Red Shirts Set Up At Sanam Luang

[Insight]

Didn't Thaksin say a few years ago that he spotted only a few hundred PAD supporters at a rally using Google Earth, rather than the reported tens of thousands?

Maybe it was him that commissioned this utterly bizarre, beyond the realms of possibility (not to mention blindingly amateurish) bit of propaganda?

[animatic]

Last election the popular vote brought approx. the same amount of votes for Democrats and PPP

It was a VERY small margin %, MUCH smaller than the 5-4 CONVCTION vote,

but a win and an conviction none the less.

Elected yes, mandate no

convicted yes, not guilty ; hel_l NO!.

But the CONVICTION is permanent record, and a close election with no MAJORITY winner,

is then a coalition government and subject to change.. as coalition forces change,

as we have seen.

Thaksin was making money and screwing friends and business partners, for years,

the ONLY reason TRT existed was because he BOUGHT the party power enough to

hold together for a time... That doesn't make hiom good just powerful.

People not born and raised to power often don't exerciser power well ,when it comes to them.

Because the exerciser of getting power is MUCH DIFFERENT

than the one of HOLDING it well.

Edited May 23, 2009 by LivinginKata

[justanothercybertosser]

You mean to say there weren't 10's of thousands of people all dressed in exactly the same bright red, including hats? It's just another fake photo posted by Koo? Maybe you need to lay off the drink Koo, then you might be able to walk, and would stop seeing all these real red people everywhere.

Such comments are very disgusting.

The issue here is that the Red Shirts brought more than 100 000 people on the streets that day. Even the Nation, a generally rather anti Red paper has reported this number. Koo82 may have chosen the wrong image to support her point. But her point is indisputable - a massive amount of Red Shirts were protesting that day.

[sriracha john]

The issue here is that the Red Shirts brought more than 100 000 people on the streets that day. Even the Nation, a generally rather anti Red paper has reported this number.

But her point is indisputable - a massive amount of Red Shirts were protesting that day.

and yet barely 10% of what the Leaders were confident of bringing out...

BANGKOK, April 4 (Xinhua) -- According to local media, the UDD leaders are confident that the scheduled mass rally on April 8 would "attract over one million people" and justify their calls for dissolving the coalition government and holding a new general election.

I find such distortions of reality disgusting.

Edited May 23, 2009 by sriracha john

[LivinginKata]

Well, I hate to interrupt your slanging match, but this doesn't seem to be about anything other than scoring points anymore

I can't really see a reason to keep it open. I am welcome to suggestions as to how to discuss something even remotely on topic...

I have just deleted another batch of posts that add no value to the OT, and were just a continuation of the 'slanging match'. Keep on topic, civil, no flames OR have it closed.

[Plus]

Btw, 5-4 conviction in Ratchada case doesn't tell the whole story, it was only a vote on the sentence. The actual guilt was 8-1 or something equally overwhelming, they were several questions relating to it, all solidly in favour of prosecution.

It is not correct to say that he was found guilty by a slim margin.

[dbrenn]

Are you complaining that not more TRT/PPP MPs got banned?

If they did, they couldn't have voted for any democrats...but as they wasn't, they are still legit in the eyes of the law.

So those who voted for Abhisit are legit because they didn't buy votes?

Many banned TRT/PPP did not buy votes. But they were banned. Are they not legit in your word?

That's what people here ignore Koo. There are two definitions to the word 'banned':

1 - (Criminal) banned - people who support Thaksin

2 - (Forgiven) banned - people who support Abhisit and lend him 22 MPs

So, you see, the word banned in yellow political speak actually has two meanings

[dbrenn]

and yet barely 10% of what the Leaders were confident of bringing out...

A 10% turnout to any function is still quite good in Thailand SJ, unless there is free food

100,000 is still a lot of people, and undescores that the government cannot sweep the red movement under the carpet. They can only suppress the reds temporaily, using tanks and guns.

Why don't the Dems suppress the reds permanently by holding an election? Oops, forgot - they might lose, again.

Edited May 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

Koo, there are millions of people who have exactly opposite reactions to all three choices. You do realise they exist?

I only know that majority of Thais love the 3rd man. This explained why he and his parties won elections.

Right - the Dems dare not hold an election, for obvious reasons. And they still have the audacity to go by the name "Democrat" Party.

[sriracha john]

10% is an appallingly pathetic percentage... anywhere.

Given their penchant for deceit and rejigging, I have no confidence that that the Reds would respect the results of an election even if one was called sooner than what is to be projected as within the year.

[dbrenn]

What is your point exactly? The Democrats are as bad as the TRT/PPP? So condemn them both then.

Don't support either. Nobody forces you to choose a side.

Oh wow! That is such a tremendous improvement Rix. Until recently, anyone who disagreed with you had to be a criminal and rabid supporter of Thaksin the Damned. Either on one side, or the other, with nothing in between.

Glad you have seen the light.

[dbrenn]

Given their penchant for deceit and rejigging, I have no confidence that that the Reds would respect the results of an election even if one was called sooner than what is to be projected as within the year.

*sigh* you may have a point. But sending tanks rolling down the street, to topple an elected civilian government so that a bunch of corrupt generals could have their turn at filling their pockets. That isn't respecting the results of an election either.

What's a voter to do? They are all as bad as each other. Was it worth risking civil war for?

Elections are not perfect, but they are the best choice out of a bad lot.

[animatic]

Are the non-banned MPs from former PPP legit MPs or not in your oppinion? If they are you cannot complain about some of them siding with another party or forming a coalition. It is within their mandate to do, as voted forward by the voters.

You only seem to like democracy if you can dictate who benefits from it. Kinda like Thaksin and his non-like for it... (or you will claim democracy is his ultimate goal? Since his own words would prove that lie wrong.)

The non-banned MPs possibly bought votes but they did not commit. No evidence or evidence is not enough. They are in every party. Don't tell me that Demos didn't buy votes.

The difference is when these MPs, legit or not legit, voted for Khun Samak and Khun Somchai, no army instructed them to do so. Before the voting for Khun Somchai, MPs still wanted to vote for Khun Somchai because Abhisit's party did not have enough members to win. Only after 37 members of PPP were banned, these MPs switched their votes to Abhisit.

Everyone knows that Abhisit came to power with the help from the army. Is it democracy?

Everyone ALSO knows

Kuhn Thaksin came to power with the help of the army.

No one EVER comes to power in Thailand without the army's acquiescence.

Is this Democracy?

Well what passes for iDemocracy in Thailand.

Unless you are :

a ) Obsessed with getting Thaksin back; then Democracy is only a veneer.

b ) Your side is not in power, so ANYTHING the other side does

CAN'T be labeled democracy or your argument falls flat.

c ) On some philosophically absolutist, utopian, position that exists nowhere on earth.

There are not angles in this story, just greater and lesser devils and demons.

The questions are:

Which side causes the LEAST damage and does the MOST good at the same time?

Which side would cause more chaos and destruction for hold power?

Which side uses as light a hand as possible to hold power?

It is pretty obvious which way these three questions point.

And I can see them with NO COLOR BIAS... just as the questions.

If the answers I find may parallel a color bias, then so be it.

The questions are more important than the parallels,

nor those who would decry those parallels.

[sriracha john]

Elections are not perfect, but they are the best choice out of a bad lot.

and it's good news that one is projected within a reasonable time frame.

[animatic]

Given their penchant for deceit and rejigging, I have no confidence that that the Reds would respect the results of an election even if one was called sooner than what is to be projected as within the year.

*sigh* you may have a point. But sending tanks rolling down the street, to topple an elected civilian government so that a bunch of corrupt generals could have their turn at filling their pockets. That isn't respecting the results of an election either.

What's a voter to do? They are all as bad as each other. Was it worth risking civil war for?

Elections are not perfect, but they are the best choice out of a bad lot.

Where did you get the idea that BEFORE the coup those same generals

were NOT "filling their pockets"? Of course they were.

So they need not have taken out Thaksin for that reason.

And they WERE getting their budgets and they were running their little scams.

They never got touched in the War on Drugs, and just started back up again.

Thaksin was getting quite unstable and that was obvious to any unbiased observer at the time.

I was UNBIASED against him till his ACTIONS and WORDS changed that position.

The generals didn't need to remove him to add their snouts to the trough,

they have their own whole end all to themselves already.

Edited May 23, 2009 by animatic

[rixalex]

What is your point exactly? The Democrats are as bad as the TRT/PPP? So condemn them both then.

Don't support either. Nobody forces you to choose a side.

Until recently, anyone who disagreed with you had to be a criminal and rabid supporter of Thaksin the Damned. Either on one side, or the other, with nothing in between.

My comment about not having to support either side was very much directed at you and your friends on this forum. You continue to huff and puff and get your knickers in a twist at the suggestion that you support Thaksin, but continue to come out with comments that start like this:

For all Thaksin's misbehaviour.....

Another classic one i must have heard a hundred times is "Thaksin might not have been perfect but...."

There is nothing that justifies or outweighs the bad things that Thaksin did to this country.

If you don't like being accused of taking sides dbrenn, i suggest you stop taking one.

[animatic]

But a return to Thaksin setting up his own private fiefdom would be OK?

[Journalist]

But a return to Thaksin setting up his own private fiefdom would be OK?

That would be horrible also.

I would like to see the Democrats use their administration to encourage the elimination of vote fraud

Secure voting booths with cameraphones banned

Education - advertising reminding people that they don't have to vote for the person who pays them.

Then the Democrats can feasibly secure an election win fair and square.

Is any voter education taking place? Chamlong wanted to see it. I'm not in Thailand, so I dont know. It seems such a common sense campaign to undertake.

[animatic]

But a return to Thaksin setting up his own private fiefdom would be OK?

That would be horrible also.

I would like to see the Democrats use their administration to encourage the elimination of vote fraud

Secure voting booths with cameraphones banned

Education - advertising reminding people that they don't have to vote for the person who pays them.

Then the Democrats can feasibly secure an election win fair and square.

Is any voter education taking place? Chamlong wanted to see it. I'm not in Thailand, so I dont know. It seems such a common sense campaign to undertake.

Ditto 100%

Not sure on voter ed though, great idea,

but discussion and implementation up north tends to get you a beating...

I know the 'big wig' down here lost to the 'man of the people' here,

who HAS been doing good things for the place. So I can say the voters

have been voting logically here as far as I can observe.

[Plus]

Many banned TRT/PPP did not buy votes. But they were banned. Are they not legit in your word?

Only party executives were banned, for condoning electoral fraud, as accomplices. Do you know that being an accomplice is also punishable?

[Richard W]

Thaksin had faults, but he is held responsible by Abhisit, the dems, and some of the posters here, for absolutely everything that goes wrong in Thailand. They will be blaming Thaksin for the tsunami next.

Only for the lack of warning. And he was blamed for that at the time of the tsunami.

[Plus]

They'd respect the vote count (because there is a good chance they would get most votes)

They'd respect the seat allocation (because they'd likely be the largest individual party - albeit without a majority)

And you think they'd respect Democrats forming another coalition?

Realistically, they are likely to lose big time, they'd be lucky to keep half of their 2007 parliament seats, if Newin plays it right.

[Plus]

he is held responsible by Abhisit .... for absolutely everything that goes wrong in Thailand.

Regarding Abhisit - that us just not true.

[sriracha john]

My comment about not having to support either side was very much directed at you and your friends on this forum. You continue to huff and puff and get your knickers in a twist at the suggestion that you support Thaksin, but continue to come out with comments that start like this:

Another classic one i must have heard a hundred times is "Thaksin might not have been perfect but...."

There is nothing that justifies or outweighs the bad things that Thaksin did to this country.

If you don't like being accused of taking sides dbrenn, i suggest you stop taking one.

It's been going on here for a LONG time, rixalex

3 years ago...

I think that i have made in previous posts more than clear how disgusted i feel about the deaths during the drugwar.

Nevertheless, the point i was trying to make here was that < snipped >

Colpyat, do you never tire of such garbage?

Yes, we all know that you are ardently anti-Thaksin... anti-Drug War. You relish telling us either one or both of those sentences with almost every post.... and THEN, you proceed to go on for the next 30 sentences why Thaksin isn't really so bad... or that the Drug Wars have been going on forever, etc. downplaying the significance of Thaksin's corruption, blaming others for his offenses, likening others' passive acceptance with the same guilt as Thaksin's aggressiveness... etc. or some other such nonsense.

2 years ago...

quote name='sriracha john' date='2007-05-16 13:17:57' post='1305883'

Well, as you know so much about my posting history, you should be able to see that on more than a few occasions i have clearly stated that i dislike Thaksin.

Yes, you're always invoking that claim by making that single, solitary sentence... after which you then invariably proceed to follow it by writing three paragraphs about why every other politician was far worse or half a page glorifying his accomplishments. The term disingenuous comes to mind.

[Plus]

I think Justanothertosser actually justified the drug war, eventually, for cleaning the society of drugs, so things change, these kind of posters actually evolve.

[tig28]

Where did you get the idea that BEFORE the coup those same generals

were NOT "filling their pockets"? Of course they were.

So they need not have taken out Thaksin for that reason.

And they WERE getting their budgets and they were running their little scams.

They never got touched in the War on Drugs, and just started back up again.

Thaksin was getting quite unstable and that was obvious to any unbiased observer at the time.

I was UNBIASED against him till his ACTIONS and WORDS changed that position.

The generals didn't need to remove him to add their snouts to the trough,

they have their own whole end all to themselves already.

Hi animatic

I was actually quite biased against Thaksin ..... for my own light-weight reasons .... until AFTER the coup. It was the litany of "stupidities" of the Junta that caused me to have second thoughts.

"The generals didn't need to remove him to add their snouts to the trough"

------ I can clearly remember some six months (?) prior to the coup ----- Thaksin was in severe conflict with the generals over (amongst other things) the promotions list ---- it seemed to me he was seeking to re-jig the upper levels of the army --- attempting to get his supporters into positions of power within that most powerful of bodies.

At the time I thought that this was likely to turn out badly for Thaksin. With a history of 17 coups already in their resume --- I felt it likely that the generals would react harshly to Thaksin's moves before he emasculated them by placing his cronies in the top jobs. After all there was an immense amount of money and power at risk.

With an election imminent --- and Thaksin a virtual certainty to win (yet again) their position at the HEAD of the trough was in real jeopardy.

[tig28]

Many banned TRT/PPP did not buy votes. But they were banned. Are they not legit in your word?

Only party executives were banned, for condoning electoral fraud, as accomplices. Do you know that being an accomplice is also punishable?

Hi PLUS

WOW ... and this from a man who berates others use of "legalese."

Do you know that to be convicted and punished of being an accomplice requires proof of that complicity?? (in any reasonable court).

But thanks to a swiftly re-jigged constitution that proof is not required here!!! This is a pretty good move if you are seeking to destroy a political party you are unable to defeat at the polls ---- and you combine it with a few other steps to ensure only your opponents are actually red carded.

Justice in most of the world demands proof that the accused actually was involved in the crime. It is not anywhere near sufficient to say " You were the boss when your underling committed a crime so you go down also."

[Journalist]

I think Justanothertosser actually justified the drug war, eventually, for cleaning the society of drugs, so things change, these kind of posters actually evolve.

Does the current Government or the top police and judiciary really care about the extra-judicial killings in the drug war?

Thats not a rhetorical question, as I don't know if they do or not. I hear reporters critiquing it, but not much else.

Im personally not all that fussed about it,whilst recognising its brutality.

[justanothercybertosser]

I think Justanothertosser actually justified the drug war, eventually, for cleaning the society of drugs, so things change, these kind of posters actually evolve.

Does the current Government or the top police and judiciary really care about the extra-judicial killings in the drug war?

Thats not a rhetorical question, as I don't know if they do or not. I hear reporters critiquing it, but not much else.

Im personally not all that fussed about it,whilst recognising its brutality.

No, they do not.

Neither the coup group, nor this this government have done anything substantial about solving the drug war killings and various other human rights violations beyond the setting up of "committees". And we know what the setting up of a committee usually means...

The main reason simply is that in the drug war killings far too many allies and backers of this government were complicit and equally involved in the killings and the decision to employ this strategy. This is the problem with all the more serious violations against the law that happened during Thaksin's administration. One of the reasons why so far the only conviction happened in a ridiculous case.

[Plus]

Party executive board is responsible for wrongdoing committed by executive members in their official capacity and in the interests of the party. It is their job to know, it is their official position to be "accomplices", you don't need to prove any special connection.

thanks to a swiftly re-jigged constitution that proof is not required here

What's your point?

TRT was dissolved before the constition was "re-jigged".

PPP knew the deal when they took the jobs.

If you mean to say that the rule is unfair - that's your opinion, it can be argued. It IS argued right now in that parliamentary commission.

In my view the rule is fair to the people, and is practical - it's physically impossible to try hundreds of politicians to accertain their connection to wrongdoing. If the agreement to engage in fraud is not entered into official meeting minutes, there will be no evidence, and no witnesses.

The rule as it is, however strict, is not practical enough - it took a year to punish a party that had been governing the country illegitimately.