Red Shirts Do Not Condone Jakrapob Splinter Group

[Thai at Heart]

Well now I'm totally confused.

Red shirts / UDD say they want quality democracy, same in the worlds most developed countries.

Then they also say they have the same aim as jakrabob, who now aligns himself with an old communist group.

Well which is it?

The truth probably is that they are all being totally manipulated by toxin.

First they all just wanted to get toxin back, then suddenly the UDD claim they are the champions of democracy, totally manipulated by toxin the clever (but nasty and immoral) strategist.

Toxin of course also suddenly changed his 'values' and suddenly started talking his head off about how he is the champion of democracr for Thailand, which of couse totally conflicts with his comments and ravings when he was the dictatorial 'leader'.

I totally agree that Thailand desperataly needs to get into a much more equitable picture of democracy but I am totally unconvinced that this is really the aim of the UDD.

Hopefully one day the red shirts will see that they are being massively manipulated.

Hopefully, also, coming soon the masses of Thailand will stop being lazy and stop voting for and reject the incapable people of the past, and only vote for honest sincere and capable people who do exist and want to contribute but right now don't want to get involved with the leeches and thugs who currently have control of Thailand (the people who we currently call politicians).

It's a rather clever way of distancing themselves from being accused of being communist which as a previous poster has over the years been seen as an open ticket for hunting season by the army.

The UDD leadership and their followers are not a truly united bunch. Some are hacked off about their votes being made apparently irrelevant, some are hacked off that they may lose their votes, some are true Thaksinites who would love to see him back, some are paid, some are people who put their all in with Thaksin during his time and are missing out now, some think Abhisit is the elite's poster boy, some think the army really runs the country. The list can go on and on.

The fact is, by reducing this to an anti/pro democracy discussion it keeps it simple for the people to align themselves one way or another. The PAD did the same thing with pro-Thaksin/anti-Thaksin rhetoric and with their rather misplaced statements about appointed parliaments opened this pro-democracy can of worms. Who would ever think that Abhisit would have become tarred with an anti democracy brush and Thaksin would be taking the pro-democracy flag? This is the wonder of Thai politics.

For their own sakes though, it would appear that the UDD needs to keep itself together in one way or another until there is an election of some sort. What they dare not do is become tarred as being communist because the game will be up. Whether they can do it with every protest they plan probably going to become subject to the internal security act is the issue.

[Plus]

Who would ever think that Abhisit would have become tarred with an anti democracy brush and Thaksin would be taking the pro-democracy flag?

Good thing that this view has no traction whatsoever outside the red camp.

Since Songkran there have been irreconcilable differences between how the reds and the rest of the country interpret Thai politics and reds stopped even trying to reach out and make sense.

This is another development to support the view that they are nothing but Thaksin's groupies sent out to save his money. For a while it seemed like democracy smokescreen had some substance behind it, but now it all dissipated, not even smokescreen left.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Plus

[mca]

how the reds and the rest of the country interpret politics

Well despite how odious Thaksin is I guess the millions of people who voted for TRT/PPP interpreted Thai politics as being a case of using a one man one vote system meaning the winner would assume the role of the government for a full term.

That was a bit dumb of them wasn't it?

For sure Thaksin has an agenda to the detriment of Thailand. For sure a lot of his acts when in power were abhorrent to us. If people on here take out the repetitive "red mob" argument there are still millions of Thais who voted for him or a party connected to him. It was their right to do so. These people (again as is their right) voted as they saw fit. Vote buying? Sure. By all parties. There were still a huge number of folks who didn't need a few hundred baht to make their selection.

What isn't right is for powers who didn't like the result of an election to use all means necessary to oust the winner.

The Thai people spoke. Thaksin was their choice. Now folks can say that more people voted for the other parties combined than Thaksin but then that's not the point of any election I've ever seen.

Edited August 30, 2009 by mca

[animatic]

As with TRT Thaksin cobbled together a RED coalition under ONE name brand 'Red Shirts',

made from several divergent groups, who each agreed to hide their individual subgroup

colors or shadings for the moment for self interest while creating a great upheaval.

And so each is hoping to carve up bigger fiefdoms from the carnage to come.

Or given some luck, rise over their partners to rule omnipotently.

This is the splintering off of one of the more far out, yet well read, factions,

from one of the more irrational, pedantic and brainwashed factions.

Between Just a porno and Jack rabbit bob, one has a clear intellect, and the other

is a screaming sycophant. Even as I can't agree with the relative-intellectual's conclusions,

he is still a brighter bulb than the screaming mimi, Mini-Me Samak jr.

[animatic]

Sadly for Thailand Thaksin's corruption was on too vast a scale to be left unchecked.

Winning the vote in any country does not mean you can not be also be removed from office.

In this case he had so compromised the checks and balances of the other wise good

1997 Constitution, that he could not be removed, for cause, any other way.

There was cause, but the rules or playing field were jiggered too far to be functional.

Add to that his CLEAR moves to co-opt the police and armed forces for HIS use,

on hind it sight seems a forgone conclusion that he brought on his ouster himself

by over reaching and backstabbing, so many, and for so long, it was beyond leaving lie.

Yet he was an unelected care taker interim Prime Minister at the time,

he essentially was told you can not run in the next election.

At least not until his court cases are finished with.

But he seriously has to worry about these coming court cases,

where there's smoke there usually IS fire...

He was not an elected Prime Minister at the time of the coup.

It was obvious from his successful manipulations that the '97 constitution

was in need of revision to prevent further mis-use.

1/3 or so of the nation voted for Thaksin 2/3rds did NOT and

he only ruled by the fragmented nature of the multi-multi party system here.

But that OTHER 2/3rds didn't deserve being subjected to the national loses

incurred by Thaksin's machinations.

Edited August 30, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

how the reds and the rest of the country interpret politics

Well despite how odious Thaksin is I guess the millions of people who voted for TRT/PPP interpreted Thai politics as being a case of using a one man one vote system meaning the winner would assume the role of the government for a full term.

That was a bit dumb of them wasn't it?

Yes, pretty dumb, because Thaialnd has a multi-party parliamentary system and that's how governments are formed - the winner doesn't have the right to assume the role of the government. It must be shared, and it has been like that for decades, so yes, it was pretty dumb to expect otherwise.

That's why I've asked several times on this board about the meaning of the "winner".

In Thailand the "winner" of the elections simply gets a chance to assemble the team and then possibly get voted in as a captain, depending on the other team members support (MPs and their parties).

If they don't - tough luck, as it happened in December when they opted for a team lead by Abhisit instead.

In case you forgot, the alternative PM candidate in that parliamentary vote was a relatively unknown politician from the smallest party that didn't "win" anything at all and didn't even control his own men. Half of that party MPs voted for Abhisit.

Can you, off the top of your head, remember his name?

His party didn't campaign as Thaksin nominees during the elections, who would you blame and who would you declare a "winner" if he won the December vote but refused to toe PTP party line on saving Thaksin's ass?

[mca]

In Thailand the "winner" of the elections simply gets a chance to assemble the team and then possibly get voted in as a captain, depending on the other team members support (MPs and their parties).

If they don't - tough luck, as it happened in December when they opted for a team lead by Abhisit instead.

So Thaksin didn't go through that process then? Strange. Always heard him referred to as PM.

Of course Aphasit went through that system though. Sadly enough it didn't take the votes of the Thai populace to get him into that rather fortunate situation.

I loathe Thasin. Truly. I am in full agreement with the anti-Thaksin rhetoric on here. He is immoral scum. I know what he wants and it's not for the betterment of LOS.

But anybody who thinks that he and his minions are Satan and his imps and those who oppose Thaksin are these democratic angels who consider it their duty to bring true democracy to Thailand as opposed to controlling the proles who dare to question them and their actions has a real case of the delusions.

And unfortunately, no matter and despite all the bandying of words, Thaksin's party won the election. And again. And nobody here can refute that no matter how detestable he is.

If the Thais accepted a turd like Thaksin then that's there call. They're the people who have that ID card allowing them to.

OK a lot of Thais voted against him. That's their right as well.

Only more people voted TRT etc than the others.

Democracy in action folks!

[animatic]

In Thailand the "winner" of the elections simply gets a chance to assemble the team and then possibly get voted in as a captain, depending on the other team members support (MPs and their parties).

If they don't - tough luck, as it happened in December when they opted for a team lead by Abhisit instead.

So Thaksin didn't go through that process then? Strange. Always heard him referred to as PM.

Of course Aphasit went through that system though. Sadly enough it didn't take the votes of the Thai populace to get him into that rather fortunate situation.

I loathe Thasin. Truly. I am in full agreement with the anti-Thaksin rhetoric on here. He is immoral scum. I know what he wants and it's not for the betterment of LOS.

But anybody who thinks that he and his minions are Satan and his imps and those who oppose Thaksin are these democratic angels who consider it their duty to bring true democracy to Thailand as opposed to controlling the proles who dare to question them and their actions has a real case of the delusions.

And unfortunately, no matter and despite all the bandying of words, Thaksin's party won the election. And again. And nobody here can refute that no matter how detestable he is.

If the Thais accepted a turd like Thaksin then that's there call. They're the people who have that ID card allowing them to.

OK a lot of Thais voted against him. That's their right as well.

Only more people voted TRT etc than the others.

Democracy in action folks!

Thaksin won the 2005 election. Fair play.

But then when Shin Corp to Temasek sale put EVERYONE up in arms,

especially when he had his crew change the law 2 DAYS before the sale to avoid paying taxes...

well that cause enragement. He dissolved the parliament, HIS OWN ACTION, to try for a BIGGER win,

ego run amok it seems, and to white wash the Temasek deal with another grand win and validate it.

Except he misjudged the TRT stupidity with electoral cheating caused when the Dems boycotted the election.

and TRT had to win by a MUCH higher percentage in unopposed areas.

Ones they could NOT win... so they paid for shill parties they could easily beat.

And he never imagined that his bought and poaid for Election Commission would

ALSO get caught, fired and jailed for helping him.

So essentially for 2/3 of 2006 he was no more than Interim Caretaker Prime Minister.

A seat warmer in case of emergencies.

He did this ti himself.

But he also had been and continued trying to gain control of police and Army prtomotion lsists,

which he had blatantly used to place his cronies in over his whole tenure.

At the time of the coup he was ACTING PM and not an elected PM.

Former PM Thakisn nothing more. Try as he might to revel in his glory days.

He was not an elected PM for more than 6 months BEFORE the coup,

and that state, created by his own hand.

[Plus]

In Thailand the "winner" of the elections simply gets a chance to assemble the team and then possibly get voted in as a captain, depending on the other team members support (MPs and their parties).

If they don't - tough luck, as it happened in December when they opted for a team lead by Abhisit instead.

So Thaksin didn't go through that process then? Strange. Always heard him referred to as PM.

He did, always, and so did PPP.

In 2001 Thaksin created a multi-party coalition, though eventually all those parties were simply absorbed into TRT.

In 2005 he created a coalition.

In 2008 his nominee party created a coalition. That one fell apart after Newin had enough and Democrats were able to put their own coalition together. PPP teamed up with the remnants of Pua Paendin but were defeated in the parliamentary vote.

I notice you didn't take up the challenge to recall the name of PPP proposed candidate for PMship.

Of course Aphasit went through that system though. Sadly enough it didn't take the votes of the Thai populace to get him into that rather fortunate situation.

Each and every MP who voted for or against Abhisit was elected by people. Your phrase "didn't take the votes of the Thai populace" makes no sense. Which of those 250 or so MPs who voted for Abhisit wasn't people's representative?

I loathe Thasin. Truly. I am in full agreement with the anti-Thaksin rhetoric on here. He is immoral scum. I know what he wants and it's not for the betterment of LOS.

But anybody who thinks that he and his minions are Satan and his imps and those who oppose Thaksin are these democratic angels who consider it their duty to bring true democracy to Thailand...

Hold it right there - anti-Thaksin coalition now consist of broad and wide spectrum of all kinds of political parties of all shades and colors, some are probably even less democratic than his TRT/PPP/PTP.

That's the thing - it's Thaksin vs Thailand now, far bigger than pro-against democracy arguments. And this is why he is finished.

Democrat vs Newin struggle has far more importance for the future of Thai democracy than this fixation on bringing Thaksin back. That is so "na bua".

[justanothercybertosser]

Had the Red Shirts not turned to violence during Songran, Jaturporn's attempt to distance his Red Shirts from Jakropob's Red Shirts may have been successful. Now, any violence and the view will be a Red Shirt is a Red Shirt.

Funny they choose color "RED" for their symbols. The color of blood and violence

...and communism and anti-royalist.

Red notoriously is the color of revolution as in the instance of the PRC; the former USSR etc.

As I recall Thaksin used the word during the Pattaya debacle.

And a bit of basic education on matters discussed here, and their context, would avoid embarrassing moments...

The colored stripes in the Thai national flag represent the three pillars: Nation - Religion - Monarchy.

Red represents the Nation, often interpreted as 'the people' as well, and therefore chosen by the Red Shirts as their color.

Edited August 30, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Publicus]

Unlike elephants, people in Thailand actually have a short memory. I know this is counter to Thai culture which maintains that the Thais, as with elephants, have a long memory.

For three score years previous to Thaksin and TRT, Thai democracy consisted of a continuous series of cobbled governing coalitions, each of which seldom lasted 16 months into its full term. It was the case of three steps forward and two steps backward.

Then came Thaksin and TRT to win in a landslide in 2001, become the first PM and party to serve an entire term, then be relected to boot (massive vote fraud annuled that election and the EC went to prison).

Voters at that point, however, seemed to presume that the winning party would have the same or similar mandate to form a government as had occurred in the unprecedented and successive Thaksin and TRT landslides.

The post coup 2006 election was not a landslide as Thai democracy returned to its normal pattern of the distribution of votes among a motley group of small parties. In the new parliament a dominant group emerged so voters seemed to think the new government was entitled to the full term, which of course it was not.

That government did soon fall consistent with the pre-Thaksin/TRT Thai parliamentary tradition and the normal parliamentary rules, precedents, processes and traditions produced a new coalition government.

And the explations as to how the present government was legitimately formed have since been been stated, iterated, reiterated, explained, re-explained etc etc ad infinitum.

Clearly, certain groups of voters have agendas that haven't anything to do with parliamentary government, parliamentary procedures or parliamentary politics.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Publicus