Red Shirt leaders pledge non-violent campaign

[Siripon]

I haven't noticed any red leaders publicly disassociating themselves from their fellow leader Arisaman's call from the Khon Kaen stage for the red shirts to come to Bangkok armed with a bottle of petrol.

[yoshiwara]

^no this thread is about the corrupt yellows causing problems for thailand and its people. The reds are here for Thailand and its future. Anything less is disrespecting those honorable red souls who died fighting for democracy and freedom.

//deleted by Admin//

1. You must be on something powerful which creates fantasies.

2. Suggest you do some research about the last 20 years of Thai politics, at least.

3. Wonder if you might like to realize that it's not black OR white - it's not your red or your yellow.

Some contributors have to time for either group, but they can clearly see that the red shirts are not what they claim.

Reds claim they are fighting for democracy, that's total rubbish. When has any of their leaders given a speech about the processes of democracy?

When has any of their leaders mentioned the absolute damage Thaksin did to democracy and in fact his close to successful attempts to set up a one man dictatorship with no elements or respect whatever for the basic universal pillars of democracy, and when have the red leaders mentioned that we must fight people like this to establish and maintain democracy?

The red apologists are becoming hysterical. On the one hand their leaders proclaim non-violence and then the forum apologists clearly indicate they want to unleash the dogs of civil war. Totally lost it.

[SomTumTiger]

Go on reds, give them hel_l!

Suggest Brit brush up on his T.S. Eliot "The Hollow Men"

"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper."

The whimpering you hear now, is not coming from Government house, but appears to be more in the Dubai direction.

[JacknDanny]

Go on reds, give them hel_l!

You dont live in Thailand, right?

I used to think you were ok, Brit, but making statements like this!!!!!!

At best its ignorant and insensitive.

[johncitizen]

Start packing!

[PeaceBlondie]

Take off your red shirts. Disown your Chinese billionaire megalomaniac. Choose noncriminal leadership that believes in democracy.

[johncitizen]

Are you referring to the Abhisit government? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please.

Edited February 27, 2010 by johncitizen

[ballpoint]

Take off your red shirts. Disown your Chinese billionaire megalomaniac. Choose noncriminal leadership that believes in democracy.

Indeed, it's really rather strange that a group, claiming to be agitating for political change, should be so aligned with one side currently in politics. All this talk of revolution is missing the point that successful revolutions are about removing the status quo and bringing in something new. A revolution to bring back the same old existing order is a bit of a puzzle. Any true pro democracy group would not be aligned with either of the current sides, but would act as a watchdog, and constructively criticise, whoever was in power and opposition.

[billd766]

Start packing!

Why?

I am staying.

Are you packing and panicing?

The people trying to destabilise the current LEGAL government seem to be led by a convicted criminal who fled the country to avoid punishment.

[rixalex]

Go on reds, give them hel_l!

You dont live in Thailand, right?

I used to think you were ok, Brit, but making statements like this!!!!!!

At best its ignorant and insensitive.

Why such a long standing member should suddenly resort to trolling after all this time, as brit has done, i don't know. It's weird. Sorry to see it happen. Or maybe he's been like it all along and i've just not noticed.

[rixalex]

Start packing!

Off you go then. Not much left for you here.

[SomTumTiger]

Are you referring to the Abhisit government? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please.

One hundred posts in one day? Does your passport say "Takki Shinegra"? 55555

[johncitizen]

Are you referring to the Abhisit government? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please.

One hundred posts in one day? Does your passport say "Takki Shinegra"? 55555

Does yours say "Ray Charles?"

Check the date again! It's my one year anniversary today! One hundred posts in one year!

[h90]

Are you referring to the Abhisit government? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Please.

One hundred posts in one day? Does your passport say "Takki Shinegra"? 55555

no that looks like real work...

the English is also better.

[jayboy]

Take off your red shirts. Disown your Chinese billionaire megalomaniac. Choose noncriminal leadership that believes in democracy.

That was a helpful contribution!One could equally say that about the yellowshirts!

On the abuse of power issue I was wondering how this could be demonstrated by comparing the performance of another benchmark stock,say Siam Cement, during the time Thaksin held office as PM.If the Shin performance notably exceeded that of Siam Cement that would be a very practical demonstration the charge was justified.If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.I have no idea and wonder if anyone knows.

[way2muchcoffee]

Take off your red shirts. Disown your Chinese billionaire megalomaniac. Choose noncriminal leadership that believes in democracy.

That was a helpful contribution!One could equally say that about the yellowshirts!

On the abuse of power issue I was wondering how this could be demonstrated by comparing the performance of another benchmark stock,say Siam Cement, during the time Thaksin held office as PM.If the Shin performance notably exceeded that of Siam Cement that would be a very practical demonstration the charge was justified.If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.I have no idea and wonder if anyone knows.

Was the owner and CEO of Siam Cement a PM of Thailand who abused his authority to promote his company and for personal enrichment? If not I really don't see the relevance.

Edited February 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[rixalex]

If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.

Everyone knows that it was politically motivated. That's not the question. The question is, were the charges valid? The judges gave us that answer yesterday.

[jayboy]

If it didn't it would tend to support those who believe the charge was politically motivated.

Everyone knows that it was politically motivated. That's not the question. The question is, were the charges valid? The judges gave us that answer yesterday.

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

[rixalex]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.

More important questions were answered yesterday by more important people.

[way2muchcoffee]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You appear to be suggesting that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

The rulings on abuse of power and concealment of assets were clearly laid out yesterday. What are you on about?

Edited February 27, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Cayenne]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You are saying that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

Do you not see that this is a ridiculous position to hold?

The analogy would be to say if I stole money to give it to you but you still couldn't make a decent profit from it, does that exonerate me?

[jayboy]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.

More important questions were answered yesterday by more important people.

As I mentioned earlier the question, actually rather a significant one, remains unanswered.What is the nature an abuse of power if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle just matches or even underperforms the market during his time as PM? If that's the case (and I'm not sure it is) one must look for other criteria and that's I'm sure what the judges did in arriving at their conclusion.It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.Nobody with a care for this country finds the Court verdict other than fair and wise (I'm quoting by the way from the Finance Minister's Twitter account).This doesn't mean that questions such as the one I posed can't be asked in a respectful way.To suggest otherwise is to assume the mentality of some dumb hick at a red or yellow rally, unquestioning and unwilling to debate hard questions.

So having disposed of that minor foolishness, does anyone know the answer to my original question?

[jayboy]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You appear to be suggesting that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

The rulings on abuse of power and concealment of assets were clearly laid out yesterday. What are you on about?

It doesn't exonerate him at all, as I thought I had already made clear.However if the performance of the Shin listed entities only had an average increase in value (jury still out on this as far as I'm concecerned) it raises a whole bunch of interesting questions.I detect some annoyance in your tone.Don't you think this is worthy of discussion?I've made it clear I totally respect the court's verdict.

[rixalex]

It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.

Did you miss the 8 hours of supporting detail yesterday JB?

[jayboy]

It's just silly and offensive to say these matters were answered by "more important people" without any kind of supporting detail.

Did you miss the 8 hours of supporting detail yesterday JB?

Please try and keep up.I asked a very particular question which had remained unanswered and wasn't dealt with yesterday.

As it happens a member has now kindly alerted me to a message on the Economist site

"To tell you the truth, the announcement of returning the Bt 30,000 million to the ex-PM is entirely distorted as this value is mostly based on share certificates. Furthermore, part of this Bt 30,000 will be subject to taxed claimed by the RIS. As a result, the residual money will be less than 20% of this amount.

The court simply announced that the ex-PM would get Bt 30,000mil or around 40% of Bt 76,000mil just to avoid public panic - both locally and internationally.

The court claimed that the ex-PM abused his power in favour of Shin Corp share prices. In fact, according to Bloomberg data, since Thaksin had become the PM until he was ousted, the SET index increased by 161%. Shin Corp share price gained 166% - only 5% above the SET index. However, some other shares such as Siam Cement plc (SCC) gained almost 680% over the same period. I don't really know how Thaksin abused the power in the way that his shares only outperformed the market by 5%!"

So assuming this data is correct Siam Cement gained 680% during the period in question while Shin Corp gained 5%. Draw your own conclusions.

[ballpoint]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

That only goes to prove he's nowhere near the business genius his supporters would have us believe. After all, his fair and "unaided" business attempts left him 50 million baht in debt before he started his corrupt and nepotic (if there's such a word), cheating path to being a billionaire. Here's a man who tilts the playing field in his company's favour, gets the tax payers to foot many of its bills, cheats the competition and government agencies, and still can't do any better than average. The legend has certainly come crashing down over the past few days.

[jayboy]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You are saying that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

Do you not see that this is a ridiculous position to hold?

The analogy would be to say if I stole money to give it to you but you still couldn't make a decent profit from it, does that exonerate me?

Er, not really.The court judgement yesterday clearly implied that the wealth Thaksin made before assuming power was made legally.We are talking here about the period after he assumed power so your analogy is nonsense.

[jayboy]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

That only goes to prove he's nowhere near the business genius his supporters would have us believe. After all, his fair and "unaided" business attempts left him 50 million baht in debt before he started his corrupt and nepotic (if there's such a word), cheating path to being a billionaire. Here's a man who tilts the playing field in his company's favour, gets the tax payers to foot many of its bills, cheats the competition and government agencies, and still can't do any better than average. The legend has certainly come crashing down over the past few days.

And there although I might quibble about some of the detail you have made an excellent point.

[Moonrakers]

 

So assuming this data is correct Siam Cement gained 680% during the period in question while Shin Corp gained 5%. Draw your own conclusions.

The conclusion is the Siam Cement went through a period of massive expansion.

What does that have to do with Thaksin abusing his power?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Moonrakers

[Cayenne]

And so my question whether Shin over or under performed remains unanswered.The more sophisticated will understand its relevance.For the rest I would say that if Thaksin's main corporate vehicle didn't see a better than average performance the abuse of power charge, which I don't deny, must be justified in some other way.

You are saying that if AIS only had an average increase in value during Thaksin's time as PM then this somehow exonerates him for abuse of power and acts of corruption.

Do you not see that this is a ridiculous position to hold?

The analogy would be to say if I stole money to give it to you but you still couldn't make a decent profit from it, does that exonerate me?

Er, not really.The court judgement yesterday clearly implied that the wealth Thaksin made before assuming power was made legally.We are talking here about the period after he assumed power so your analogy is nonsense.

You're missing my point. The analogy I was saying was that Thaksin abused his power to give Shin Corp an unfair advantage but Shin Corp still couldn't outperform the market by much. Market performance has nothing to do with abuse of power as the court rightly pointed out.