Gen Chaovalit Appointed As Supreme Commander Of People's Army Of Thailand

[animatic]

People's Army for Democracy under His Majesty the King

I see the name did a abrupt about face,

Democracy added and homage to a higher power added too.

So changing the name, and making a bow on bended knee AFTERWARDS

suddenly makes it less treasonous?

It still certainly has a neo-communist look to it none the less.

Peoples struggle, etc still Marx would be aghast.

'The Party' with Front and Armed Units; sounds like classic Marxist warmongering.

If it's so peaceful why the armed units? Pseudo Socialist Army of Thaksinland...

"It is not true that the red shirts would rely on illegal or violent means to bring about changes,"

he said, insisting the offshoot of the red shirts as mentioned by Panlop was misunderstood.

Oh yes, the poor, misunderstood, Special Ops General,

who can't put his words together diplomatically...

Oh yeah, a wolf in sheeples clothing me thinks.

Seems to me he spoke rather clearly this week.

It also seems Thaksin got a bit macho in the presence of two hard case generals.

But neglected to apprise General Chavalit about what he was expected to do...

Oops, solidarity for the cause...NOT!

Edited February 5, 2010 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

People's Army for Democracy under His Majesty the King

I see the name did a abrupt about face,

Democracy added and homage to a higher power added too.

It still certainly has a neo-communist look to it none the less.

Peoples struggle, etc still Marx would be aghast.

'The Party' with Front and Armed Units; sounds like classic Marxist warmongering.

If it's so peaceful why the armed units?

"It is not true that the red shirts would rely on illegal or violent means to bring about changes,"

he said, insisting the offshoot of the red shirts as mentioned by Panlop was misunderstood.

Oh yes the poor misunderstood Special Ops General,

who can't put his words together diplomatically...

oh yeah, that wolf in sheeples clothing me thinks.

Seerms to me he spoke rather clearly this week.

Wouldn't the Peoples Army for Democracy be a little confusing when it is inevitably abbreviated to put it in the paper?

I think the marketing people need to come up with another name.

[animatic]

Yes good point... I need more coffee this AM, shoulda seen that.

Hows about

New PAD II,

Cleans and spit shines the body politic!

Removes unsightly yellow stains

Removes all doubts!

New PAD III coming to a village near you very soon.

[Thai at Heart]

Yes good point... I need more coffee this AM, shoulda seen that.

Hows about

New PAD II,

Cleans and spit shines the body politic!

Removes unsightly yellow stains

Removes all doubts!

New PAD III coming to a village near you very soon.

How about the :

Free Army for Rural Thailand

[Artisi]

How about - The Wan_kers Army Of No Importance

[plachon]

Yes good point... I need more coffee this AM, shoulda seen that.

Hows about

New PAD II,

Cleans and spit shines the body politic!

Removes unsightly yellow stains

Removes all doubts!

New PAD III coming to a village near you very soon.

How about the :

Free Army for Rural Thailand

"People's Red Army of Thailand Soldiers" would make for a better acronym for this lot of loonies.

Chavalit, Seh Daeng and Gen Panlop's army would make Cap'n Mainwaring's band of merry men seem like absolute pros.

The unity of thought and consistent message amongst the top brass of PRATS is their secret tactic, which will ensure their aims succeed.

[Insight]

It has all the hallmarks of The People's Front of Judeah.

[webfact]

Gen Chavalit rejects leading role in People´s Army

BANGKOK: -- 4 February 2010 (NNT) - Opposition Puea Thai Party Chairman, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, on Thursday denied speculation that he would spearhead the so-called people's army.

General Chavalit was responding to a recent report over the formation of the People's Army by the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). He said that the matter was raised by General Panlop Pinmanee, a Puea Thai Party member and leader of the red-shirted group. He mentioned there was a misunderstanding in the matter as the red-shirt people did not intend to form an army but called for mobilization of their supporters. He said General Panlop might have wished him to be leader or part of the people’s force. General Chavalit insisted that the group already has core figures to lead them.

The Puea Thai Party chairman reiterated his original decision to return to politics only to bring peace and happiness to the country. General Chavalit said he still did not believe that Mr Thaksin would need him to take the position of supreme commander for the people's army.

-- NNT 2010-02-05

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Thai at Heart]

Yes good point... I need more coffee this AM, shoulda seen that.

Hows about

New PAD II,

Cleans and spit shines the body politic!

Removes unsightly yellow stains

Removes all doubts!

New PAD III coming to a village near you very soon.

Although, for unfortunate connotation, whatever name they could take, it still wouldn't rival the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (<deleted>) in the Philippines.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[webfact]

That topic is not about "word games"

Please stay on topic

[tonywebster]

<deleted>?

What is the "Peoples Army of Thailand".

This has to be a <deleted> story or there is something very nasty brewing here.

The Red Shirts are Coming! the Red Shirts are Coming!

According to one Yellow supporter, who Posted in Military against the reds, they already hold sway in the province of Chiang Mai.

The worst thing about the situation in Thailand is both sides have some real screws loose and really poor perceptions of stabilty.

I have actually come to the conclusion they 'like' gang warfare politics.

-------------------

It looks like a big one is brewing, a big one!

maybe it is what is needed for Thailand to move forward. Some growing up needs to be done on both sides and a bloody nose does tend to bring one to their senses

Wow .. eggo says "big one" and you call it a bloody nose?

Can we assume sir, that you are not actually in Thailand? Can we further assume that you have no family or loved ones here?

I would certainly hate to see any large scale violence happen in Thailand.

What Thailand needs to move forward are those institutions that Thaksin so damaged. A Free Press. Checks and Balances of power. etc

how many wrong assumptions can one person make in one post? can anyone match or beat this clowns wrong assumptions? a big badger to the fist person to manage it

[jdinasia]

Wow .. eggo says "big one" and you call it a bloody nose?

Can we assume sir, that you are not actually in Thailand? Can we further assume that you have no family or loved ones here?

I would certainly hate to see any large scale violence happen in Thailand.

What Thailand needs to move forward are those institutions that Thaksin so damaged. A Free Press. Checks and Balances of power. etc

how many wrong assumptions can one person make in one post? can anyone match or beat this clowns wrong assumptions? a big badger to the fist person to manage it

Then please explain to us how you seem to be advocating significant civil strife or civil war?

[Publicus]

It's more than clear Thaksin knows he's gonna lose his bucks so he's going to turn the country upside down, fight it out and resume power after a triumphal return. Or so he thinks.  

[tonywebster]

Wow .. eggo says "big one" and you call it a bloody nose?

Can we assume sir, that you are not actually in Thailand? Can we further assume that you have no family or loved ones here?

I would certainly hate to see any large scale violence happen in Thailand.

What Thailand needs to move forward are those institutions that Thaksin so damaged. A Free Press. Checks and Balances of power. etc

how many wrong assumptions can one person make in one post? can anyone match or beat this clowns wrong assumptions? a big badger to the fist person to manage it

Then please explain to us how you seem to be advocating significant civil strife or civil war?

maybe you would like to explain to me how I seem to be advocating civil strife or civil war. At no point do I advocate it, I simply point out that things may need to get worse before they get better, at no point do I say I want it to get worse. The only 'seem' seems to be in your head.

maybe we can have a whip round and buy you some reading classes, then you might understand the words that are written and stop assuming that your understanding of written words is the correct understanding, when quite clearly the words enter your head, go through some sort of mixer and completely change their meaning in such a way that you feel you need to try and question an innocuous post in such a way, and try to make out the person that posted these innocuous remarks is in some way agitating for or condoning civil strife or civil war.

amazing

Edited February 5, 2010 by tonywebster

[animatic]

Why he could even think causing chaos for revenge after he loses the money is correct,

is why he should never be allowed to take control ever again.

Anyone with revenge in their heart can never run a country half way fairly,

let alone with the welfare of all citizens as a priority.

[rixalex]

maybe you would like to explain to me how I seem to be advocating civil strife or civil war.

You advocated the benefits of "a bloody nose" as being good for instilling sense. In the context of the debate, in the context of pretty much any debate actually, using "a bloody nose" metaphorically, it is natural to think you are talking about some sort of violence. If that's not what you meant then you worded it badly and have only yourself to blame for the misunderstanding. Why don't you stop with all the personal crap about people needing glasses and just explain yourself a little better. You might start with what you meant by "a bloody nose".

<deleted>?

It looks like a big one is brewing, a big one!

maybe it is what is needed for Thailand to move forward. Some growing up needs to be done on both sides and a bloody nose does tend to bring one to their senses

[Netfan]

^^^ the quote which he conveniently left out of post #256 saying a bloody nose brings someone to their senses is not exactly "innocuous", especially in the context of the Red leaders calling for violence.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Netfan

[tonywebster]

maybe you would like to explain to me how I seem to be advocating civil strife or civil war.

You advocated the benefits of "a bloody nose" as being good for instilling sense. In the context of the debate, in the context of pretty much any debate actually, using "a bloody nose" metaphorically, it is natural to think you are talking about some sort of violence. If that's not what you meant then you worded it badly and have only yourself to blame for the misunderstanding. Why don't you stop with all the personal crap about people needing glasses and just explain yourself a little better. You might start with what you meant by "a bloody nose".

<deleted>?

It looks like a big one is brewing, a big one!

maybe it is what is needed for Thailand to move forward. Some growing up needs to be done on both sides and a bloody nose does tend to bring one to their senses

It really is amazing that some of you like to come across and intelligent yet choose to read things that are not actually there. Let me riterate, at no point do I advocate civil war and at no point do I say I want civil war. I simply point out that maybe it is what Thailand needs to move forward. For me to be advocating civil war I would need to say I agree with civil war.

I am sure there are good online dictionaries, maybe you can look up the word 'advocate', actually no need, I have done it for you just in case you got stuck trying to do this simple task,

<h2 class="me">ad⋅vo⋅cate</h2> AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", " /v. ˈædvəˌkeɪt; n. ˈædvəkɪt, -ˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. ad-vuh-keyt; n. ad-vuh-kit, -keyt] Show IPA verb, -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers. –noun 2. a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc. (usually fol. by of): an advocate of peace. 3. a person who pleads for or in behalf of another; intercessor. 4. a person who pleads the cause of another in a court of law.

Hopefully now this is clear and at no point do I say I am in support of civil war, I simply suggest that it maybe what is needed for Thailand to move forward, that is neither condoning nor condemning it. It is as neutral as one can be.

Maybe I need to write disclaimers after every post for the hard of thinking. Hopefully the thread can get back on topic now.

[Insight]

Bloody nose? Like the one Thaksin, Palop et al is feeling today?

(again)

[jdinasia]

There is nothing off topic at all about discussing your belief that

I simply point out that maybe it is what Thailand needs to move forward

. You see the keyword there as "maybe" and I see the keyword there as "needs".

We think differently since I think what Thailand "needs" is restraint and letting the courts work things out.

[way2muchcoffee]

It really is amazing that some of you like to come across and intelligent yet choose to read things that are not actually there. Let me riterate, at no point do I advocate civil war and at no point do I say I want civil war. I simply point out that maybe it is what Thailand needs to move forward. For me to be advocating civil war I would need to say I agree with civil war.

I am sure there are good online dictionaries, maybe you can look up the word 'advocate', actually no need, I have done it for you just in case you got stuck trying to do this simple task,

<h2 class="me">ad⋅vo⋅cate</h2> AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", " /v. ˈædvəˌkeɪt; n. ˈædvəkɪt, -ˌkeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. ad-vuh-keyt; n. ad-vuh-kit, -keyt] Show IPA verb, -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers. –noun 2. a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc. (usually fol. by of): an advocate of peace. 3. a person who pleads for or in behalf of another; intercessor. 4. a person who pleads the cause of another in a court of law.

Hopefully now this is clear and at no point do I say I am in support of civil war, I simply suggest that it maybe what is needed for Thailand to move forward, that is neither condoning nor condemning it. It is as neutral as one can be.

Maybe I need to write disclaimers after every post for the hard of thinking. Hopefully the thread can get back on topic now.

So you are not speaking or writing in favor of, or supporting or urging by argument, or recommending publicly? OK.

Many people would take your suggestion as advocacy. On the other hand I would agree that you are not clearly advocating civil war in your earlier post. You are right, there is a difference. Perhaps people are interpreting your statement as more than you intended. You have now clarified your feelings and ideas on the matter so there should be no further misunderstanding.

Edited February 5, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Meridian007]

Gen Chavalit rejects leading role in People´s Army

BANGKOK: -- 4 February 2010 (NNT) - Opposition Puea Thai Party Chairman, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, on Thursday denied speculation that he would spearhead the so-called people's army.

General Chavalit was responding to a recent report over the formation of the People's Army by the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). He said that the matter was raised by General Panlop Pinmanee, a Puea Thai Party member and leader of the red-shirted group. He mentioned there was a misunderstanding in the matter as the red-shirt people did not intend to form an army but called for mobilization of their supporters. He said General Panlop might have wished him to be leader or part of the people's force. General Chavalit insisted that the group already has core figures to lead them.

The Puea Thai Party chairman reiterated his original decision to return to politics only to bring peace and happiness to the country. General Chavalit said he still did not believe that Mr Thaksin would need him to take the position of supreme commander for the people's army.

-- NNT 2010-02-05

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Back-pedaling, back pedaling! Poor Chavalit must be wondering what he got himself into, aligning himself with a group who believes that political maneuvers should be finessed with a sharp hit from a giant, iron-clad club.

Okay, yesterday's plan didn't work, I wonder what the next cunning plan is? I'm sure we won't have to wait long to find out.

[tonywebster]

waytoomuchcoffee seems to have grasped the simplicity of this

[mccw]

Thaksin has called for a revolution once already; now he's openly raising an army:

A case of treason should be brought against him and those involed

[rixalex]

Let me riterate, at no point do I advocate civil war and at no point do I say I want civil war. I simply point out that maybe it is what Thailand needs to move forward. For me to be advocating civil war I would need to say I agree with civil war.

Many people would take your suggestion as advocacy.

Many people indeed did. Rather than simply apologising for having expressed himself poorly and explaining himself better, all we get is a load of cheap condescending insults about other people's intelliegence and their ability to read.

On the other hand I would agree that you are not clearly advocating civil war in your earlier post.

No, it's not clear, but it is highly suggestive. No different from were i to state something like "maybe what Thailand needs now to move forward is for Thaksin to taken out".

Would i be surprised and annoyed if people then accused me of advocating Thaksin be killed? Of course not, because that's exactly the impression the statement gives. Denying that and accusing others of stupidity is to both play with semantics and to flame.

You have now clarified your feelings and ideas on the matter so there should be no further misunderstanding.

That's all that was ever required.

[Meridian007]

So it looks like today's cunning plan is to involve the Preah Vihear dispute.

Obviously his threats to personal lives, and general security in Thailand didn't work well enough, so now he will try to prompt an action in a different way.

Baby Thaksin strikes again. "Look at me mommy, look at me! I SAID, LOOK AT ME DAMMIT!"

[webfact]

UPDATE

PM: Govt will stick to law in dealing with protesters

BANGKOK: -- (NNT) – Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has confirmed the stance of the government to adhere to law and human rights in overseeing political movements and maintaining order in the country.

Speaking after the meeting of the National Security Council on Thursday night, the prime minister stressed that the government would do the utmost to prevent the situation from escalating since it had no intention to fight against anyone.

The meeting was urgently called on Thursday night with attendance of military top brasses and officials from other national security units. Prime Minister Abhisit himself chaired the meeting, which lasted about one and a half hours.

The prime minister reasoned that the meeting was urgently called due to political movements by some groups of people. He explained that the meeting was to prepare operational plans to deal with such movements.

Prime Minister Abhisit added that the government would remain cautious against the establishment of the People’s Army of the anti-government United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). He said the so-called army must be prosecuted if it was set up to make outlaw movements.

General Panlop Pinmanee earlier made a declaration from Dubai of the UAE that the People’s Army, set up by ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, sought to fight for true democracy and bring peace back to the kingdom once again. He announced that General Chavalit would be the supreme commander of the army.

-- NNT 2010-02-05

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[hhgz]

Since there is no "People's Army of Thailand", the only legitimacy this pronouncement gets is from the intense whining of TVers.

[MellowYellow]

It has all the hallmarks of The People's Front of Judeah.

"What HAVE the farang ever really done for us?"

[tonywebster]

Let me riterate, at no point do I advocate civil war and at no point do I say I want civil war. I simply point out that maybe it is what Thailand needs to move forward. For me to be advocating civil war I would need to say I agree with civil war.

Many people would take your suggestion as advocacy.

Many people indeed did. Rather than simply apologising for having expressed himself poorly and explaining himself better, all we get is a load of cheap condescending insults about other people's intelliegence and their ability to read.

On the other hand I would agree that you are not clearly advocating civil war in your earlier post.

No, it's not clear, but it is highly suggestive. No different from were i to state something like "maybe what Thailand needs now to move forward is for Thaksin to taken out".

Would i be surprised and annoyed if people then accused me of advocating Thaksin be killed? Of course not, because that's exactly the impression the statement gives. Denying that and accusing others of stupidity is to both play with semantics and to flame.

How the hel_l can I be held responsible for your inability to read simple English?

The simple thing would have been for you to keep your own counsel or apologise for your inability to understand a simple concept. Even now you fail to have a grasp on reality mentioning 'many people' when it is clear from the posts only two of you seemed to fail to grasp the simplicity of the post. Or maybe I am doing you a disservice and you fully understood the post yet attempted to start some arguing on the forum because someone is perceived as having a different opinion to you.

highly suggestive it would seem only in the minds of two of the biggest perpetrators of squabbles on this forum. I think the term I should now use is 'grow up'

end of conversation, unless of course you want to continue making yourself look foolish and spoiling a decent thread

Edited February 5, 2010 by tonywebster