Red-Shirt Movement 'At War With Military'

[mca]

But how can that much needed line in the sand be drawn animatic? What can possibly make it happen? The Pandora's Box of " I don't agree with this decision so I'm going to do my very best to overturn it and get my way" has been opened. What can possibly put the lid back on?

[animatic]

But how can that much needed line in the sand be drawn animatic? What can possibly make it happen? The Pandora's Box of " I don't agree with this decision so I'm going to do my very best to overturn it and get my way" has been opened. What can possibly put the lid back on?

Well that sure is the question of the day.

I think Abhisit has some plans for dealing with the partners,

not sure what, but he's too smart not to have something figured.

I think there is too much at stake to allow Thaksin instigated violence to

split these parties too far not to hold the ground.

The little party's want cash, power/perks or a better playing field for THEM not PTP,

so there would appear to be ways to appease them, and NOT appease the Thaksin boot lickers.

I think the stick to draw this line was just picked up by the Dems last night,

how they draw the line is the big question.

[jayboy]

To repeat for the third time of asking: do you really think that elections for the sake of appeasing people who threaten violence is the right solution?

If yes, would you not be concerned about the precedent it would set?

With respect, to be convincing, you should avoid resorting to a prescriptive definition.It is you that has set up the proposition about elections for the sake of appeasing people who threaten violence.If this is your view you are welcome to state it on a forum like this.However what you aren't entitled to do is to suggest it is a universally accepted understanding and then go on to ask somebody to react to it.

[animatic]

Ignore the question and question the phrasing.

Same same.

[scorecard]

You say the reds "feel" cheated and therefore they have a right to demand an election - you even join them in that call - well don't you think that if the reds got back in power (as you believe they will) and Thaksin was pardoned for his crime/s, a certain yellow group would then feel like they have been cheated - would you then join them in demanding a fresh election?

There you go again... 'and Thaksin was pardoned for his crime/s' - stop linking calls for an election to this issue - I'm illogical and you are logical?

hmmm pot and kettle springs to mind!

Some points:

- How can you NOT link PT (and the red shirts) to a pardon for Thaksin. They are inseparable.

- Lets look at it this way, the red shirts are not in fact a registered political party, but they are in fact a support group for the PT. Are you really saying that if the PT party wins an election then they would NOT pursue a pardon for Thaksin and they would not pursue a return to the 2006 constitution? Surely you are NOT suggesting this scenario?

Or put it another way, if PT did win an election and they then said "we will not pursue a pardon for Thaksin, he must be captured and go to jail for 2 years and all the other charges must go through the courts with no influence in any way", then how do you think the red shirts would react?

- Or, are you trying to say that the Red Shirts are (for whatever reason) simply saying that their is an absolute legal/moral reason why there should be an election right now, and it's got no connection to anything to do with Thaksin. Do you really think the majority of Thais would believe such a claim from the red shirts? Absolutely NO!

- Or, if PT won an election, to some extent though the support (i would call it intimidation) of the red shirts then it must be true that the red shirts would demand some ministerial positions. Do you really want to see: Chalerm as PM (and more blatant nepotism) , Noppadon as Foreign Minister, Chavalit as Finance/Economy Minister, Jatuporn as Interior Minister, Sae Daeng as Defense minister, Sudarat as Health Minister, the son as Minister for small business, * etc. I sincerely hope you would answer NO!

(* Let's not forget that one of the items that the PT / red shirts are aiming for, and they have said this many times publically, is a pardon for the 350 or so 'politicians' (leeches is probably a better word) who are currently banned for election fraud / vote buying and there is plenty of open evidence to show why they were found guilty. If a pardon was granted for the approx. 350 then in five minutes your definitely going to see the likes of Sudarat and many more in control of massive budgets.)

- Well lets look at some other points in the argument. Abhisit legally occupies the PM chair through mechanisms which are provided for in the election / constitution of Thailand and the same processes exist in many many other countries and Samak in fact stepped into the PM seat through the same mechanism.

But many red shirt / thaksin supporters will simply not recognize this point, in other words they will not accept the properly/logically framed laws of Thailand. Or put it another way, they want elections simply because they don't want to accept anybody but PT/red shirts/thaksin in the drivers seat. Is this in fact what they call "cheated"? Where's the detailed / balanced absolute logic in this claim?

[animatic]

Worthy of standing out more...

- Or, if PT won an election, to some extent though the support (i would call it intimidation) of the red shirts

then it must be true that the red shirts would demand some ministerial positions.

Do you really want to see:

Chalerm as PM (and more blatant nepotism) ,

Noppadon as Foreign Minister,

Chavalit as Finance/Economy Minister,

Jatuporn as Interior Minister,

Sae Daeng as Defense minister,

Sudarat as Health Minister,

the son as Minister for small business, * etc.

I sincerely hope you would answer NO!

Where's the detailed / balanced absolute logic in this...

Balanced like FoxNews is balanced...

Lets not forget Veera as Minster of Tele-comunications and MICT censoring.

All red TV 24/7, 120 channels and growing.

Maybe he can dictate 32 ,45 minute hours in a day and really control things

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Duplicate post, so I guess I should use it.

Violence and intimidation are bad and should be avoided.

Any side that would regularly use that as part of their bargaining tools should not rule a country.

Not to be confused with separate groups with similar views,

but radically different methodologies toward implementation.

A or B.

A. )

While one group may want the similar things, in part, as another, it uses rational and legal means,

while the other uses emotional and quasi-legal or extra-legal means. Similar goals different means,

and thus different groups even if one or two members cross over.

B. )

On the other hand one group controlling or specifically promoting another group,

to do it's dirty work thus keeping it's hands clean, yet making it quite obvious

which one calls the shots, if not the specific actions, is not the same kettle of fermented fish.

Nor does the moral component fall with the same definitiveness in each instance.

Edited January 27, 2010 by animatic

[rixalex]

To repeat for the third time of asking: do you really think that elections for the sake of appeasing people who threaten violence is the right solution?

If yes, would you not be concerned about the precedent it would set?

With respect, to be convincing, you should avoid resorting to a prescriptive definition.It is you that has set up the proposition about elections for the sake of appeasing people who threaten violence.If this is your view you are welcome to state it on a forum like this.However what you aren't entitled to do is to suggest it is a universally accepted understanding and then go on to ask somebody to react to it.

The question was very specifically directed at CMF who himself has explained the reasons why he feels elections are needed now. They are not my reasons, they might not be yours, but they are his, and if you refer back to the last few pages of this thread it's all there spelt out for you by him in black and white.

If you disagree with his reasons, which formed the premise of the question i put to him, well then your issue is with him.

[jayboy]

Ignore the question and question the phrasing.

Same same.

Strange.Rixalex gave me a polite reply, not disputing the proposition but pointing out reasonably that someone else defined the terms.That ended the matter.You jump in aggressively and rudely missing the point completely.And you wonder why you're not taken seriously by many.

[animatic]

It was not aggressive unless it strikes a nerve with you.

And where was the aggression? It was a simple declarative sentence,

but you find it aggressive. You're getting a bit touchy lately.

Seems you still want to avoid the question and question the phrasing.

So an accurate assessment in a short few words.

People can see through your act too you know.

The questions still stands and TWO people avoid answering it.

I gave an answer.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3298742

Why can't you and CMF do the same.

I guess the question doesn't suit your ends.

Edited January 28, 2010 by animatic

[jayboy]

It was not aggressive unless it strikes a nerve with you.

And where was the agression? It was a simple declarative sentence,

but you find it aggressive. You're getting a bit touchy lately.

Seems you still want to avoid the question and question the phrasing.

So an accurate assessment in a short few words.

People can see through your act too you know.

Your own words make your attitude clear.

However in passing it seems you still miss the point, not that it was an earth shattering one.

I checked the reference you gave and couldn't really understand it I'm afraid.

Edited January 28, 2010 by jayboy

[scorecard]

Still waiting for a specific explanation of why the red shirts feel cheated.

Edited January 28, 2010 by scorecard

[boris52]

haha if you don't know by now "why the red shirts feel cheated" then you either

1) don't know anything about Thai Politics or

2)you have a VERY narrow and one-faceted view of Thai Politics.

[animatic]

Or just disagree that they have valid reasons.

It's a shame Jayboy can NOT understand why appeasment is a bad thing versus aggressive groups with agendas.

It is pretty clear and I used a good historical example. The conclusion, in the current context,

doesn't support giving in the Thaksin and the reds intimidations, so maybe that's why it can't be agreed with.

So attack the messenger and ignore comment on the message. Doesn't further you argument a bit.

Edited January 28, 2010 by animatic

[jayboy]

It's a shame Jayboy can NOT understand why appeasment is a bad thing versus aggressive groups with agendas.

It is pretty clear and I used a good historical example. The conclusion, in the current context,

doesn't support giving in the Thaksin and the reds intimidations, so maybe that's why it can't be agreed with.

If a general point about appeasement is made clearly as above I understand very well, and indeed agree.The problem was that the reference you gave was just muddled and poorly written gobblededook.As for the specifics I was actually never a participator in the debate.If however you are saying that Thaksin is a bad man and his red followers shouldn't threaten violence, nobody - stifling a yawn - is going to disagree with you.

If you want to be taken seriously why don't you stop repeating stale mantras and aim for some nuance, sensitivity and insight (even walking on the wild side and trying to imagine the other fellow's point of view).It's not as though you don't have the time - but do you have the knowledge, wit or imagination? On a forum like this there needs to be some give and take.

[NanLaew]

haha if you don't know by now "why the red shirts feel cheated" then you either

1) don't know anything about Thai Politics or

2)you have a VERY narrow and one-faceted view of Thai Politics.

And who would want to rent space in their heads to such a puerile and insignificant subject such as Thai politics?

I can see some of the regular political pundits here appearing on 'Mastermind' getting 100% correct with no passes in the specialised round on 'Thai politics; the Thaksin years' and then crashing and burning horribly in the 'General Knowledge' second round... "Pass. Pass. Ummm... pass."

[Steve2UK]

I can see some of the regular political pundits here appearing on 'Mastermind' getting 100% correct with no passes in the specialised round on 'Thai politics; the Thaksin years' and then crashing and burning horribly in the 'General Knowledge' second round... "Pass. Pass. Ummm... pass."

[hammered]

Any chance of a return to topic. Im sure these personal disgreements can be sorted out by PM where the rest of use dont have to see them

By the way, it seems Sae Daeng really has his own war with virtually the whole military at the moment.

[sbk]

Yes please, and in that vein, posts have been deleted. further discussion of moderation and attempts at baiting will be dealt with in a more formal fashion than mere deletion and a public warning.

[scorecard]

haha if you don't know by now "why the red shirts feel cheated" then you either

1) don't know anything about Thai Politics or

2)you have a VERY narrow and one-faceted view of Thai Politics.

In fact I have studied Thai politics in situ for about 30 years and I've completed a number of academic studies re Thai history and politics.

Please don't tell me the red shirts are conducting a genuine and sincere campaign for the establishment of quality democracy, because I don't believe that for one minute. In fact if that's their claim then please don't insult the intelligence of the vast majority of Thais, and me!

Can you please share any examples of events where the red shirt leaders have spoken at length and in depth about the concept and the benefits of democracy, the mechanism / the pillars of democracy, the role of the judiciary, respect for the rights of others to speak their views without intimidation or violence, respect for the role of a free press, etc., in the establishment and protection of quality democracy?

I challenge you, please share some examples. I've made this same challenge on TV and other web boards about 15 times. Never had a reply.

And, I repeat I still don't know why specifically they say they have been cheated. Please enlighten me.

[boris52]

google is your friend

[animatic]

haha if you don't know by now "why the red shirts feel cheated" then you either

1) don't know anything about Thai Politics or

2)you have a VERY narrow and one-faceted view of Thai Politics.

In fact I have studied Thai politics in situ for about 30 years and I've completed a number of academic studies re Thai history and politics.

....

And, I repeat I still don't know why specifically they say they have been cheated. Please enlighten me.

Because their boss isn't in charge of anything but them.

A utter lack of understanding, or lack of acknowledgment, on democratic principles of

HOW the Thai electoral system functions, has lead them to believe, because they are told so repeatedly,

that their liege lord is really the true leader, but evil has run him off.

Yet, with their help and obedience and sacrifices, he can take back what's rightfully his,

and then he will spread manna from heaven for all who help him.

It's a feudalism fairy tail told to the manipulated masses.

There are two, maybe three sets of modern feudalists going at it,

and each has harnessed different segments of the masses to their aims.

Of course each segment believes ONLY their liege lord is the true sovereign and so act accordingly.

A by product of a rote repetition schooling system and ancient kow tow values,

being played for all they are worth by cynical profiteering politicians and power mongers.

Edited January 28, 2010 by animatic

[eggomaniac]

haha if you don't know by now "why the red shirts feel cheated" then you either

1) don't know anything about Thai Politics or

2)you have a VERY narrow and one-faceted view of Thai Politics.

In fact I have studied Thai politics in situ for about 30 years and I've completed a number of academic studies re Thai history and politics.

Please don't tell me the red shirts are conducting a genuine and sincere campaign for the establishment of quality democracy, because I don't believe that for one minute. In fact if that's their claim then please don't insult the intelligence of the vast majority of Thais, and me!

Can you please share any examples of events where the red shirt leaders have spoken at length and in depth about the concept and the benefits of democracy, the mechanism / the pillars of democracy, the role of the judiciary, respect for the rights of others to speak their views without intimidation or violence, respect for the role of a free press, etc., in the establishment and protection of quality democracy?

I challenge you, please share some examples. I've made this same challenge on TV and other web boards about 15 times. Never had a reply.

And, I repeat I still don't know why specifically they say they have been cheated. Please enlighten me.

Scorecard, I would love to to hear your explanation of how the 'banning' of 111 democratically elected politicians would NOT make the voters feel cheated. Then you can go onto explain how 80 years of changing constitutions and military coups, ousting of elected officials would give any democracy minded Thai a great big feeling of warm and fuzzy.

It has been reported by many scholarsd and ploliticians of note, that the Red movement is vastly underestimated, a big mistake on the Yellow side. Thaksin is just a good smokeshow for the real movement. The Reds are making a similar size error in overestimating their Goals.

Anybody that thinks the situation that is brewing is just another round of gang warfare that has been going on for the past 80 years is sorely mistaken. I really, really REALLY hope I, and the other commentators who forecasting a civil war are wrong. Thinking it will happen is way the opposite from hoping it will happen.

There are measures that both sides could and should take to avoid the head on collision of the red and yellow trains.

You have 'studied' Thai politics for 30 years and you really don't think democrats should feel cheated? Come on! [111 'banned' democratically elected politicians]

Why don't you just come and say it. 'let them eat cake'

[rixalex]

google is your friend

Just when you think the level of debate can't slip any lower, a nugget like this comes along.

Boris, if you are going to state something and you expect to come away with an ounce of credibility, have at least a tiny bit of reasoning with which to state your case.

If you can't provide reasoning, there's little point entering a debate, don't you agree?

[boris52]

You have 'studied' Thai politics for 30 years and you really don't think democrats should feel cheated? Come on! [111 'banned' democratically elected politicians]

Why don't you just come and say it. 'let them eat cake'

LOL, i was going to say the same thing.

how can somebody, in all seriousness claim they have studied Thai politics for 30 years and still remain unaware of the feelings (not saying you must agree with them, just be aware of what they are thinking and feeling) of the average red supporter. And, if you talk to enough of them, a pattern emerges.

Anyway, somebody who has studied Thai politics for 30 years shouldn't need to be spoon fed such basic information. Do some of your own research on the internet or better yet, talk to as wide a cross section of red supporters as possible, be totally objective and try and gather information, pose yourself as the ignorant farang. They will be happy to tell you how they feel. Don't impose your arrogance or look down on them, as you will get a clouded message.

[rixalex]

I would love to to hear your explanation of how the 'banning' of 111 democratically elected politicians would NOT make the voters feel cheated.

Corrupt politicians who haven't been banned or punished should be more cause for voters to feel cheated than those who have.

[boris52]

google is your friend

Just when you think the level of debate can't slip any lower, a nugget like this comes along.

Boris, if you are going to state something and you expect to come away with an ounce of credibility, have at least a tiny bit of reasoning with which to state your case.

If you can't provide reasoning, there's little point entering a debate, don't you agree?

So how would you react if a person said they have studied computer science for 30 years and then turns around and asks you what a keyboard is. How would you respond ?

[scorecard]

google is your friend

Just when you think the level of debate can't slip any lower, a nugget like this comes along.

Boris, if you are going to state something and you expect to come away with an ounce of credibility, have at least a tiny bit of reasoning with which to state your case.

If you can't provide reasoning, there's little point entering a debate, don't you agree?

So how would you react if a person said they have studied computer science for 30 years and then turns around and asks you what a keyboard is. How would you respond ?

'Keyboard' - what are you talking about? You made a statement and I asked you to back up your statement. You think it's a logical debate to ask me to back up your statements. Suggest you rethink your logic here.

Why don't you show your credibility by proving your statements?

In fact I have made concerted attempts to find evidence of the red shirt leaders engaging in sincere and in-depth discussions about democracy and I have plenty of access to the details of their speeches (rantings), and I cannot find one example.

On a broader basis I will be the first to agree to and support the establishment of full democracy in Thailand, bringing with it equal opportuinity for all, equal voice for all without intimidation, equal justice for all, and a much much better sharing of the wealth, corruption at or near zero, etc. I sincerely hope that it happens and the sooner the better.

The comment that I might perhaps believe in 'let them eat cake' couldn't be more wrong.

But if your telling me that the red shirts are the sincere champions of the above cause then sorry I am totally unconvinced that this is their genuine aim.

If it was their genuine aim, then why would they be supporting the pardoning of an extremely corrupt man who made numerous anti-democracy statements, outrageously flaunted peoples rights to cast their vote and be heard (by buying their votes), and supervised the murder of some 2,500 fellow Thais ? Democratic?

And if it was their genuine aim why do we see the Chiang Mai 51 gp acting like vigilantes and thugs? Democractic?

And why haven't the likes of jatuporn etc., spoken up and decried the Chaing MAi 51 gp violence and intimidation.

In fact if jatuporn and his gang were sincerely campaigining for democracy then it would have been to their distinct advantage, to build their credibility, to have spoken up and disowned the Chiang Mai 51 gp. Why didn't he speak up!

The suggestion that 'the voters who had their man blackballed for 5 years feel cheated', how can this be an adult logical comment. To put this one pretty harshly, the voters accepted the 'incentives' and their man got caught. Where does 'the voters got cheated' fit logically into this scenario? If the voters want to be angry with somebody they should be angry with the specific person who cheated them (their candidate), not the system!

Let me also state very clearly that I fully realize there are vast numbers of people in the North-east who just survive and that's not acceptable, living on handouts is not acceptable in any way, they should have, they are entitled to have (beacuse they are human beings) a much better quality of life, and full democracy would hopefully see their situation change dramatically. I'll also add that I have spent lots of time, on many occasions, intereacting with the local grass roots people.

But I'm going to say again, please don't tell me the red shirts are the genuine sincere champions of democracy, I don't buy it for one second.

Edited January 28, 2010 by scorecard

[animatic]

google is your friend

Just when you think the level of debate can't slip any lower, a nugget like this comes along.

Boris, if you are going to state something and you expect to come away with an ounce of credibility, have at least a tiny bit of reasoning with which to state your case.

If you can't provide reasoning, there's little point entering a debate, don't you agree?

So how would you react if a person said they have studied computer science for 30 years and then turns around and asks you what a keyboard is. How would you respond ?

Ask them how to define "IT".

There are of course millions of keyboardless computers in use daily.

And there are many types of input devices that don't call for a keyboard.

Edited January 28, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

I would love to to hear your explanation of how the 'banning' of 111 democratically elected politicians would NOT make the voters feel cheated.

Corrupt politicians who haven't been banned or punished should be more cause for voters to feel cheated than those who have.

Exactly,

forgiving the 'cheaters' is not making a fairer playing field.

The voters were cheated by those that cheated in elections

to get in, and stay in, office for their own profit.

And cheated by those who changed laws to benefit their

own personal interests over those of competitors and especially the Thai public

And even more so by those that use violence and physical intimidation

to prevent opposing views from being heard. Those are the ones who

MOST cheat the voters and the populace.

Edited January 28, 2010 by animatic