Thailand: Another Coup Would Be A Disaster

[geriatrickid]

Paraguay has also military dictatorship and it works perfectly for a thirt world country. They are not prepered for democracy now. Everywhere where is democracy is the same. Most of protesters have nothig to do, exept protest on the streets, even in Europe. Most of them don't have a job, don't want work or lazy to work, even living from sozial welfare, they just try to disturb the system, because they don't have anything to do and nothing to lose, so they are against business peaple and other peaple (middle class) who have something and who can afford something. But why those peaples have something? Because they worked for, but let's call the "lazy ones" want get things without do anything for. They allways living in a idea to change anything in the hope it will "rain" money for them.

<deleted>? Where have you been for the past 21 years? Paraguay is a constitutional republic. The military dictatorship ended in 1989, and. Paraguay has held relatively free and regular presidential elections since then .The last election was in 2008. It was peaceful and validated. Are you referring to the old military dictatorship of Stroessner that made the country a refuge for international criminals and fleeing Nazis? Great. That speaks volumes about you. Parguay is not even a 3rd world country, it is a developing nation in part because 1/4 of the economy is agriculture based. You really do not support your point because Paraguay has 1/2 the per capita income of Thailand and has managed to to have a functioning democracy for the past 2 decades free of the military. This might be due to the fact that the military only consumes 1% of the nation's GDP while the Thai military gobbles up almost 2% of the GDP (based on current budget projections).

By any chance, are your simplistic and inaccurate statements sourced from a Sarah Palin speech to the teabaggers?

[ozzieman05]

As I am from the west, to me having another coup makes no sense

But from the Thai wife they thingk different

Parliment is doomed if it does

Doomed if it does not

Red shirt are doomed if they get what they want, as it is not democracy

Yet doomed if they don't as this is what they want

We are now in a no win situation

Only way we can possibly win is if the silent minority come out and say what they want

Most of her friends say "they not worry us, where we are" "So not our worry"

Sorry I didn't copy your whole post, although it was very interesting. However, I think your wife has also touched on one reason that Thailand gets into many of these situations. Like she said "It's not our problem" so, no need to do anything. I always get "reuang khao", their problem. When it becomes a problem then you get mai pen rai, so just accept it.

Is it surprising that 16 million Bangkokians have been silent and only 30,000 of maybe 20,000,000 eligible rural participants came to protest after massive payments, transportation, and other incentives?

This seems to be the foundation of how she feels now

Red shirts complain, but they started it

Government complains but they let it happen

Thai's will complain but they sat back and let it happen

Seems Thailand is a country of farmers and reap the seeds they sow

Her solution

Clean the slade and start again

[ozzieman05]

That would be completely satisfactory to any sane person ... but not Thaksin's puppets.

The victor comes the spoils - why should reds negotiate anything? Pretty clear what is needed.....

1. dissolve house

2. current govt resigns

3. new elections in 2-3 mo

You missed No, 4

Chaos on the streets for the next 5 years

It was alright for the Reds to do so we (colour) can do the same

If we can not its double standards

[geriatrickid]

Thaksin was NOT "elected", he BOUGHT the election. If you pay people to vote for you then "elected" you become, but certainly not democratic.

This is an outright lie. Why do people persist in repeating it? Yes, there were abuses of the system. It occurred on both sides. It is wrong. We all agree on that. However, the above claim is unfounded as it is a blanket statement that ALL voters that chose Thaksin were paid off. Is it so difficult to accept that Mr. Thaksin was genuinely selected by a portion of the electorate and that they have a rght to pick who they want? What western nation is free of similar activities? It happens under different shapes and forms. In the USA we see unions and business groups paying large sums of monies to various politicians as part of the lobbying effort. Unions, the National Rifle Association, Evangelicals, social advocacy groups all have programs to get out the vote taking voters to the polls, paying for ads, and paying for rallies.

In those countries with a UK style democracy it is also evident with parliamentarians. During the heyday of the Canadian Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, the party was going to homeless shelters and bussing derelicts to nomination meetings, signing them up and allegedly giving gifts. The Liberal government of PM Jean Chretien was beset by a major campaign financing scandal that rocked the government. In Germany, there are allegations of large payoffs. In the UK, labour unions actively bring out their supporters paying transportation, food etc. In Japan, the scandals just keep on coming. On and on it goes. Unfortunately, wherever there are freedoms, there will always be groups that seek to exploit loopholes. This does not mean it is acceptable or right, but to claim that Thaksin bought an election is insincere. Mr. Abhisit's government also has similar issues, it's just that they are not has visible. If you want to make such claims, then every western government is also guilty of the same. Right, Centrist or Left,this is typical of the process. It is the cost of having a system where people vote.

Mr. Abhisit has been in power for some time. If he was concerned by election process abuses, why has he not brought in the campaign finance reforms that exist in other countries and that do act to reduce the abuses in the electoral process? Ask yourselves why he did not do that. Is it possible that the loopholes and activities that benefit his political opponents also benefit his side as well? In politics, some issues do make for strategic blindness and odd bed mates.

[commons]

The army admits that the soldiers fired after been shot at, I would do that also if I was in the firing line and my mates were shot. The reds will never admit something, they are a bunch of liars. Do not tell me that there were not armed men in black on the red side and in my opinion they fired and threw bombs also. That's what they promised to do anyhow.

If you did this in any western army and depending upon circumstances, the Russian and Chinese army, you would be arrested and sent for court martial. Weapons are not discharged randomly into crowds where there are non combatants. The target must be identified and only that target is to be taken out. Even in Israel, the IDF does not discharge live ammunition into crowds unless there is a clear target. In Afghanistan, neither the Canadian nor the British soldiers will fire into a hostile crowd despite taking fire. If the troops in Afghanistan can demonstrate discipline under far more difficult circumstances, then it is not unreasonable to expect similar conduct under far less difficult conditions as was the case in Bangkok.

Based upon the preliminary autopsy results that have been released, many of the UDD protestors that were killed or injured were shot in the back. This suggests to me that this wasn't a case of the units discharging weapons actually targeting identified hostile targets.

You are assuming that the protesters shot in the back were shot by the army and not agitators. This may or not be true. Either way there were plenty of shot soldiers. We had a saying in the army I was in - better court martialled than buried. If you feel brave enough to stand there with your dick in your hand while someone murders you, you have a mental problem.

geriatrickid, don't get me wrong. i like your posts, you sound honest & reasonable - 2 qualities i respect.

nonetheless, here's a very different view on what you claim "Weapons are not discharged randomly into crowds where there are non combatants."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD15Ak02.html

it's more about "empire" engagement - i guess, you'll see difference of opinion.

again, i don't want to invalidate your views/posts. as i said, i respect them.

[Neurath]

That would be completely satisfactory to any sane person ... but not Thaksin's puppets.

The victor comes the spoils - why should reds negotiate anything? Pretty clear what is needed.....

1. dissolve house

2. current govt resigns

3. new elections in 2-3 mo

Brit, you're a perfect example of the problem rather than it's solution. "To the victor comes the spoils." That's just foolishness for the simple reason that in the end, and sooner than the medium term, the victors will necessarily be those with ownership and control of the means of production. That is, it won't be the people from the North-East and it won't be the poor. Rather than being a cheerleader, why not use your considerable intellect to solve the problem. You think that the problem of the perceived illegitimacy of the current government can be solved by having an election now or in 2-3 months under the current constitution, with the current EC rules and regulations? Really? Do you?

[galvheim]

Sorry for the double-post...

Edited April 15, 2010 by galvheim

[hunglikea]

totally edited....

Edited April 15, 2010 by hunglikea

[jucel]

friendly thai soldiers!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9BbzwqrT7Y

[LaoPo]

Another coup would be a disaster

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

I am pleasantly surprised by the intelligent analysis of Mr. Pravit. One of the very few Nation articles, written by a sharp observer, that make sense.

Maybe his "yellow" bosses are afraid of what's next.....?

A few of his sentences are worth mentioning again:

"The September 2006 coup not only failed to genuinely restore peace but also failed to heal the social division."

and:

"The government's clampdown on the red-shirt media and media sympathetic to the red shirts since last week has so far generated more hatred and anger among the movement.

Again, this immature way of handling the conflict by the government can never bring about democracy. It will bring about more social division, however.

And yesterday, the government even went further by trying to block all politically "divisive" comments and pictures online related to the bloody clashes of April 10.

This is most immature and will backfire. People can think for themselves. The fact that a week after the censorship started, more red shirts joined its rallies, is proof of this."

He's talking about the government all the time but the question remains......

WHO is controlling Abhisit's strings whilst he's behind the closed door of the barracks and.......is he absolutely FREE to say what he wants ?

I think Khun Pravit Rojanaphruk will know better than I do.

LaoPo

[Thanh-BKK]

Hi.

@geraitrickid

Since you quoted a bit of my post and i want to prevent quoting your lonmg post as it is just a few posts above, allow me to answer your question.

Why i bring it up? Because it is a true fact. And i have observed this with my very own eyes and heard it with my very own ears, no hear-say, no rumour, not from the newspaper or some television channel, nope, me myself and i observed it at the very same location where i am right at this very moment, a small village outside of Chiang Mai.

The PPP were the ONLY ones that came 'round offering the cash, and cash it was, 100-Baht-notes, one week in advance to the election. My boyfriend's uncle, a farmer, took the money - and voted for them. His reason? "They paid me for it so it would be wrong not to do it. Apart from that i don't care who runs the country because for me personally nothing will change anyway".

Apart from this "cash for votes" there was hourly propaganda coming from the unavoidable (unless with cable cutters) loudspeakers that are positioned in such a way that every single house in the entire village can hear them. Every hour, no kidding, speeches like "let's all vote PPP because they will give us a bright future" or, somewhat less nice, "vote for PPP or else..!"

These loudspeaker speeches were for those people decent enough not to be bribed to vote and still didn't know whom to vote for or maybe already decided "Democrats" just to make sure they will change their mind and sure vote for PPP and nobody else. Do i need to mention that the local PPP (former TRT, now PTP) guy has the largest house and the most cars (no less than four) in the entire village? Might be a coincidence but then...... his house is where the loudspeaker wires go to.

I am fully aware that not ALL of the PPP voters had been paid to vote, but a good many did and those who didn't had to endure the loudspeakers which, no doubt, did a similar job in other villages. Add to that the fact that no party other than PPP was allowed to campaign (Democrats who tried were chased out the village or had fish thrown at them, if not worse, death threads....) and it was pretty clear that PPP had to win the election.

Best regards.....

Thanh

[humfurry]

Thaksin was NOT "elected", he BOUGHT the election. If you pay people to vote for you then "elected" you become, but certainly not democratic.

This is an outright lie. Why do people persist in repeating it? Yes, there were abuses of the system. It occurred on both sides. It is wrong. We all agree on that. However, the above claim is unfounded as it is a blanket statement that ALL voters that chose Thaksin were paid off. Is it so difficult to accept that Mr. Thaksin was genuinely selected by a portion of the electorate and that they have a rght to pick who they want? What western nation is free of similar activities? It happens under different shapes and forms. In the USA we see unions and business groups paying large sums of monies to various politicians as part of the lobbying effort. Unions, the National Rifle Association, Evangelicals, social advocacy groups all have programs to get out the vote taking voters to the polls, paying for ads, and paying for rallies.

In those countries with a UK style democracy it is also evident with parliamentarians. During the heyday of the Canadian Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, the party was going to homeless shelters and bussing derelicts to nomination meetings, signing them up and allegedly giving gifts. The Liberal government of PM Jean Chretien was beset by a major campaign financing scandal that rocked the government. In Germany, there are allegations of large payoffs. In the UK, labour unions actively bring out their supporters paying transportation, food etc. In Japan, the scandals just keep on coming. On and on it goes. Unfortunately, wherever there are freedoms, there will always be groups that seek to exploit loopholes. This does not mean it is acceptable or right, but to claim that Thaksin bought an election is insincere. Mr. Abhisit's government also has similar issues, it's just that they are not has visible. If you want to make such claims, then every western government is also guilty of the same. Right, Centrist or Left,this is typical of the process. It is the cost of having a system where people vote.

Mr. Abhisit has been in power for some time. If he was concerned by election process abuses, why has he not brought in the campaign finance reforms that exist in other countries and that do act to reduce the abuses in the electoral process? Ask yourselves why he did not do that. Is it possible that the loopholes and activities that benefit his political opponents also benefit his side as well? In politics, some issues do make for strategic blindness and odd bed mates.

Sorry about the font, but pray tell where do campaign donation reform laws really exist... say in the good ole USA? Unless you're the thickest poster on this forum the Democratic party just been charged by the Thai Election Committee (and I'm typing slowly so that you will understand) of accepting illegal campaign contributions. You're thicker still for comparing a developing SE Asian country to western super powers. Moreover, what have the Reds brought to to table regarding campaign fiance reform? Have the Reds brought anything to the table other than an impossible 15 day dissolution of Parliament list? You really haven't a clue do you?

[galvheim]

I think all his actions talks for himself, but I'm not qualified to answer you. But FOR SURE HE IS NOT A FREE INDIVIDUAL as most elected persons in the world are. He was put in place as all PMs because he is just a front figure that will do as the mid-upper power-structure wants him to do. He is in the same boat as Obama, and all other PMs or presidents. As soon as he deviates from their plan he is not safe anymore. Then the media is free to dig up shit about him, and the court is free to hang him from his feet by whatever law they find suitable. But as long as he is doing the best he can for these guys, he is safe. But since there is already civil unrest they just have to pick another that can step in his shoes. Thats why I not fear the reds so much, because they will under the current regieme not be able to insert anything other than a puppet, but maybe with some strings detatched. Somone who can just calm down the situation. If they on the other hand want a full regieme-change, they will need to fight a whole lot more than just the current government.

Its a reason why the uper structure wants democracy and the reason is simple. Its just a lot more stable and it keeps the population in check. Its difficult to topple a democracy because the left is holding the right side up and the right side is holding the left side up, by alwways being in a constructed opposition. In this way they support eachother as two pillars, instead of one (dictatorship) and the upper elite can enjoy years and years in power by playing this game against the people. Media and news are all bought up to support this, by being the arena for this game. Once some of these people are out of order there comes a storm of shit heading his way, in which they could have had ready for a long time, but not taken into use before its necessary.

One time I talked with a Thai-lady that was working for the Government of Thailand and she was responsible for mapping out which Thai-persons they would extract from there, and by wich means they should get the final call to evacuate, if they had to retract the border in a war scenario between the Thais and the muslims in Southern Thailand. We talked about many things regarding stuff in the government, and finally I asked she who she thought where really running Thailand. She said she would not answer this to me, but she said she could say one thing, and asked me to put this in my brain: "They are NOT THAIS." I asked if she could maybe give some more details but she said she would not, and reapeated again that they simply are NOT REALLY THAIS - so go figure.

[Neurath]

Thaksin was NOT "elected", he BOUGHT the election. If you pay people to vote for you then "elected" you become, but certainly not democratic.

This is an outright lie. Why do people persist in repeating it? Yes, there were abuses of the system. It occurred on both sides. It is wrong. We all agree on that. However, the above claim is unfounded as it is a blanket statement that ALL voters that chose Thaksin were paid off. Is it so difficult to accept that Mr. Thaksin was genuinely selected by a portion of the electorate and that they have a rght to pick who they want? What western nation is free of similar activities? It happens under different shapes and forms. In the USA we see unions and business groups paying large sums of monies to various politicians as part of the lobbying effort. Unions, the National Rifle Association, Evangelicals, social advocacy groups all have programs to get out the vote taking voters to the polls, paying for ads, and paying for rallies.

In those countries with a UK style democracy it is also evident with parliamentarians. During the heyday of the Canadian Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, the party was going to homeless shelters and bussing derelicts to nomination meetings, signing them up and allegedly giving gifts. The Liberal government of PM Jean Chretien was beset by a major campaign financing scandal that rocked the government. In Germany, there are allegations of large payoffs. In the UK, labour unions actively bring out their supporters paying transportation, food etc. In Japan, the scandals just keep on coming. On and on it goes. Unfortunately, wherever there are freedoms, there will always be groups that seek to exploit loopholes. This does not mean it is acceptable or right, but to claim that Thaksin bought an election is insincere. Mr. Abhisit's government also has similar issues, it's just that they are not has visible. If you want to make such claims, then every western government is also guilty of the same. Right, Centrist or Left,this is typical of the process. It is the cost of having a system where people vote.

Mr. Abhisit has been in power for some time. If he was concerned by election process abuses, why has he not brought in the campaign finance reforms that exist in other countries and that do act to reduce the abuses in the electoral process? Ask yourselves why he did not do that. Is it possible that the loopholes and activities that benefit his political opponents also benefit his side as well? In politics, some issues do make for strategic blindness and odd bed mates.

Sorry about the font, but pray tell where do campaign donation reform laws really exist... say in the good ole USA? Unless you're the thickest poster on this forum the Democratic party just been charged by the Thai Election Committee (and I'm typing slowly so that you will understand) of accepting illegal campaign contributions. You're thicker still for comparing a developing SE Asian country to western super powers. Moreover, what have the Reds brought to to table regarding campaign fiance reform? Have the Reds brought anything to the table other than an impossible 15 day dissolution of Parliament list? You really haven't a clue do you?

True. It's far more accurate to say that he (successfully) bought the constitutional court in 2001 and then tried (unsuccessfully) to buy other judges before he scarpered. I remember so well the THB 1,000,000 in the cake box delivered to the Judge. Perhaps the wrong Kanom?

[commons]

let me add my BHT0,02:

i'm not sure if any of "red shirt _equals_ democracy" will understand what i'll try to say:

"democracy" is _not_ "tyranny of majority". contrary, it's about engagement of civic society, divergent opinions. do i see or hear _any_ bit of intent from UDD to do so?

Well it certainly isn't a tyranny of the minority either.

Cheers, Hummy

i thought (& hoped) we're beyond traditional conceptualization.

ok, you asked for it? give me a red policy platform that includes divergent opinions? you want me to supply my personal experience & research what "red shirt" _reality_ _does_ to minority voices?

[commons]

You do mean Power to the Well Paid Brainwashed Peasants? Gee... Wow... after this um... social revolution of the "people" just how will wealth be redistributed. You don't have the slightest clue about how things work in Thailand.

Its your assumption that there are well-paid brainwashed peasants who are going into power. And I don't talk about redistribution of the wealth. Do you really think that would be possible here in Thailand? I mean, the red-shirts would be wiped out by royal decree if they ever tried to do that. This is still a game and war being played out on a low level of the power-structure.

I think there are many scary variables in all this, that might happen, but when all comes down to basics, I truly support any rebellion undertaken by the people of whatever country. In more advanced cultures there should be no room for an absolute elite. People will always rebell agains such. In Thailand more and more people seems to wake up against this, and its the lack of this in other well-establishe quazi-democracies that I am pointing out. No matter what the governments in our countries do, we are still stupid enough to believe that we can get any change by voting in the oppsition every 4 years. This is where people are so mislead to believe that they are doing anything to promote change, since left is right and right ios left in the real world.

I live up here in redneck-land and much of what comes out from them are scary stuff with regards to what happend in cambodia more than 30 years ago. But also they are understanding that they will be unable to develop in any direction but downwards, if the current administration continues to sell out the country to international bankers such as the IMF. This has never been a good way to sort things out, unless you are condemning a part of the population to work for you and never being able to work yourself out of poverty. That hope was given to them under Taksin, and its this hope they are fighting for. If you have ever lived in the rural parts of Thailand for a longer period you would easily see that life is really a fight and that small things that we take for granted are sometimes far beyond their reach. Its very far from the life you live and are used to in Bangkok. So I think you should try to live with them and see why they demand this Ape-shit to step down. This is the majority of Thailand and its not the small bubble that you are so familiar with in BKK.

1) if _you_ or any other other human being on this planet give me a snake-oil formula how to distribute wealth equally - i'd say, you're utterly insane. people are different, with different skills, different cultural inclinations, different drives.

2) Abhisit gov _actually_ had to do the trash-men work of adjusting Thaksin's failed policies:

a) the "30bht health care"? recently i met people who complained it was "scrapped": yes, the "30bht" had been scrapped - as accounting/managing the "30bht" generated more costs that supplying health-care for free.

again & again it's stated Thaksin enabled micro-loans, sustainable development - untrue: people were fooled to believe they'd get "free money". you know any place on this earth where there's "free money"? Thaksin's policies made them victims of their own foolish desires - if you can't pay mortgage, better not apply for credit. _NOW_ it's Abhisit gov _bailing out_ these loans.

c) you wanna discuss "land reform" & regional mafia?

[galvheim]

Don't point Thaksin in my direction, Mr.

I do not think he was any better than the current PM. But as I said he gave them an illusion of somthing better, and a feeiling that they could benefit from the government in various ways. I never said he was any better than any other. There is much bad to say about him from his time in office. But he was clever in populism and since the majority of Thais are farmers or below middle-class, and since he saw this was a democracy, maybe he figured that trying to catch this people would be a good idea. And then they got a taste of it.

I have never agreed or thought it was a good idea for the red-shirts to even mention his name, but instead focus on the democracy and the things the PPP put in place. Talking about having Thaksin come back is a mistake.

[animatic]

Closing PTV didn't add hatred to the Red side, it was already overflowing.

It DID proved them with a perfect target for attack.

And then the army/police was unprepared fro the ferocity and numbers.

It then was equally unprepared from the viciousness of the following evening.

The hatred was to fever pitch and PTV was a main cause.

Immature conceptually, no, under-prepared for the reaction, yes.

Security peoples faults. Abhisit should be given good choices and worst case scenarios,

And seemingly he is not getting proper preparation to make his decisions.

I think Khun Pravit may write a good even handed article,

but he doesn't seem to see other than with a Thai-centric eye.

Not trying to sound superior, just an observation.

[britmaveric]

BTW give the red shirts credit for picking the protest area - turned out thus far to be a very smart move.

[animatic]

Don't point Thaksin in my direction, Mr.

I do not think he was any better than the current PM. But as I said he gave them an illusion of somthing better, and a feeiling that they could benefit from the government in various ways. I never said he was any better than any other. There is much bad to say about him from his time in office. But he was clever in populism and since the majority of Thais are farmers or below middle-class, and since he saw this was a democracy, maybe he figured that trying to catch this people would be a good idea. And then they got a taste of it.

I have never agreed or thought it was a good idea for the red-shirts to even mention his name, but instead focus on the democracy and the things the PPP put in place. Talking about having Thaksin come back is a mistake.

Uh Galv... PPP put NOTHING in place. They were utterly inept in office.

Thaksin was the controller of PPP, so bringing in their 3rd string TRT successor PTP

is essentially handing Thaksin back the TV remote to run Thailand from a far.

One big reason PPP, which had a few minds left, was still so inept was because most

serious decisions had to go through Thaksin in London or Dubai. with the 6+ hour time delay.

PPP was elected on a platform of bringing Thaksin back as leader.

in 8+ months they couldn't do that,

nor pass any legislation that helped the people up north either.

PTP is a shadow of PPP intellectually, and fractionally of TRT before that.

Both products of the Thaksin Political Machine. We see the street branch

at work now, trying to prise the legislative and executive controls from the Dems hands.

A demagogues field day and to what end...?

Democracy is not in the cards only it's shiny veneer.

[galvheim]

This is why the upper-elite are always working for democracy in countries that does not have a Russia/China form of governing the people. It's just so simple and effective in the way it works to keep the masses subdued, believeing they are free individuals with all kinds of rights, allthough they are far from it in many cases.

This is why the Yellows did not meet any resistance and its also the reason why the Reds are meeting a lot of resistance, because they are not sure of their intentions since they are a true people rebellion. Since they not control them, and therefore is a treath to their system, they will fight them off with all means to ensure that they stay out of the power circle.

So to all of you bragging about our western democracy and how well-functioning it is, I can only say - Yes, you're right, but not in the way you thought it was...

Edited April 15, 2010 by galvheim

[animatic]

BTW give the red shirts credit for picking the protest area - turned out thus far to be a very smart move.

Not really they just kept flailing around Bangkok till they heard the biggest yelp,

and even then tried several sites at once. They read the papers too, pundits let them know.

[animatic]

This is why the upper-elite are always working for democracy in countries that does not have a Russia/China form of governing the people. It's just so simple and effective in the way it works to keep the masses subdued, believeing they are free individuals with all kinds of rights, allthough they are far from it in many cases.

This is why the PPP did not meet any resistance and its also the reason why the Reds are meeting a lot of resistance, because they are not sure of their intentions since they are a true people rebellion. Since they not control them, and therefore is a treath to their system, they will fight them off with all means to ensure that they stay out of the power circle.

So to all of you bragging about our western democracy and how well-functioning it is, I can only say - Yes, you're right, but not in the way you thought it was...

LOL well no connection here dude.

Nor dots to connect with the Illuminati, or builders, or Fed Reserve either.

Though I like the graphical aides!

What is missing here in Thailand is likely that agreed on balance to support the systems.

Anyone who can't see the interlocking nature of the political spheres, just like ying and yang,

is no doubt content to just get along with their lives.

So the alternative to some form of flexible symbiosis, is random chance revolution

and we can see how well Russia and China have faired last century from losing that balance of symbiosis.

But I digress, Will this vid make a scintilla of difference in this street war... not likely.

It may prove interesting for a few posters though.

Thaksin's populism and modern communications jiggered the system

faster than it can deal with reforming into a modern entity. But all out peoples revolution

is just throwing a stack of wild cards in the air and hoping one side will come up with enough

to convince others that they won the game... most often no one believes and the game continues,

till most players are put out... fine on a game board, but in real life players put out suffer and die.

Not a viable solution.

Edited April 15, 2010 by animatic

[kissdani]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

Another international editorial piece that along with the guardian and wall street journal piece shows the reds are winning the international propaganda war.

It isn't a propaganda war, that are sane voices.

Only a couple of hard core wannabe Eichmanns on this board defend the ugly crackdown on the protesters and demand even more deadly force unleashed on them.

[galvheim]

I have never agreed or thought it was a good idea for the red-shirts to even mention his name, but instead focus on the democracy and the things the PPP put in place. Talking about having Thaksin come back is a mistake.

Uh Galv... PPP put NOTHING in place. They were utterly inept in office.

Sorry, but I meant the Yellow Shirts. This was a typing error and I meant PPD. And by "putting somthing in place" I meant the demonstrations at Suwarnabhumi Airport etc.

[galvheim]

This is why the upper-elite are always working for democracy in countries that does not have a Russia/China form of governing the people. It's just so simple and effective in the way it works to keep the masses subdued, believeing they are free individuals with all kinds of rights, allthough they are far from it in many cases.

This is why the PPP did not meet any resistance and its also the reason why the Reds are meeting a lot of resistance, because they are not sure of their intentions since they are a true people rebellion. Since they not control them, and therefore is a treath to their system, they will fight them off with all means to ensure that they stay out of the power circle.

So to all of you bragging about our western democracy and how well-functioning it is, I can only say - Yes, you're right, but not in the way you thought it was...

LOL well no connection here dude.

Nor dots to connect with the Illuminati, or builders, or Fed Reserve either.

Though I like the graphical aides!

What is missing here in Thailand is likely that agreed on balance to support the systems.

Anyone who can't see the interlocking nature of the political spheres, just like ying and yang,

is no doubt content to just get along with their lives.

So the alternative to some form of flexible symbiosis, is random chance revolution

and we can see how well Russia and China have faired last century from losing that balance of symbiosis.

But I digress, Will this vid make a scintilla of difference in this street war... not likely.

It may prove interesting for a few posters though.

Thaksin's populism and modern communications jiggered the system

faster than it can deal with reforming into a modern entity. But all out peoples revolution

is just throwing a stack of wild cards in the air and hoping one side will come up with enough

to convince others that they won the game... most often no one believes and the game continues,

till most players are put out... fine on a game board, but in real life players put out suffer and die.

Not a viable solution.

This was all meant to illustrate the paradigm we live in in our western countries, as I have mentioned from the start in my post to this subject. Just illustrating to people that they are not more free there than in other countries. And to show them why the upper-elite are struggeling so hard to get a somwhat convincing democrcy. So far they have failed miserably, and as you point out there is several reasons for this. Any connections to the illuminator or such stuff has not been mantioned, but I thought it was a nice video to undeline my point, since there are a lot of posters in here who think they are coming from so well-functioning democracies. Yes, they function well, but they not see how limiting they are. So please just take it for what it is. I just think its important that people see and understand this, so that they understand how things work around them - looking at the bigger picture can somtimes free you from a lot smaller details that you waste time on. So who did what, at what time and place and who bribed who, to what amounts are less important when you look at the bigger picture. These are all distractions and you are playing their game.

I am neutral to the indiciduals in all this, but not to the system that is in place now. As you said its like throwing all the cards up in the air and hoping they will form somthing when they land. At least it seems like this in the current situation, but what is the alternatives? I can very well understand the people here that they can not tolerate this hijacking of the Yellows, so its just plain fair. But what it will lead to is uncertain.

[LaoPo]

I think Khun Pravit may write a good even handed article,

but he doesn't seem to see other than with a Thai-centric eye.

Not trying to sound superior, just an observation.

How would you like him to see and write other than with his own Thai-centric eyes ? He is, after all, Thai.

Would you prefer an American-centric eye, World-centric eye or a European centric-eye?

I think it's one of the best observations of a staff-member of The Nation and applaud him for that.

Of course you sound superior other than just an observation, but that's in your nature...and mine

Pulling a leg or two of course

LaoPo

[commons]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

Another international editorial piece that along with the guardian and wall street journal piece shows the reds are winning the international propaganda war.

It isn't a propaganda war, that are sane voices.

Only a couple of hard core wannabe Eichmanns on this board defend the ugly crackdown on the protesters and demand even more deadly force unleashed on them.

i'm sorry to disagree.

imho, whoever quotes washington post as _reliable_ "information" source - if you _really_ want me to deconstruct your notions, i'll do.

[kissdani]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

Another international editorial piece that along with the guardian and wall street journal piece shows the reds are winning the international propaganda war.

It isn't a propaganda war, that are sane voices.

Only a couple of hard core wannabe Eichmanns on this board defend the ugly crackdown on the protesters and demand even more deadly force unleashed on them.

i'm sorry to disagree.

imho, whoever quotes washington post as _reliable_ "information" source - if you _really_ want me to deconstruct your notions, i'll do.

Closing the red TV channel - legal. Crackdown the rally - legal. Shot a couple of proteters dead - legal. Bring more force until no red protesters left in the city - legal.

Eichmann defense 101.

[Neurath]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0041404391.html

Another international editorial piece that along with the guardian and wall street journal piece shows the reds are winning the international propaganda war.

It isn't a propaganda war, that are sane voices.

Only a couple of hard core wannabe Eichmanns on this board defend the ugly crackdown on the protesters and demand even more deadly force unleashed on them.

i'm sorry to disagree.

imho, whoever quotes washington post as _reliable_ "information" source - if you _really_ want me to deconstruct your notions, i'll do.

"Deconstructing" someone's "notions" sounds somewhat saucy, so please continue