Arrest Warrants Issued For 14 Red Shirt Leaders And Thaksin

[Jingthing]

No comparison between the airport event and Asean attack plus Black Songkran. Black Songkran was an attempt at a violent revolution. Be clear, just because many of us really hate the reds now (as they are violent thugs) does not mean we are pro yellow either. Obviously, for Thailand to move on, the only hope is some kind of PEACEFUL compromise among all the factions. The good news is the vast majority of Thais are not red OR yellow activists.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Jingthing

[chrislarsson]

Hi.

Them taking the airport for a MONTH is better than killing one human being. Unless for you money is more important then a life. And apart from that, as has been stated previously, in Europe airports are blocked regularly by protesters, too. The Europeans just know how to deal with it. (and there it's usually rather minor things such as this-and-that labour union demanding 0.25% higher wages).

Regards.....

Thanh

That's an interesting question, is money more important than a human life.

Try to answer this question. About 30,000 people dies per year in traffic accidents in Thailand. Most of these lives would be saved if making motor vehicles illegal to use. But this would cost the economy quite a bit of money.

Now, is human life worth more than money?

[chrislarsson]

Hi.

Them taking the airport for a MONTH is better than killing one human being. Unless for you money is more important then a life. And apart from that, as has been stated previously, in Europe airports are blocked regularly by protesters, too. The Europeans just know how to deal with it. (and there it's usually rather minor things such as this-and-that labour union demanding 0.25% higher wages).

Regards.....

Thanh

Really, airports in Europe are being closed down by protesters regularly. Would you mind giving a few examples?

[Jingthing]

chrislarsson

That's an interesting question, is money more important than a human life.

Try to answer this question. About 30,000 people dies per year in traffic accidents in Thailand. Most of these lives would be saved if making motor vehicles illegal to use. But this would cost the economy quite a bit of money.

Now, is human life worth more than money?

That is daft. Those are traffic ACCIDENTS, not murders of innocent people. You claim not to be a red propagandist but that really beggars belief. But you aren't a very good one with a absurd analogy like that one. Frankly, I find you a very odd bird and coming from the likes of me, you might be worried ...

BTW, Black Songkran ALSO cost Thailand lots of money and international business.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

Who then are the "objective" people?

Pretty much everyone who is not a true believer RED, that's who. Most of Thailand. They ARE more violent. That is a FACT. Now in history there are movements that can JUSTIFY violence with massive support on the ground. Thaksin was counting on that. He gambled. He lost. That support DID NOT EXIST.

Interesting view. I guess that what you are trying to say is that anyone who holds the same views as you are objective. Never mind that they are painted in black and white.

That is not what I am saying.

Let me put it another way: do YOU seriously believe that overall the yellow shirts are more violent and thuggish than the reds? I have never heard of even one person thats says that who is not a deep red sympathizer themselves. On the other hand, it is very common for more neutral people to realize the obvious about the more violent nature of the red movement. Now if you wish to argue that violence is JUSTIFIED that is a different subject.

What led up to the yellow "victory" at the airport was MANY MONTHS of endless boring mostly non-violent demos. The reds under criminal Thaksin thought they could just "graduate" to a violent pro anarchy tactic and roll the dice and maybe win. They failed. They were way too impatient and way too violent.

It is all a question about how much rope the government of the time will give a protest which is tied to political loyalty of the forces. Do you believe that the yellows marched to the airport expecting a hail of bullets? The yellows have a capacity to turn violent also as I saw first hand under the expressway at Don Muang. Neither side is an angel if pushed too far.

The authorities 6 months ago had no idea how to handle the yellows and their moving of their protest to the airport. It is a major design fault at Survanabhumi that there isn't a bridge or barricades that can be used to prevent major protest from entering from the expressways. In most countries, they would have been prevented from entering and maybe could have been shot. The reds conducted their protest under a completely different government with a completely different agenda. They got extremely violent, but I don't doubt the capabilities of the yellows to do the same.

Also, one cannot discount split loyalties that were so obvious within the police and army to supress the yellows. This is an even bigger issue which runs to the centre of Thai politics. Until corruption within the police and army disappears, their loyalty can always be bought for a period.

[chrislarsson]

chrislarsson

That's an interesting question, is money more important than a human life.

Try to answer this question. About 30,000 people dies per year in traffic accidents in Thailand. Most of these lives would be saved if making motor vehicles illegal to use. But this would cost the economy quite a bit of money.

Now, is human life worth more than money?

That is daft. Those are traffic ACCIDENTS, not murders of innocent people. You claim not to be a red propagandist but that really beggars belief. But you aren't a very good one with a absurd analogy like that one. Frankly, I find you a very odd bird and coming from the likes of me, you might be worried ...

BTW, Black Songkran ALSO cost Thailand lots of money and international business.

It's an example from a text-book in macroeconomics. The issue is not whether it's an accident or not. The issue is that it can be avoided in an exchange to an economical cost.

Personally, I think the comparison between an airport seizure and one dead human being is more daft. What's exactly the point with such a comparison?

Edited May 5, 2009 by chrislarsson

[Jingthing]

Chris, you just like to go in circles and I find your arguments tedious and odd. I will let someone else play with you in future, I have had enough. Thank you.

[chrislarsson]

Chris, you just like to go in circles and I find your arguments tedious and odd. I will let someone else play with you in future, I have had enough. Thank you.

I pretty much have to agree with you on that. I also like to ask about facts, but I never get any response to those postings.

[LivinginKata]

The last 2 posts have been removed as just trading insults, and add no value to the topic.

[animatic]

Hi.

Them taking the airport for a MONTH is better than killing one human being. Unless for you money is more important then a life. And apart from that, as has been stated previously, in Europe airports are blocked regularly by protesters, too. The Europeans just know how to deal with it. (and there it's usually rather minor things such as this-and-that labour union demanding 0.25% higher wages).

Regards.....

Thanh

Really, airports in Europe are being closed down by protesters regularly. Would you mind giving a few examples?

Don't you read newspapers?

How about Heathrow by anti-airport expansionists.

Edited May 6, 2009 by LivinginKata
Flaming removed

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

In Germany it was the same reason when Frankfurt was shut down by protesters (about "Startbahn West" at the time, a new runway, many years ago though). Also airport workers go on strike more or less regularly, effectively grounding all aircraft. That happens in Germany, Italy, France..... Pilot unions also call for strikes at times, while the airports are not shut then still nothing flies, literally.

In the U.S. and Canada from time to time airports are closed due to bad weather, sometimes also for several days at once. Sure can't be compared with protests however those countries have not gone bankrupt due to those airport closures either.

Regarding strikes, Thailand hasn't seen THAT yet i suppose... i have personally witnessed (spelling?) one general strike where for TWO WEEKS there was no public transport (trains, buses, taxis), no banks, no utilities service (if your power, water or phone went out - tough luck), no postal service, no cargo transports (which forced many companies to close for lack of raw materials or parts) and the worst - no garbage disposal! That is when labour unions band together out of sympathy, as happened here when train services were halted for a while to support PAD. Now imagine such general strike would have happened here! The country would have collapsed... or would it..? Germany did NOT. And nobody went to jail either.

Best regards....

Thanh

[Thai at Heart]

Hi.

Them taking the airport for a MONTH is better than killing one human being. Unless for you money is more important then a life. And apart from that, as has been stated previously, in Europe airports are blocked regularly by protesters, too. The Europeans just know how to deal with it. (and there it's usually rather minor things such as this-and-that labour union demanding 0.25% higher wages).

Regards.....

Thanh

Really, airports in Europe are being closed down by protesters regularly. Would you mind giving a few examples?

Don't you read newspapers?

How about Heathrow by anti-airport expansionists.

There were protests but as far as I know at no point did it close the airport and the authorities did their job and moved people away as necessary.

Irony of ironies they appear to have chosen red as their given colour, and if you look closely, there is even a bit of nudity

Disrupted might be a better word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_Stupid

Very slanted piece but it catalogues the various protests over the last few months.

Edited May 6, 2009 by LivinginKata
Link to another forum removed

[LawnGnome]

Can we return this thread to Thaksin Villification and Jakrobop bashing - where it belongs?

[chrislarsson]

Can we return this thread to Thaksin Villification and Jakrobop bashing - where it belongs?

I think the biggest risk now is that the reds will change strategy and go underground. Instead of provoking mass protests, which they will not be able to sustain anyway, they may go into the assassination business just like the insurgents in the south.

[sriracha john]

Police offer rewards to locate attackers in Interior Ministry

Police have put a bounty of Bt50,000 for each suspect who allegedly was involved in the attack of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's motorcade in the Interior Ministry's compound.

Among them, police could identify one; Suporn Attawaong, a former Nakhon Ratchasima MP of defunct People Power Party.

- The Nation / 2009-04-19

==================================

Fact check:

Actually Suporn is a banned MP from the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT Banned #48). After his banning, he had his brother Samphat run in the election as a People Power Party candidate.

Suporn has an interesting background....

Additional information on the in-fighting amongst the Thai Rak Thai Party...

(Due to the unavailability of a photo of Suporn Attawong, I have opted for one of his namesake)

Former TRT Party's 'Rambo' shot and wounded in ambush

Nakhon Ratchasima - A former Thai Rak Thai MP was slightly injured when shot on Sunday night and he says he believes the motive was political. Suporn Attawong, also known as 'Rambo,' was attacked while driving home on Khon Buri-Soeng Sang road in Khon Buri district about 11.25 pm, after dinner with a senior local police officer in Soeng Sang district. He said a group of armed men in a pick-up truck without a registration plate number opened fire at his car. He briefly returned fire, got out of the car and hid in a cassava field for about half an hour. Mr Suporn, a three-time MP for Nakhon Ratchasima's constituency 12, believed the attack was political. He said a rival he refused to name wanted to be elected in the general election. Mr Suporn is one of the 111 former executive members of TRT banned from politics for five years by the Constitution Tribunal on May 30. Mr Suporn said although he was not allowed to hold office for the time being, he was not opting out of politics and was looking for a capable person to run in his constituency. (Incidentally, he's #48 on the List of Banned Thai Rak Thai executives who are banned from political activity for 5 years).

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/03Jul2007_news07.php

================================================================================

In typical Rambo fashion, it's great that he decided to open fire (perhaps with a M-60 machine gun as pictured above and that Rambo seemed to prefer), but what on Earth is this nonsense about hiding in a cassava field for half an hour like a sissy??!!? Rambo would never do that. He would have stormed the attackers with nothing more than a Bowie knife, if need be.

btw, any real photos of Suporn 'Rambo' Atthawong would be appreciated.

Update:

I was able to locate photos of Suporn (including one from the shooting described above)... and uhmm... he's not exactly what I portrayed above nor was he what I imagined he might look like...

"Issan Rambo" Suporn Atthawong:

Investigators Seek Indictment of Red-Shirt Leader

Police investigators have sought indictment of a core leader of the anti-government Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship for allegedly instigating chaos during the state of emergency in Bangkok last month.

Investigators from the Dusit police station today brought Suporn Attawong, a top leader of the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, or DAAD, to the special public prosecutors' office at Dusit District Court to request his indictment.

Suporn has been accused of inciting chaos among DAAD anti-government protesters during the state of emergency in the capital last month. He has denied the charges and refused to answer police questions, saying he would answer the charges only in a court of law.

Public prosecutors said they will decide on May 13 whether to prosecute Suporn.

A group of DAAD supporters rallied outside the Dusit police station today in a show of support for Suporn.

-- Tan Network 2009-05-07

Edited May 7, 2009 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

Dusit Police Station personnel are mightly lucky that Issan Rambo didn't do what Rambo did to a police station when he was arrested...

[frodo]

The saga continues. This may have been posted elsewhere on the forum, but there are so many threads, it's difficult to keep up with everything. One of the redshirt leaders, Jatuporn, now claims Abhisit was in not in the car when it was attacked. Let's just rewrite everything, regardless of facts. Bless my soul, I keep forgetting that the redshirts are nothing more than totally innocent angels, and any violence, destruction, or attacks cannot ever be commited by them.

Jatuporn: PM not in attacked car

By: Bangkokpost.com

Published: 7/05/2009 at 03:45 PM The trashing of the prime minister's bullet-proof car at the Ministry of the Interior during the Bangkok protests last month was carried out by soldiers wearing red shirts, according to UDD leader Jatuporn Promphan.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's statement he was in the vehicle with Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban when it came under attack by protestors was a lie, Mr Jatuporn said.

continued here: http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/14...istry-chatuporn

[wayfarer108]

I don't need to use my money directly to support the poor. If we have democracy, the party people vote for is the party who works for people, and people will get better lives. I protest with the reds for that reason.

How incredibly naive. Most Thais vote along patronage lines pumped up by the dominant party in their region. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that majoritarian democracy is a fair and just system for Thailand.

The party running Thailand now is not the party majority Thai voted for. This party, Democrat, has their care to army, PAD, Newin group, coalition parties, elite, top police and so on, and poor Thai at bottom of the list. If MPs told people "Vote for me. I'll vote for Abhisit to be PM", see how many votes they can get.

You keep saying this Koo, but your words ring hollow in the face of poll evidence to the contrary New patronage lines (sen) have been drawn since the apex of Col T's regime and, going by current evidence at least, his proxies and his supporters are not capable of winning again.

[frodo]

I don't need to use my money directly to support the poor. If we have democracy, the party people vote for is the party who works for people, and people will get better lives. I protest with the reds for that reason.

How incredibly naive. Most Thais vote along patronage lines pumped up by the dominant party in their region. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that majoritarian democracy is a fair and just system for Thailand.

Thanks for the laugh today! Thaksin's so-called "democracy" was not to help people get better lives, unless of course you voted for him. I seem to recall Thaksin giving preferential treatment to those districts who voted for him. Districts in the south that didn't vote for TRT got nothing except blatant discrimination and an abuse of human rights. Koo, why do you still use the word "Democracy" when refering to Thaksin and his party. The man blatantly told the world that democracy was not his goal, and I really don't see the reds supporting anything near democracy.

[chrislarsson]

I don't need to use my money directly to support the poor. If we have democracy, the party people vote for is the party who works for people, and people will get better lives. I protest with the reds for that reason.

How incredibly naive. Most Thais vote along patronage lines pumped up by the dominant party in their region. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that majoritarian democracy is a fair and just system for Thailand.

Thanks for the laugh today! Thaksin's so-called "democracy" was not to help people get better lives, unless of course you voted for him. I seem to recall Thaksin giving preferential treatment to those districts who voted for him. Districts in the south that didn't vote for TRT got nothing except blatant discrimination and an abuse of human rights. Koo, why do you still use the word "Democracy" when refering to Thaksin and his party. The man blatantly told the world that democracy was not his goal, and I really don't see the reds supporting anything near democracy.

What Thaksin said is this:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

Which is pretty much correct. Democracy is not a goal. The goal is good governance, and democracy is the means believed to lead to good governance. Which is not always true. For instance, more democracy in America, has led to more power to minority interests, and not less as intended.

Btw, the yellows don't support democracy either. PAD is talking about true democracy. But apparently this is not a representative democracy. So it's seems like what they stand for, is a new definition of democracy.

Edited May 9, 2009 by chrislarsson

[Plus]

What Thaksin said is this:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

Which is pretty much correct. Democracy is not a goal. The goal is good governance, and democracy is the means believed to lead to good governance.

If you want to clarify Thaksin's quote - where did he say anything about good governance?

>>>

Thaksin tried to establish effective governance, where there's no opposition, no red tape, and things get done fast. He wanted to emulate Singapore's success, sometimes openly setting it as a benchmark.

He could have succeeded if, unlike Singaporean leaders, he wasn't utterly corrupt. Even then Thailand has a long democratic tradition that couldn't be pacified by "national progress". Thais demand responsibility from their governments, they are not going to roll over and play dead to get a bone.

[chrislarsson]

What Thaksin said is this:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," he said. "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

Which is pretty much correct. Democracy is not a goal. The goal is good governance, and democracy is the means believed to lead to good governance.

If you want to clarify Thaksin's quote - where did he say anything about good governance?

Sorry...that part is my quote, and not related to Thaksin. My point was only that the quote "Democracy is not my goal" is taken out or context

Edited May 10, 2009 by chrislarsson

[Plus]

The context was asking Thaksin if he'd allow more constitutional oversight over the government in spirit of democracy and "good governance". The quote was part of his reply.

[chrislarsson]

The context was asking Thaksin if he'd allow more constitutional oversight over the government in spirit of democracy and "good governance". The quote was part of his reply.

That's the spirit of liberal democracies.

There seems to be a confusion regarding the definition of democracy. Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote. If the elected leader is corrupt and violator of human rights, it does not make it less democratic. But it does make it an illiberal democracy.

When PAD is talking about democracy, they are mainly talking about clean politics. That has nothing to do with democracy. That is more about good governance. It's quite unclear how they will achieve that though.

[Plus]

Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote. If the elected leader is corrupt and violator of human rights, it does not make it less democratic.

It's not a confusion over definitions, it's just bullshit, pardon my French.

[hammered]

The context was asking Thaksin if he'd allow more constitutional oversight over the government in spirit of democracy and "good governance". The quote was part of his reply.

That's the spirit of liberal democracies.

There seems to be a confusion regarding the definition of democracy. Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote. If the elected leader is corrupt and violator of human rights, it does not make it less democratic. But it does make it an illiberal democracy.

When PAD is talking about democracy, they are mainly talking about clean politics. That has nothing to do with democracy. That is more about good governance. It's quite unclear how they will achieve that though.

Democracy is generally considered to involve a lot more than just elections. Your statement highlighted is quite frankly either niave, uninformed or erronious.

[ThNiner]

The context was asking Thaksin if he'd allow more constitutional oversight over the government in spirit of democracy and "good governance". The quote was part of his reply.

That's the spirit of liberal democracies.

There seems to be a confusion regarding the definition of democracy. Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote. If the elected leader is corrupt and violator of human rights, it does not make it less democratic. But it does make it an illiberal democracy.

When PAD is talking about democracy, they are mainly talking about clean politics. That has nothing to do with democracy. That is more about good governance. It's quite unclear how they will achieve that though.

Democracy is generally considered to involve a lot more than just elections. Your statement highlighted is quite frankly either niave, uninformed or erronious.

That's no the doubt the deepest these people can get regarding the concepts of democracy. Yet they dare to claim that they know true democracy and are really fighting for it. What a bunch of *****s. ( Sorry, can't hold it anymore.)

Edited May 10, 2009 by ThNiner

[dbrenn]

Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote. If the elected leader is corrupt and violator of human rights, it does not make it less democratic.

It's not a confusion over definitions, it's just bullshit, pardon my French.

When you resort to swearing, it indicates that you have run out of things to say. The point seems valid to me - a democracy can elect a leader who is flawed, if that's what the people want. In such a case, the people always retain the power to eject that leader. Not so under the yellow mantra of curtailing the vote of the 'uneducated'. Only they and their chosen faithful would have the right to choose who governs the rest of us. Scary stuff. Who trusts them?

Edited May 10, 2009 by dbrenn

[hammered]

Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote. If the elected leader is corrupt and violator of human rights, it does not make it less democratic.

It's not a confusion over definitions, it's just bullshit, pardon my French.

When you resort to swearing, it indicates that you have run out of things to say. The point seems valid to me - a democracy can elect a leader who is flawed, if that's what the people want. In such a case, the people always retain the power to eject that leader. Not so under the yellow mantra of curtailing the vote of the 'uneducated'. Only they and their chosen faithful would have teh right to choose who governs the rest of us. Scary stuff. Who trusts them?

In most democratic countries so do courts which politcal leaders are not immune from. Also add in various impeachment means. That is why checks and balances are as much part of democracy as elections.

[Plus]

Democracy is mainly about elections and a 1-person-1 vote.

This is simply wrong and totally indefensible.

Crislarsson is welcome to show the source of this "definition".

He's right that we expect democracy to be "liberal democracy". Ok, he got us, but since we don't want "illiberal democracy", we are not accepting it, no matter what the label or definition is offered.

>>>>>

I'd personally go with "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", btw.