Red Shirts Threaten To Go Underground, Is This Justified Given The Current Political Climate?

[thailandlover]

Given this recent news article: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Red-shirt-Tactics-t259580.html

Are the red-shirts justified in threatening to go underground with guerilla warfare? The threat of clandestine and subversive attacks coupled with this statement "I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand's problem is getting smaller every day," from Jakrapop make it seem as though the future of the red-shirts is armed violence and what appears to be rebellion.

Is this kind of action justfiable given the current political climate or do you believe there are more peaceful means to resolve this stand-off?

[wolfmanjack]

Violence is not justified at this time. Form a party and register voters. then take over at the next election if you can. Inform and educate the voters. If your party gets elected (without vote buying) every time there is an election the governments of the world will recognize your legitimate claim to power.

Personally I see the red shirts losing support. i was just up in the village in chiang mai and the consensus was that red shirts are khon mai dee. At least this is what was said by the drunk people when the red shirts appeared on the evening news.

[johncitizen]

I heard about this one, and I'm inclined to agree that the chances for a peaceful resolution to the conflict seem to be growing smaller and smaller by the day. From this point on, the Democrats have the choice of losing face and giving into some of the red-shirts demands, or becoming increasingly reliant on the military to stay in power. Either way, they lose- one in the short term, and one in the long term.

If they were smart they would reject the influence of both the PAD and the military and declare themselves "for the people of Thailand as a whole," a third way in the struggle between red and yellow with the ability to bleed voters from both sides.

[Jingthing]

I think the reds lack massive public support for a violent civil war. So no, not justified at all. In fact, it is criminal. I hope they lock up all of these dangerous insurgents. PEACEFUL protests please!

[DP25]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

[PeaceBlondie]

Anthony Lake wrote a classic, Somoza Falling - how the excluded upper class can bring down a corrupt empire. Mark from Oxford should read it.

[Pierrot]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

[Jingthing]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. So in your view, IF that is really the case, that justifies a violent revolt? If there REALLY is this mass people power sentiment that you imagine, why can't they do this NON-violently?

[Pierrot]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. So in your view, IF that is really the case, that justifies a violent revolt? If there REALLY is this mass people power sentiment that you imagine, why can't they do this NON-violently?

No it wouldn't justify a violent revolt if the democratic system were working well. Unfortunately most people are (rightly?) disillusioned with the way the system is working.

People who supported the PAD to contest in an undemocratic way the results of a democratic election, are responsible of what’s going on now. You know who support them then, don’t try to shift the blame now !

[Jingthing]

The reds have been MUCH more violent. I blame the REDS for the violence. Don't act like it didn't happen. Thailand does not need civil war. It will be the end of all the good times for all of us here if that happens.

[DP25]

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

Thaksin will do even worse than the 36% he got in the last election.

[Pierrot]

The reds have been MUCH more violent. I blame the REDS for the violence. Don't act like it didn't happen. Thailand does not need civil war. It will be the end of all the good times for all of us here if that happens.

Ask any mother, a birth is not a painless affair. But is it worth it ?

Edited April 23, 2009 by Pierrot

[Pierrot]

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

Thaksin will do even worse than the 36% he got in the last election.

So the gorvernment should held a new election and the problem is over.

But unfortunately not everybody shares your "optimism" and especially not the current caretaker.

[Jingthing]

The reds have been MUCH more violent. I blame the REDS for the violence. Don't act like it didn't happen. Thailand does not need civil war. It will be the end of all the good times for all of us here if that happens.

Ask any mother, a birth is not a painless affair. But is it worth it ?

You have just revealed yourself to be pro violent revolution. Do you realize that? There is no other way to read your comment. Thank you for sharing. The majority of Thais are clearly NOT for such violence.

[Pierrot]

The reds have been MUCH more violent. I blame the REDS for the violence. Don't act like it didn't happen. Thailand does not need civil war. It will be the end of all the good times for all of us here if that happens.

Ask any mother, a birth is not a painless affair. But is it worth it ?

You have just revealed yourself to be pro violent revolution. Do you realize that? There is no other way to read your comment. Thank you for sharing. The majority of Thais are clearly NOT for such violence.

Do you think a birth is a "violent" affair, like torture or a murder? I just said it's not painless.

The problem is your rhetoric may works with the Bangkok housewife but definitively not with the middleclass executive who is much more concerned with the poor state of the economy than your populist propaganda. That’s why we won’t have any election any time soon as it’s clear the Democrats will lose them again. They are used to it but people get really tired of the PAD, if you see what I mean …

[Jingthing]

I see you are a fan of the game TWISTER. YOU are the one who brought up child birth and compared it to violent bloody revolution/civil war. I get your point that transformations are painful and messy. Sometimes mothers die in childbirth as well. As far as my rhetoric, we are talking about red violence, not the history of PAD. It is a fact that the reds have proven to be a much more violent force than PAD ever was. Obviously, it is true there are many people frustrated with the current power structure in Thailand, and this situation may lead to a bloody civil war/revolution. However, while I think positive change is desirable, I think civil war would be a horrible tragedy and if you put that to a vote, the support for that would be minimal. But the insurgents may incite it anyway. Good people of Thailand must stop them.

Personally, I am very sympathetic to a reform movement in Thailand as long as it is fully divorced from Thaksin, and based on non-violent tactics, and democratic principles. However, I do realize the masses here may really rather have a dictator with a name starting with T.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Jingthing

[Ricardo]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

I started a Poll on this recently in this Forum, unfortunately we only got a sample of 82, but on the Question, "If a General Election were held now ... what do TV-members think the result would be ?", we got the following results :-

14.6% Landslide for Democrats

47.5 % Democrat-led Coalition

19.5 % PTP-led Coalition

18.3 % Landslide for PTP

So no, people on TV at least do not all agree that Thaksin will win again, if an election is held today.

I would agree that there is still serious support for Thaksin, although I suspect it has reduced from the neck-and-neck result of the last election, especially since the Pattaya & Bangkok riots. In normal times I would agree, as I said last November, a general election might be a good thing, to clear the air.

But in the middle of a global economic-crisis, the timing is just wrong, and I think Thailand needs a bit of stability before the next election is called. Consider the likely problems on-the-streets which an election right now would probably bring.

Why go through that pain, when there are more-important things for the government to focus on, and the result would likely be less-than-totally clear ? Isn't it better to continue the debate in Parliament, or in wrangling over changes to the Constitution, without spilling any more Thai blood for the time being ?

[Pierrot]

I see you are a fan of the game TWISTER. YOU are the one who brought up child birth and compared it to violent bloody revolution/civil war. I get your point that transformations are painful and messy. Sometimes mothers die in childbirth as well. As far as my rhetoric, we are talking about red violence, not the history of PAD. It is a fact that the reds have proven to be a much more violent force than PAD ever was. Obviously, it is true there are many people frustrated with the current power structure in Thailand, and this situation may lead to a bloody civil war/revolution. However, while I think positive change is desirable, I think civil war would be a horrible tragedy and if you put that to a vote, the support for that would be minimal. But the insurgents may incite it anyway. Good people of Thailand must stop them.

Personally, I am very sympathetic to a reform movement in Thailand as long as it is fully divorced from Thaksin, and based on non-violent tactics, and democratic principles. However, I do realize the masses here may really rather have a dictator with a name starting with T.

I don't believe there is will for civil war, on either side, but it's necessary that people understand that in a democracy it's not always one's favorite candidate who win and one should accept it.

And then people should understand that the problem is not Thaksin but the absence of a real alternative (acceptable by the majority) on the other side. If for the past 5 years the Democrats had worked on a credible platform, acceptable by the majority of the Thai voters and found a charismatic leader with a broad appeal, Thaksin would have been long forgotten by now.

[Pierrot]

But in the middle of a global economic-crisis, the timing is just wrong, and I think Thailand needs a bit of stability before the next election is called. Consider the likely problems on-the-streets which an election right now would probably bring.

Why go through that pain, when there are more-important things for the government to focus on, and the result would likely be less-than-totally clear ? Isn't it better to continue the debate in Parliament, or in wrangling over changes to the Constitution, without spilling any more Thai blood for the time being ?

The situation was the same a few month ago when Somchai was in charge. I don't remember hearing those arguments at the time. Why now ?

[Ricardo]

I don't believe there is will for civil war, on either side, but it's necessary that people understand that in a democracy it's not always one's favorite candidate who win and one should accept it.

And then people should understand that the problem is not Thaksin but the absence of a real alternative (acceptable by the majority) on the other side. If for the past 5 years the Democrats had worked on a credible platform, acceptable by the majority of the Thai voters and found a charismatic leader with a broad appeal, Thaksin would have been long forgotten by now.

Two very good points there.

I think Abhisit tried to position himself as less-extreme, keeping clear of the PAD since he rose to lead his party, and in calling for reconciliation when he reached power, and most-recently in trying to get the ball rolling, on changes to the Constitution and a limited amnesty.

However this may have been taken by many, to mean that he was unsure of himself, or somehow weak or totally-manipulated by other power-groups. Certainly he has to balance a range of different forces to stay in control.

The more-violent this becomes and the longer it drags on the harder it may be, for fanatical PAD or Thaksin-supporters, to accept that the 'other side' may sometimes have a few years in power, and that this is a normal & proper part of democracy. I thought that Abhisit's letting Samak have 'first go' at forming a coalition, in January 2008, was a good sign from him at least.

The shortage of younger less-corrupt politicians, or is it an over-supply of aged political-dinosaurs, on all sides is sad. One can only hope that more will emerge over time, and that political-parties may become more-national or policy-based, and less the personal fiefdoms of powerful local families. This is a very young democracy.

[h90]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

He didn't that good at the last PPP election. So I am sure no way he could secure more than 50 % of the MPs

[Ricardo]

But in the middle of a global economic-crisis, the timing is just wrong, and I think Thailand needs a bit of stability before the next election is called. Consider the likely problems on-the-streets which an election right now would probably bring.

Why go through that pain, when there are more-important things for the government to focus on, and the result would likely be less-than-totally clear ? Isn't it better to continue the debate in Parliament, or in wrangling over changes to the Constitution, without spilling any more Thai blood for the time being ?

The situation was the same a few month ago when Somchai was in charge. I don't remember hearing those arguments at the time. Why now ?

Perhaps nobody thought to make them ? But I myself think the situation has moved on from last-November :-

1. The economic-crisis is now hitting Thailand harder, although I firmly believe worse is yet to come, and it is therefore more important than ever to be taking steps to reduce the pain.

2. The Democrats are not about to be dissolved by the courts, for electoral faults, as the PPP were then.

3. Constitutional changes are now on-the-table, where before it was a one-policy strategy, to whitewash Thaksin. So there is more to be gained by negotiation. Which is why the Red-Shirts threat to go underground is wrong.

4. Abhisit is less-obviously a puppet, to whatever power-groups, than Somchai was to his brother-in-law.

Other posters may well see other differences as well.

Don't misunderstand me, if it came to an election right now, I still think the same group would be in government afterwards, and probably more securely than at present.

But the country can live without the inevitable uncertainty & distraction for the next 3 months.

[sbk]

The shortage of younger less-corrupt politicians, or is it an over-supply of aged political-dinosaurs, on all sides is sad. One can only hope that more will emerge over time, and that political-parties may become more-national or policy-based, and less the personal fiefdoms of powerful local families. This is a very young democracy.

Given the preponderance of children of old style politicians entering politics now, do you really foresee change?

[Pierrot]

I also believe that in the propaganda war, one point has been forgotten. It is that Thaksin has the support of the unprivileged from the North East, but not only them. A lot of middle and upper middleclass males support Thaksin. Why? Because he his one of them, he understand economy but most important he is the representant of the struggle between the “bourgeoisie” (merchant class) and the aristocracy.

One of the reason of the success of Thailand was the ability to absorb the rising merchant class in the ruling elite. Unfortunately this model has reached its limit and it’s now time for a change.

[sbk]

It boggles the mind that for some posters the only thing that matters is who is proposing the armed uprising, not the fact that people are proposing a violent overthrow of the government. I think, if the circumstances were reversed, those same people would be shouting to the skies denouncing the proponents of such an action.

[Pierrot]

It boggles the mind that for some posters the only thing that matters is who is proposing the armed uprising, not the fact that people are proposing a violent overthrow of the government. I think, if the circumstances were reversed, those same people would be shouting to the skies denouncing the proponents of such an action.

I'm not so sure I understand what you mean, could you please clarify?

"Circumstances were reversed" They have been reversed so many times, it's hard to follow who support what, don't you think ?

[mauGR1]

Given this recent news article: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Red-shirt-Tactics-t259580.html

Are the red-shirts justified in threatening to go underground with guerilla warfare? The threat of clandestine and subversive attacks coupled with this statement "I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand's problem is getting smaller every day," from Jakrapop make it seem as though the future of the red-shirts is armed violence and what appears to be rebellion.

Is this kind of action justfiable given the current political climate or do you believe there are more peaceful means to resolve this stand-off?

Pardon my simple logic,i never heard PAD leaders inciting the crowds to violent acts.I might not agree with them,but i think they love Thailand.The same cannot be said for some guys that incite violence,urging the protesters to bring their children along(shame,isn't it?),trying to overthrow the government in this difficult times for economy,and then,when s**t happens they claim they have been infiltrated by common criminals.Moreover they tell us stories about hundreds of people killed by army,in a vain attempt to get popular consensus...Ask yourself please if these leaders are working for Thailand,or against it.Now i want to add that people who believe in Democracy work for it everyday,no matter what their position in the society.Like Mahatma Gandhi said"Politics start from your Neighbours.End of the rant

[Tony Clifton]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

What people fail to understand is that should anyone write Thaksin on his bulletin, the said bulletin shall be voided as he is a wanted criminal and not allowed to run as PM, he is also banned from politics for 5 years already to begin with...

He could have made a clean comeback after the ban but chose the criminal way, once more, and fled like the coward he has always been.

[Pierrot]

They don't have the popular support to do so. Thaksin and this guy are delusional.

So far all serious people agree that if an election is held today, Thaksin will win again.

What people fail to understand is that he sill has a large support within the male middleclass, even in Bangkok.

What people fail to understand is that should anyone write Thaksin on his bulletin, the said bulletin shall be voided as he is a wanted criminal and not allowed to run as PM, he is also banned from politics for 5 years already to begin with...

He could have made a clean comeback after the ban but chose the criminal way, once more, and fled like the coward he has always been.

There was election, then a military coup. Whatever happened after this coup has no value as far as democracy is concerned.

By the way you made very public that you fled Thailand a couple of month ago . Talking about coward, it takes one to know one .

[Pierrot]

Given this recent news article: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Red-shirt-Tactics-t259580.html

Are the red-shirts justified in threatening to go underground with guerilla warfare? The threat of clandestine and subversive attacks coupled with this statement "I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand's problem is getting smaller every day," from Jakrapop make it seem as though the future of the red-shirts is armed violence and what appears to be rebellion.

Is this kind of action justfiable given the current political climate or do you believe there are more peaceful means to resolve this stand-off?

Pardon my simple logic,i never heard PAD leaders inciting the crowds to violent acts.I might not agree with them,but i think they love Thailand.The same cannot be said for some guys that incite violence,urging the protesters to bring their children along(shame,isn't it?),trying to overthrow the government in this difficult times for economy,and then,when s**t happens they claim they have been infiltrated by common criminals.Moreover they tell us stories about hundreds of people killed by army,in a vain attempt to get popular consensus...Ask yourself please if these leaders are working for Thailand,or against it.Now i want to add that people who believe in Democracy work for it everyday,no matter what their position in the society.Like Mahatma Gandhi said"Politics start from your Neighbours.End of the rant

I don't what you mean but usually when you quote someone else, some form of comment is expected