discussing).

As for the amnesty, then so be it, was it worth the loss of life and damage to the economy? not in my opinion it wasn't. They were to be disbanded anyway and he has other outstanding matters.

[sriracha john]

I fail to see how the word *proportionally* makes any difference to your post, even if it is *proportionally* you still say the reds have been more violent than the yellows.

So I have questions:

1. Do you think the reds have been more violent than the yellows (proportionally or substantially)?

2. If you answer 'yes', is this your opinion or do you have facts to back this up? (bare in mind there are no facts to back this up, its subjective)

Proportionally, if one looks at the number and duration of the Yellow rallies held without violence being significantly greater than the Reds, it's an important aspect of any comparison, and why I posted my words as I did.

Yellows had dozens of rallies involving thousands of people for months and months with no violence at all, whereas practically every rally the Reds were involved in inevitably seemed to involve violence.

The link that reflects that was previously posted in Post # 210.

Edited April 2, 2009 by sriracha john

[JR Texas]

"POLITICAL IMPASSE

Person with alot of clout ready to mediate : Chai

By The Nation

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.

He said he expected no violence on March 8 when anti-government protesters who have rallied at the Government House since last week scheduled to have a mass rally.

Responding to a report that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Theugsuban extended an olive branch to fugitive ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Chai said it was a good sign for the country."

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/02...cs_30099502.php

The only problem with these olive branches is that they always have empty Xmas stockings hung on them

The red shirts don't understand that the economic pain they are feeling now is, in large part, the direct result of economic policies put in motion several years ago by the person they profess to admire.

From a purely academic perspective, I am impressed with the way that people with power can manipulate the masses--via the mainstream mass media--to the point where they will actually fight to exploit themselves.

[justanothercybertosser]

The red shirts don't understand that the economic pain they are feeling now is, in large part, the direct result of economic policies put in motion several years ago by the person they profess to admire.

From a purely academic perspective, I am impressed with the way that people with power can manipulate the masses--via the mainstream mass media--to the point where they will actually fight to exploit themselves.

From a purely academic perspective - that adventurous assumption warrants proof.

May i add, that you might have slight difficulties there. You also forgot to mention that globally we have a crises that does impact Thailand's export based economy, and we also had the airport occupation by Yellow, a military coup and more than three years of debilitating street protests.

Nevertheless - the national household and debt situation was in order at the time of the coup, and also during the Samak and Somchai governments.

I am expecting a competent study (peer reviewed, reference material, and all the works) that proves your point that the reasons for the financial difficulties are largely caused by Thaksin.

[redscouse]

I fail to see how the word *proportionally* makes any difference to your post, even if it is *proportionally* you still say the reds have been more violent than the yellows.

So I have questions:

1. Do you think the reds have been more violent than the yellows (proportionally or substantially)?

2. If you answer 'yes', is this your opinion or do you have facts to back this up? (bare in mind there are no facts to back this up, its subjective)

Proportionally, if one looks at the number and duration of the Yellow rallies held without violence being significantly greater than the Reds, it's an important aspect of any comparison, and why I posted my words as I did.

Yellows had dozens of rallies involving thousands of people for months and months with no violence at all, whereas practically every rally the Reds were involved in inevitably seemed to involve violence.

The link that reflects that was previously posted in Post # 210.

So basically rather than answer two simple questions you try and confuse the issue, its ok, people can clearly see you are guessing and there is no harm in you saying this.

Dozens of rallies and thousands of people is hardly the basis for statistics is it? Is the forceful taking of GH and blockade not a violent incident? I would say it is so for the 3 months they occupied it and had armed guards I would say that they were being violent every day, added to the beatings dished out added to the takeover of two airports, added to the firing of weapons on bangkoks streets, added to the threat of violence daily from the armed thugs, well I would say you are very wrong.

But then again we are talking about opinions rather than facts, or do you still want to argue that this is not your opinion? if you want to do that feel free to come back with actual figures of time spent protesting, exact amount of attendees, exact amount of incidents etc etc etc

edit for typos

Edited April 2, 2009 by redscouse

[MyphuketLife]

The red shirts don't understand that the economic pain they are feeling now is, in large part, the direct result of economic policies put in motion several years ago by the person they profess to admire.

From a purely academic perspective, I am impressed with the way that people with power can manipulate the masses--via the mainstream mass media--to the point where they will actually fight to exploit themselves.

From a purely academic perspective - that adventurous assumption warrants proof.

May i add, that you might have slight difficulties there. You also forgot to mention that globally we have a crises that does impact Thailand's export based economy, and we also had the airport occupation by Yellow, a military coup and more than three years of debilitating street protests.

Nevertheless - the national household and debt situation was in order at the time of the coup, and also during the Samak and Somchai governments.

I am expecting a competent study (peer reviewed, reference material, and all the works) that proves your point that the reasons for the financial difficulties are largely caused by Thaksin.

The land his wife purchased, and the shares he sold, and the tax money he failed to pay is what they will come back with...

[h90]

The red shirts don't understand that the economic pain they are feeling now is, in large part, the direct result of economic policies put in motion several years ago by the person they profess to admire.

From a purely academic perspective, I am impressed with the way that people with power can manipulate the masses--via the mainstream mass media--to the point where they will actually fight to exploit themselves.

From a purely academic perspective - that adventurous assumption warrants proof.

May i add, that you might have slight difficulties there. You also forgot to mention that globally we have a crises that does impact Thailand's export based economy, and we also had the airport occupation by Yellow, a military coup and more than three years of debilitating street protests.

Nevertheless - the national household and debt situation was in order at the time of the coup, and also during the Samak and Somchai governments.

I am expecting a competent study (peer reviewed, reference material, and all the works) that proves your point that the reasons for the financial difficulties are largely caused by Thaksin.

After economic hero Thaksin the economic grow could be now 5 % instead of 10 % like in China, or?

But fact is that in Thaksins time the economic grow only went down (first years still the policies from Chuan worked) and now the Democrats need to change that at the worst time for it. When everything is repaired there will be new elections and the next Premier will be praised for the economic grow....

[redscouse]

h90, when are you going to answer the points raised earlier, you claim the reds are more violent than the yellows, you made a remark about chiang mai which has been countered, are you coming back with proof or shall we just accept that it's only your opinion?

[Pierrot]

To answer the OP who blames the current events on a bitter ex PM seeking revenge, there is a very interesting "opinion" column in today's Bangkok Post that can be summarized by “Like it or not, Thaksin's refusal to play by the old political rules and the support he gets from the red shirts are also indicative of Thailand's new realities.”

Excerpt : “From a sleepy, agrarian society with a set of beliefs to maintain working relations in a highly hierarchical and unequal society, the rush to modernise the country during these past four decades has opened up society and given the populace new aspirations which challenge the old norms.

Fierce materialism and the consumer culture have been much condemned for our current ills. But to blame it on greed alone would be misleading. In a highly hierarchical society where birthplace and family decide where you are in society as well as what you can and cannot do, people naturally embrace any new criteria that make them feel more free or more equal.”

In clear, there is a will, Thaksin is just the way.

Complete article : http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...f-new-realities

[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.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Steve2UK

[h90]

h90, when are you going to answer the points raised earlier, you claim the reds are more violent than the yellows, you made a remark about chiang mai which has been countered, are you coming back with proof or shall we just accept that it's only your opinion?

no I am not coming back with a proof, you or earlier nicknames of the same group, started the same discussion already 100 times and it gets really boring. It is known since Goebbels that it works to repeat again and again the same lies.

Maybe someone has the time and can copy/paste one of the previous discussion over 5 pages which starts PAD is the same violent.....

For me it gets boring to do the same discussion again and again and again with one clone-user of the reds who comes again and again and again with the same nonsense.

[sabaijai]

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".

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They may not succeed in this.

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.

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

[sriracha john]

I fail to see how the word *proportionally* makes any difference to your post, even if it is *proportionally* you still say the reds have been more violent than the yellows.

So I have questions:

1. Do you think the reds have been more violent than the yellows (proportionally or substantially)?

2. If you answer 'yes', is this your opinion or do you have facts to back this up? (bare in mind there are no facts to back this up, its subjective)

Proportionally, if one looks at the number and duration of the Yellow rallies held without violence being significantly greater than the Reds, it's an important aspect of any comparison, and why I posted my words as I did.

Yellows had dozens of rallies involving thousands of people for months and months with no violence at all, whereas practically every rally the Reds were involved in inevitably seemed to involve violence.

The link that reflects that was previously posted in Post # 210.

So basically rather than answer two simple questions you try and confuse the issue, its ok, people can clearly see you are guessing and there is no harm in you saying this.

Dozens of rallies and thousands of people is hardly the basis for statistics is it? Is the forceful taking of GH and blockade not a violent incident? I would say it is so for the 3 months they occupied it and had armed guards I would say that they were being violent every day, added to the beatings dished out added to the takeover of two airports, added to the firing of weapons on bangkoks streets, added to the threat of violence daily from the armed thugs, well I would say you are very wrong.

But then again we are talking about opinions rather than facts, or do you still want to argue that this is not your opinion? if you want to do that feel free to come back with actual figures of time spent protesting, exact amount of attendees, exact amount of incidents etc etc etc

edit for typos

I answered your 2 simple questions.

Yes, the violence by Reds is proportionally greater than yellows and the evidence is available through a review of the news.

If, as a novice in news clippings forum, you don't wish to review it or expect someone else to glean out all the data available from within it, then that's something you'll have to deal with. But a review will bear out all of what I have said as anyone who has been actively involved in discussing news will verify.

In discussing violence, I was referring to actual violent acts (eg. clubbings, beatings, etc.) which certainly didn't occur everyday at rallies, until the nearer the end.

Edited April 2, 2009 by sriracha john

[mc2]

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.

I think he has finished work for the day.

//edit - not yet apparently. probably squeezing in a bit of OT

Edited April 2, 2009 by mc2

[Siripon]

To answer the OP who blames the current events on a bitter ex PM seeking revenge, there is a very interesting "opinion" column in today's Bangkok Post that can be summarized by “Like it or not, Thaksin's refusal to play by the old political rules and the support he gets from the red shirts are also indicative of Thailand's new realities.”

Excerpt : “From a sleepy, agrarian society with a set of beliefs to maintain working relations in a highly hierarchical and unequal society, the rush to modernise the country during these past four decades has opened up society and given the populace new aspirations which challenge the old norms.

Fierce materialism and the consumer culture have been much condemned for our current ills. But to blame it on greed alone would be misleading. In a highly hierarchical society where birthplace and family decide where you are in society as well as what you can and cannot do, people naturally embrace any new criteria that make them feel more free or more equal.”

In clear, there is a will, Thaksin is just the way.

Complete article : http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...f-new-realities

And there's another interesting article on the same page which says,'Why does a self-declared democratic movement fall back on someone like Thaksin, a gifted but implusive political operator so frightfully cotradictory that any popular movement that returns him to power would need to watch its back?'

It's a good article that should be compulsory reading for all those who like to label the present government supporters as 'elitist reactionary conservatives'.

To sum it up. the writer argues many on the left realise their forces are small in Thailand so they've overlooked Thaksin's faults in order to further their cause. The struggle is not between rich and poor but rather between statist conservatives and liberals against competitive authoritarianism. The author feels the UDD protests may develop into a political force against old privilege and the bureaucracy, military power but in the absence of any principled red shirt leadership to counter Thaksin's failings and flaws how can they get anywhere?

Indeed, they're extolling and hero worshipping an authoritarian ego maniac.

I see his kids have just produced a handbook,inside there's a quote from a poor villager asking Oak why his father deserted the poor. Oak should have told him because he's a criminal who has broken many laws. Inscidentally, what charity, foundation work have any of his unemployed children done?

Last night Somkit, Thaksin's ex economic csar was on television praising the government for being on the right track economically, that's one ex TRT executive who won't be taking the stage with the red shirts.

[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

[justanothercybertosser]

no I am not coming back with a proof,

Of course not - you have none.

And when your are presented with proof countering your wild assumptions - you conveniently ignore it.