Central Bangkok A War Zone

[skippybangkok]

Being senile is no excuse for not having evidence. The OP's point was that soldiers were MURDERING pitiful protesters (more than a few) ****at the time of the post*****.

Where's the evidence, here, a couple of days after, no proof, you doddering old lush. Wake up.

You jumped on a post from a 2-post newbie, GONE NOW, who posted a ludicrous tale of obvious propaganda. Your prejudice is showing. Admit it. You were taken, like an old fool.

So confident - Ignorance is bliss.

[Miserere]

"Festive holiday is turned into a black nightmare....Bangkok a war zone"

Nob.

[h90]

Mr. HI90 is a bit naive. Thaksin did not show any guilt on the CNN interview. He is not a native English speaker, so his sentence cohension was off.

AND? So he is what? A good guy?

[trigger571]

I am not in Bangkok, nor in Thailand right now. I do, however, have family in Bangkok both supports (ex) of the reds, and of the Yellows (again ex). Neither side ever supported any of the actions taken by any of the movements. Ther were simply colored with the desire for political change. Luckily both side were mature enough to argue and listen to each other respectfully. Whilethe rest of the political factions fought, my family kept on the songran tradition of wetting each other! Both are fed up with what happened.

It fascinates me, however, the rumours some members on this forum can come up with. Do they really beleive they are servicing anyone, r contributing in a positive way? Let us not forget, tht during the riots of the last few days, the international media was present with cameras and all. It was during those days when people on this forum claimed to be seeing (or made up some conspiracy theory) that the army was shooting people with live ammo, killing hundreds and then covering it up. Beleive me, if this was thecase, the press would have had a field day reporting it. Sure censorship might have kept it secret for a couple of days IF cameras were not present - but the facts are

1) Cameras were present.

2) The fottage on TV clearly showed that NO ONE was getting killed by the soldiers even when the fireing range seemed to be targeted at the protesters.

3) With thos large numbers of protesors being fired directly by automatic guns, we woud have seen hundreds or even thousands drop down dead before our very own eyes.

4) No reports from Red Cross, Red Cresent, Amnestiy or other human rihts organisations claiming anyof the rumours true.

5) No pictures released from the UDD about the hundreds of bodies.

6) No pictures from residents of the hundreds of bodies.

Some might claim that cameras were not allowed in the Govt. House area. This might be true, but it is also true that the UDD never said any atrocities took place there. They claimed the atrocities took place in the streets - wher cameras were always present.

My opinion? I dont think atrocities took place. It is sad two people lost their life. It is sad many others got injured. It is sad the country as a whole will suffer. I think Abhisit did a brilliantjob which will only be marred by the fact he did not (and never will) do the same for the PAD once he was elected

[Ga-gai]

Judging from all posters here, which I for suspect is 80% made by westerners living in Thailand, I find no difference from thais when it comes to behavior, logic, conclusions, what is right and wrong, which is the "right side", easily seduced by lies etc. Some posters here behaves, express or share opinions just like uneducated thais from the rural parts of Thailand. Really amazing actually...

[Thai at Heart]

As a serious question, do people on hear believe, that this has stopped the whole problem?

I was shocked today to see up country in Khon Kaen, about 150 people marching through the songkran festival with full read attire loud speakers and placards protesting that Thailand needs more democracy. There was a police car accompanying the smallish convoy. Furthermore, I have been greeted randomly up here 4 times by drunk plonkers who have brazenly said after "chok dee pee mai" that the are "seau daeng".

I fear this isn't finished.

[Seizhin]

Hard to finish this.. It'll be an underground battle, there are Thais who sincerely loves the red shirt.

I hate to say this, but Thailand is indeed undemocratic, too many people are easily 'pulled' into propaganda and trusts 1 sided news.. Something that I can never understand why they are so biased.

[skippybangkok]

I am not in Bangkok, nor in Thailand right now.

............My opinion? I dont think atrocities took place.

Everyone has an oppinion, not many have facts.

Will give some hints ..........

Tons of pictures on the net with :-

-Soldiers lying on ground or resting arm on taxi's to get a steady aim

-M16 rifles pointed horizontal. (not in the air )

Does anyone know what the % hit rate for a close to bulls eye shot is at about 100 to 150m ?

And i dont think they were shooting at a practice range with them cute targets.

Go figure.

p.s. I am not condoning it ........

[bf2002]

I am not in Bangkok, nor in Thailand right now.

............My opinion? I dont think atrocities took place.

Everyone has an oppinion, not many have facts.

Will give some hints ..........

Tons of pictures on the net with :-

-Soldiers lying on ground or resting arm on taxi's to get a steady aim

-M16 rifles pointed horizontal. (not in the air )

Does anyone know what the % hit rate for a close to bulls eye shot is at about 100 to 150m ?

And i dont think they were shooting at a practice range with them cute targets.

Go figure.

p.s. I am not condoning it ........

Most of the expats on this site are from the "civilized" socialist (alleged) democracies like the UK or Oz where guns are banned. I doubt any of them even know how to handle an M16 or know what an AR15 is.

[gonzobrains]

yeah, it's probably not really a warzone, but everytime you see a news release here they have to exagerate to increase dramatic effect. most press releases I've read here are totally blown out of proportion.

So a few bottles get thrown, and a few idiots get shot and it's a war zone? A bit over the top...

Having worked in a war zone for the last 3 years I'd hardly call Bangkok a war zone....

The only thing on my mind now is.... how long until the baht reaches 40 THB : 1 USD?

[lordsux]

Sorry to kinda double post this but I feel that it would be a good time to add a personal experience of Mondays events and also to pimp the 'Thai Visa Songkran Photography Competition' which is being sponsored by George with a yet undisclosed prize...dam_n exiting stuff eh? Get over there and post your Songkran shots and you have a chance of winning the mystery prize.

Ok this is the short version, the long version disappeared into cyberspace. I did write a long meaningful article which tried to depict how being in the middle of Mondays crisis actually felt like. It's gone! Pffff, one minute you have written so much that you start to feel that it's too much. The next minute you are writing 'OK, this is the short version' Everything for a reason I suppose.

'Songkran' 2009! Not a normal one at all!

Songkran started normal and stayed that way for about the time it took me to walk to my balcony and see that the Red shirts were in control of a LPG tanker and had so nicely parked it under the expressway no more than a couple of 100 meters from where I normally enjoy the days first cup of coffee........... OK enough of that here!!!!....head over to the competition thread if you want to read a non politcal, non bias, no colors involved and hopefully bearable account of my Songkran 2009 including images from the 'front line' ...hope you enjoy....and remember to post your own Songkran images to get a chance at the mystery prize..

I'm not a writer, photographer, politician, journalist, shrink, hero, ex-cia, sex-tourist, soldier or sex pat, red, yellow or blue, english teacher, millionaire, or anything you can think of...I'm just the crazy falang that scared the last of the Red's from their final stronghold and back to Government House, and upon turning around I realized that I was staring down a Division or two of the Thai army that no longer had a target to aim at. I didn't get shot On the contrary, I casually strolled towards them and they let me shoot them

Don't waste time having a dig at me for any reason, your time is much too valuable for that:) I know mine is!

Happy Songkran to all, and be nice

Edited April 15, 2009 by lordsux

[skippybangkok]

Most of the expats on this site are from the "civilized" socialist (alleged) democracies like the UK or Oz where guns are banned. I doubt any of them even know how to handle an M16 or know what an AR15 is.

I promised my self to be polite this year - sorry if got out of line..... ( not to you, but other OP's)

but........

It comes across as "i have an Aunty who lives on a rice farm in thailand who spoke with friends in her village and watched TV, and she said......." or i need to see "photographic proof". Get real, there is alot of intrinsic knowledge on how to clean up quickly after the scene.

If they are not on the front line in downtown BKK, they know squat. ( p.s. I am not a Red ).

(whats a AR15 ? )

Edited April 15, 2009 by LivinginKata

[Chaichara]

As a former reporter, I've lived through riots just as bad - but without the real bullets - especially in the early 80s in downtown Berlin.

My photos of the heavily armed, totally frenzied police beating up a bunch of elementary school kids exiting their school on the edge of the riot scene on the Winterfeld Platz were of course censored. The police would not even allow the ambulances through. Unfortunaltely there was no Internet in those days.

Thailand's problem is that it, like most developing countries, does not have sufficient experience of true democracy (although a similar situation reigned in Paris while I was there in mMay '68).

Back to Africa...

[hammered]

Asia Times as a good report on events around victory monument and the rising up of locals against the reds:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KD15Ae01.html

The whole thing is worth a read but it concludes with:

Analysts believe the future of the protest movement, whose leaders have previously claimed to abide by the law and peaceful protest, may have gone up in the flames of its own violence.

That remains to be seen, but lets hope at least sanity rises from wreckeage of the weekends insanity

[apetley]

Most of the expats on this site are from the "civilized" socialist (alleged) democracies like the UK or Oz where guns are banned. I doubt any of them even know how to handle an M16 or know what an AR15 is.

I promised my self to be polite this year - sorry if got out of line..... ( not to you, but other OP's)

but........

It comes across as "i have an Aunty who lives on a rice farm in thailand who spoke with friends in her village and watched TV, and she said......." or i need to see "photographic proof". Get real, there is alot of intrinsic knowledge on how to clean up quickly after the scene.

If they are not on the front line in downtown BKK, they know squat. ( p.s. I am not a Red ).

(whats a AR15 ? )

It's an Armalite rifle, forerunner of the M16.

[magnanimousrogera]

From reading some of these posts, it seems that many people posting anti-Abhisit posts stating that he is an illegal PM do not understand the workings of a parliamentary system of democracy. Let me try to enlighten these posters somewhat, although I do not expect them to understand what I am trying to say.

Firstly, the people do not elect the Prime Minister. The people elect the MPs as members of the house of parliament through a country-wide election. Then it is the members of parliament (MPs) who form the majority party or coalition who elect the PM. When a faction of the party or coalition which forms the government breaks away and joins the opposition, resulting in the government losing its majority, the governing party cannot sustain itself as the government as it becomes the minority party in parliament. As the combined opposition and breakaway faction now form the majority, it is they who form a new government and elect the PM, usually from the largest party in the grouping.

This is how Thaksin (TRT was the largest), Samak (PPP was the largest) , Somchai (PPP, again, the largest) and Abhisit (Democrats now the largest party in the new coalition) became the Prime Minister. This is an accepted rule in all parliamentary systems. Under this widely accepted system, which applies throughout all parliamentary systems worldwide, Abhisit is clearly the legal and lawful PM of Thailand. To state anything to the contrary is quite clearly wrong.

A parliamentary system is not the same as a presidential system in which the country's head of state is elected directly by the people. In a presidential system there is no King, just a President e.g. Obama in the US. If Thaksin is proposing a presidential system for Thailand, then he, quite clearly, is against the Thai Monarchy and therefore the Redshirts, who profess loyalty to the King, must reject Thaksin's vision for Thailand. His Majesty has served Thailand extremely well over the last 60+ years and deserves to live out his reign in peace and tranquility.

I look forward to receiving some feedback from forum members.

[Scott]

I think most people that refer to him as being 'illegal' are not talking about the parlimentary system, but rather the coup that deposed Thaksin and put in force a new constitution. I think most people understand the parlimentary system and how it differs from other systems.

[TAWP]

I think most people that refer to him as being 'illegal' are not talking about the parlimentary system, but rather the coup that deposed Thaksin and put in force a new constitution. I think most people understand the parlimentary system and how it differs from other systems.

You mean that some posters on purpose are factually wrong to propel their own agenda?

[Scott]

It seems that it all depends on one's perspective about the validity of the events surrounding the coup. Similar to those people who thought it was illegal for Thaksin to change the law and then sell his shares under the new law.

My point is that I think most people do understand the parlimentary system and how one becomes PM.

[caf]

I think most people that refer to him as being 'illegal' are not talking about the parlimentary system, but rather the coup that deposed Thaksin and put in force a new constitution. I think most people understand the parlimentary system and how it differs from other systems.

The description of the Thai parliamenary system and pm election is absolutely correct. Thanks to the poster above who gave a very thorough description.

I am not commenting on anything that might have influenced Abhisit's election.

But in the Uk the vote on the partition of ireland was also technically and legally valid. It was flawed becaust the boundaries ahd been drawn up by the Uk ensuring the rsult of the vote. There is a parallel

[TAWP]

It seems that it all depends on one's perspective about the validity of the events surrounding the coup. Similar to those people who thought it was illegal for Thaksin to change the law and then sell his shares under the new law.

No-one is saying that is in effect illegal, only that it is a clear sign he is corrupt and only in it for himself and his family.

[321niti123]

Are the Reds paid 500B a day to demonstrate? Here Thaksin makes it clear

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/n...7&cateid=13

I dont need to go to the website to know that they actually pay the reds, i know someone [anonymous] who went out to buy food, so saw the protest and asked what was going on. The person selling the food told her that the redshirts were there and they were giving out 500THB for those who joined them, the person i know went home, put on a red shirt and went to join them, she got 500 within 15 minutes just fifteen minutes, now u can see why they have a lot of support.

[Seizhin]

As a former reporter, I've lived through riots just as bad - but without the real bullets - especially in the early 80s in downtown Berlin.

My photos of the heavily armed, totally frenzied police beating up a bunch of elementary school kids exiting their school on the edge of the riot scene on the Winterfeld Platz were of course censored. The police would not even allow the ambulances through. Unfortunaltely there was no Internet in those days.

Thailand's problem is that it, like most developing countries, does not have sufficient experience of true democracy (although a similar situation reigned in Paris while I was there in mMay '68).

Back to Africa...

Police beating a bunch of elementary school kids? Wow, Thailand should feel at least lucky that such thing had never happen.

[padkapow]

From reading some of these posts, it seems that many people posting anti-Abhisit posts stating that he is an illegal PM do not understand the workings of a parliamentary system of democracy. Let me try to enlighten these posters somewhat, although I do not expect them to understand what I am trying to say.

Firstly, the people do not elect the Prime Minister. The people elect the MPs as members of the house of parliament through a country-wide election. Then it is the members of parliament (MPs) who form the majority party or coalition who elect the PM. When a faction of the party or coalition which forms the government breaks away and joins the opposition, resulting in the government losing its majority, the governing party cannot sustain itself as the government as it becomes the minority party in parliament. As the combined opposition and breakaway faction now form the majority, it is they who form a new government and elect the PM, usually from the largest party in the grouping.

This is how Thaksin (TRT was the largest), Samak (PPP was the largest) , Somchai (PPP, again, the largest) and Abhisit (Democrats now the largest party in the new coalition) became the Prime Minister. This is an accepted rule in all parliamentary systems. Under this widely accepted system, which applies throughout all parliamentary systems worldwide, Abhisit is clearly the legal and lawful PM of Thailand. To state anything to the contrary is quite clearly wrong.

A parliamentary system is not the same as a presidential system in which the country's head of state is elected directly by the people. In a presidential system there is no King, just a President e.g. Obama in the US. If Thaksin is proposing a presidential system for Thailand, then he, quite clearly, is against the Thai Monarchy and therefore the Redshirts, who profess loyalty to the King, must reject Thaksin's vision for Thailand. His Majesty has served Thailand extremely well over the last 60+ years and deserves to live out his reign in peace and tranquility.

I look forward to receiving some feedback from forum members.

I totally agree with your definition. Abhisit as PM is absolutely correct.

[bungy007]

Taksin, the big lair

On BBC, He denied to be a person behind the protesting

What a garbled load of cant, hypocrisy, lies and bullshit. Tim Sebastian former compere of BBC's Hard Talk show would have shredded him!

I think Thaksin was using the old Thai double two step of using garbled English to hide the reality of his situation. You can't pin them down when they are in this mode as they answer a question on days of the week with the name of a fruit! i.e. Question, "What day is today?'' Answer "Oranges"!

[bungy007]

From reading some of these posts, it seems that many people posting anti-Abhisit posts stating that he is an illegal PM do not understand the workings of a parliamentary system of democracy. Let me try to enlighten these posters somewhat, although I do not expect them to understand what I am trying to say.

Firstly, the people do not elect the Prime Minister. The people elect the MPs as members of the house of parliament through a country-wide election. Then it is the members of parliament (MPs) who form the majority party or coalition who elect the PM. When a faction of the party or coalition which forms the government breaks away and joins the opposition, resulting in the government losing its majority, the governing party cannot sustain itself as the government as it becomes the minority party in parliament. As the combined opposition and breakaway faction now form the majority, it is they who form a new government and elect the PM, usually from the largest party in the grouping.

This is how Thaksin (TRT was the largest), Samak (PPP was the largest) , Somchai (PPP, again, the largest) and Abhisit (Democrats now the largest party in the new coalition) became the Prime Minister. This is an accepted rule in all parliamentary systems. Under this widely accepted system, which applies throughout all parliamentary systems worldwide, Abhisit is clearly the legal and lawful PM of Thailand. To state anything to the contrary is quite clearly wrong.

A parliamentary system is not the same as a presidential system in which the country's head of state is elected directly by the people. In a presidential system there is no King, just a President e.g. Obama in the US. If Thaksin is proposing a presidential system for Thailand, then he, quite clearly, is against the Thai Monarchy and therefore the Redshirts, who profess loyalty to the King, must reject Thaksin's vision for Thailand. His Majesty has served Thailand extremely well over the last 60+ years and deserves to live out his reign in peace and tranquility.

I look forward to receiving some feedback from forum members.

Spot on! For those unfamiliar with the Parlimentary system and its differences between that and, say the US system, will now understand they confusion and will adjust their opinion accordingly, I'm sure. Having said that, as we well know, everything in Thailand is negotiable regardless of anything concrete. So expect to see some still spout on about the illegitimacy of Abhisit and his government - there are always a few!