Thai Army Says Planning Operation To Clear Protesters

[humfurry]

.....and....what's more:

Many people, writing and talking about Thaksin do not realize that the Thaksin era is just an era in Thai history.

It was and still is the major "trigger" to something much larger than the present and past protests by the Yellows and Reds...."terrorists" as Abhisit called the latter.

Every Government always call protesters, freedom fighters and the like: Terrorists...

But, it's more than that, much more.

Some amongst you will know and have learned about the French Revolution* which started in 1789 and the Thai situation is almost exactly the same as what happened back than, some 220 years ago.

It was, in short: "The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European history."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

(almost) The same will and is happening in and with Thailand.

Napoleon said it and will prove he was correct, again: L'histoire se répète - History repeats itself.

The establishment -the elite and military, fed by the elite families- has made a very dangerous mistake and they have been making that mistake since the early days of the founding of Thailand:

they neglected the backbone of the country: the rural -poor- workers and their families, some 40-45 million people out of Thailand's total of 63 million.

It's payback time and Napoleon's famous remark will prove he was right, once more.

In the end, the people will win, always.

L'histoire se répète and if it's not this Government or the next, in the end Thaksin will be long forgotten, but the poor will demand their respectable place in Thailand's society.

A place they deserve.

LaoPo

Well, Wellington took care of Napoleon... But what amuses me the most about the Red supporters here is their constant referrals and comparisons to the Red leadership and their cause with dictators... Mao, Stalin, Mussolini and now Napoleon.

[anotherpeter]

Laws change to suit the needs of the people at the time. If the needs of the people cannot be met because a political party that won majority vote cannot be in power, then laws need to be broken. Simple. You think the Americans or the French got where they are today by obeying laws set by the British Empire and the French aristocracy?

Which political party won a majority vote?

Or do you mean a party that wins 40% of the vote should be in power?

[brahmburgers]

You supporters of the regime are too easy to prove wrong. We just say--have an election.

You then say something stupid like--But all the votes will be bought. Just hold an election and honor the winners.

Neither Abhisit nor his supporters are against or afraid of elections - they just don't want to be bullied in to it by a mob. It will reinforce the mob-rule pattern of recent Thai politics.

Vote buying, bullying voters, and promises of money or debt reduction for votes is a tradition in Thailand, yet hopefully things will change for the better. Thais in general, and Red supporters in particular, need to be educated on what democracy and clean elections entail. Ask any of the Red 'footsoldiers' individually what constitutes a fair election and/or a robust political campaign and they'd be miffed. They're good at rattling their clappers in support of the people shouting from the stage, but they're not adept at thinking for themselves or thinking outside the box.

Let's be honest about this. The Red movement started all wrapped around Thaksin, and it's still at least 90% about him. The announcement of this latest demonstration took place right before the assets verdict (which, at that time, we all knew would go against Thaksin). All along, the Reds have been wearing red shirts and holding posters which depict Thaksin's face. The Reds themselves unabashedly admit (if they're at all honest, which is a stretch) ....that they're being paid directly or indirectly by Shinawat money. Anyone who says the protest is not about one man getting back in power (and getting richer), is fooling himself and trying to fool others.

[chadintheusa]

Laws change to suit the needs of the people at the time. If the needs of the people cannot be met because a political party that won majority vote cannot be in power, then laws need to be broken. Simple. You think the Americans or the French got where they are today by obeying laws set by the British Empire and the French aristocracy?

Which political party won a majority vote?

Or do you mean a party that wins 40% of the vote should be in power?

In a multiparty system like Thailand is quite likely that the party that forms the government receives less than 40% of the vote. There can be 6 to 10 parties competing for each seat, so you don't need 50% to win, sometimes 20-30% is enough if the rest is split between the other groups. Thailand is not an American style republic with only two choices in each election.

[chadintheusa]

You supporters of the regime are too easy to prove wrong. We just say--have an election.

You then say something stupid like--But all the votes will be bought. Just hold an election and honor the winners.

Neither Abhisit nor his supporters are against or afraid of elections - they just don't want to be bullied in to it by a mob. It will reinforce the mob-rule pattern of recent Thai politics.

Vote buying, bullying voters, and promises of money or debt reduction for votes is a tradition in Thailand, yet hopefully things will change for the better. Thais in general, and Red supporters in particular, need to be educated on what democracy and clean elections entail. Ask any of the Red 'footsoldiers' individually what constitutes a fair election and/or a robust political campaign and they'd be miffed. They're good at rattling their clappers in support of the people shouting from the stage, but they're not adept at thinking for themselves or thinking outside the box.

Let's be honest about this. The Red movement started all wrapped around Thaksin, and it's still at least 90% about him. The announcement of this latest demonstration took place right before the assets verdict (which, at that time, we all knew would go against Thaksin). All along, the Reds have been wearing red shirts and holding posters which depict Thaksin's face. The Reds themselves unabashedly admit (if they're at all honest, which is a stretch) ....that they're being paid directly or indirectly by Shinawat money. Anyone who says the protest is not about one man getting back in power (and getting richer), is fooling himself and trying to fool others.

Is an election where the ballot box is stuffed with cash a legitimate election? The reds want to force a quick election this summer, and the PM is desperate to make it into the fall. The person in control in September gets to pick the replacement for Anupong when he retires. That is why they are at an impasse. The army is too powerful in Thai politics, so each side is seeking to put a friendly man in charge. In western democracies the number of retired generals in politics is relatively small. Governments are made up primarily of civilians. How many MPs and PMs are former high ranking military in Thailand?

[OzMick]

Don't we all have to think it got a lot harder to get Thai military men to charge toward the area the Reds now hold after the army say over 200 of their com rads in arms shot down in roughly 1 minute.

Most were shot with rubber bullets--THIS TIME.

Funny thing is likely the men doing the shooting wearing black with faces covered are also Thai military special forces.

Bet they are telling the boys in the army to stay the heck away or die.

I really doubt that any Thai general can get a strong group to charge again.

After all. most of the army people are Pro Red anyway being from Issan.

I think the next step for the reds is a complete shutdown of Bangkok which they could do easily.

Maybe they will pick out a few buildings owned by Backers of the regime and burn then down to the ground. Who could stop it?

It is easy to start a fire but difficult to put out.

It is easy to start a war but difficult to stop it.

This war, started when the Thai elite regime did the Coup against Thai love Thai.

Often in an all out fight, the loser could be the side that has the most to lose--the current regime.

The Reds mean business.

I think if they wanted to, they could hold the current area against even tank fire. City warfare is impossible to win. The entire city would be gone and the reds would still be alive and fighting.

If the building start to burn, it might be best for all farangs to leave Thailand in a wind-sprint.

If the reds want to win, and do not care how, they will win.

Men in black aren't reds? Would that make the assassination of the military leader some form of bizarre suicide?

Setting fire to buildings (as per Arismon) would be declaration of war, all gloves off, and the result would tarnish this country for years. People willing to die for the cause, die just as easily as those who aren't (apologies to Norman), and they will in large numbers.

I have posted on another thread that I believe the military will obey orders, that they will be quite angry after the last debacle, and the response will reflect this. This can and probably will get very, very ugly.

[anotherpeter]

Laws change to suit the needs of the people at the time. If the needs of the people cannot be met because a political party that won majority vote cannot be in power, then laws need to be broken. Simple. You think the Americans or the French got where they are today by obeying laws set by the British Empire and the French aristocracy?

Which political party won a majority vote?

Or do you mean a party that wins 40% of the vote should be in power?

In a multiparty system like Thailand is quite likely that the party that forms the government receives less than 40% of the vote. There can be 6 to 10 parties competing for each seat, so you don't need 50% to win, sometimes 20-30% is enough if the rest is split between the other groups. Thailand is not an American style republic with only two choices in each election.

But the highest percentage isn't a "win".

You need more than 50% to form a government.

So even if a party has 40% of the vote/seats, that doesn't give them automatic rule.

The other 60% of the vote/seats can still form government even if it involves 60 parties with 1% each.

[OzMick]

Don't we all have to think it got a lot harder to get Thai military men to charge toward the area the Reds now hold after the army say over 200 of their com rads in arms shot down in roughly 1 minute.

Most were shot with rubber bullets--THIS TIME.

Funny thing is likely the men doing the shooting wearing black with faces covered are also Thai military special forces.

Bet they are telling the boys in the army to stay the heck away or die.

I really doubt that any Thai general can get a strong group to charge again.

After all. most of the army people are Pro Red anyway being from Issan.

I think the next step for the reds is a complete shutdown of Bangkok which they could do easily.

Maybe they will pick out a few buildings owned by Backers of the regime and burn then down to the ground. Who could stop it?

It is easy to start a fire but difficult to put out.

It is easy to start a war but difficult to stop it.

This war, started when the Thai elite regime did the Coup against Thai love Thai.

Often in an all out fight, the loser could be the side that has the most to lose--the current regime.

The Reds mean business.

I think if they wanted to, they could hold the current area against even tank fire. City warfare is impossible to win. The entire city would be gone and the reds would still be alive and fighting.

If the building start to burn, it might be best for all farangs to leave Thailand in a wind-sprint.

If the reds want to win, and do not care how, they will win.

From one of our newer Thaksin supporters.

What a lot of speculative nonsense.

Lots of if, if, if.

Yes we know that the red cheerleaders would like to burn down Bangkok for Thaksin.

For 500 baht mostly anything goes.

And Thaksin is prepared to pay it.

Indeed; that's exactly where the problem is...

If the rural Thai people who are so deadly poor would have more money at their disposal, nobody would travel all the way to BKK to protest...whatever the cause, Thaksin or no Thaksin

A staggering 43% of ALL Thai Laborers are agricultural workers, producing a lousy, mere 12.3% of Thailand's TOTAL GDP....those workers represent 17 million workers....with wives, husbands, children, parents and grandparents to take care of...these people represent the majority of Thailand's people and they are, since centuries POOR...dead poor!

Would YOU do it for Baht 500 ?

I don't think so because you talk from a likely comfortable position.

Easy to comment on those people but go out there yourself and YOU start living in their place and do the same hard work for a few lousy Baht.

Than you will know and realize.

LaoPo

Strangely enough, you got something right! 43% of thai workers do labour-intensive work and produce very little worth. Why? they aren't slaves or even serfs, they have chosen a low-pay career, maybe for the lifestyle, to stay home with mum, who knows. But they are quite free to join the army, move, try their hand at something that pays better. No, they prefer a 6-7 month a year work ethic of a rice farmer, or sitting under a tree watching a couple of cows. Get a haircut and get a real job!

[Thai at Heart]

Well, Wellington took care of Napoleon... But what amuses me the most about the Red supporters here is their constant referrals and comparisons to the Red leadership and their cause with dictators... Mao, Stalin, Mussolini and now Napoleon.

I think you might find it isn't the Western Pro-reds who are mentioning Mao, Stalin, Mussolini or Napoleon so much as pro-yellows trying to paint the red movement with a broad brush.

The reds fortunately don't have much of a clear ideology anyway. Safe to say, they despise the Dems, PAD and the Army leadership. In fairness other than maybe Abhisit and Korn, what is there to love among any of those guys anyway. So far the reads haven't won anything either, so lets wait and see where this all falls politically. That is if the army lets it all fall politically, or they hold the whole process up with a coup.

[rametindallas]

Laws change to suit the needs of the people at the time. If the needs of the people cannot be met because a political party that won majority vote cannot be in power, then laws need to be broken. Simple. You think the Americans or the French got where they are today by obeying laws set by the British Empire and the French aristocracy?

Which political party won a majority vote?

Or do you mean a party that wins 40% of the vote should be in power?

In a multiparty system like Thailand is quite likely that the party that forms the government receives less than 40% of the vote. There can be 6 to 10 parties competing for each seat, so you don't need 50% to win, sometimes 20-30% is enough if the rest is split between the other groups. Thailand is not an American style republic with only two choices in each election.

Thanks for acknowledging that the U.S. is a repuplic and not a democracy. After the constitution was voted in, Benjamin Franklin said, "God Help Us! We have a republic... if we can keep it".

[anotherpeter]

Thanks for acknowledging that the U.S. is a repuplic and not a democracy. After the constitution was voted in, Benjamin Franklin said, "God Help Us! We have a republic... if we can keep it".

Do you mean that a republic is not a democracy?

My understanding is that there is no true democratic government in the world if you use a strict meaning of the term.

Most countries have "democratic" systems in place where the people vote for representatives to run the government.

I thought that would include republics.

[grandpops]

Re Ahhisit's fan page - was started many months ago, but until 2 or 3 months ago the number of fans was below 100,000. Looks like my previous prediction will come to pass

Not as many computers in farmers living rooms. Usually their houses are full of farming things.

But nice to show your elitist blindness with this post. Shows more the class divide than anything else.

Yellows being the elites, have more money, therefore more computers, therefore more facebook members.

You not related to Einstein by anychance are you

We all Know your not.

Great post from a great writer. Pity that you didn't think to proof read after you put your grammar nazi hat on.

It's You're, not your. But C+ for a first attempt at humor. Or do you really know my not?... whatever that is

[orangezeke]

every 'thailand news' thread should be prefaced with this - vote buying is not the sole domain of thaksin and his parties. TRT/PPP did not invent vote buying and politicians on both sides have been red carded for their efforts. if you are going to insist it is a one-sided affair, then what is the difference between buying the vote of a million poor farmers @ 500 baht a pop and no reason to refuse, or the vote of gazillionaire newin chidchob @ who knows how much ?

with preamble in place, it wouldn't need to be discussed endlessly on every thread.

[Thai at Heart]

Laws change to suit the needs of the people at the time. If the needs of the people cannot be met because a political party that won majority vote cannot be in power, then laws need to be broken. Simple. You think the Americans or the French got where they are today by obeying laws set by the British Empire and the French aristocracy?

Which political party won a majority vote?

Or do you mean a party that wins 40% of the vote should be in power?

In a multiparty system like Thailand is quite likely that the party that forms the government receives less than 40% of the vote. There can be 6 to 10 parties competing for each seat, so you don't need 50% to win, sometimes 20-30% is enough if the rest is split between the other groups. Thailand is not an American style republic with only two choices in each election.

Thanks for acknowledging that the U.S. is a repuplic and not a democracy. After the constitution was voted in, Benjamin Franklin said, "God Help Us! We have a republic... if we can keep it".

There are probably more republics in the world that are democracies than constitutional monarchies that are democracies.

Being a republic has NOTHING to do with being a democracy Or did you not notice the People Democratic REPUBLIC of Korea or the Peoples REPUBLIC of China. Being a republic simply means that you do not have a monarch as head of state and probably have an elected head of state instead.

However the US is one would imagine accepted as being a democratic republic, as opposed to North Korea which is probably not.

[siampolee]

[quote]ozmike

Strangely enough, you got something right! 43% of thai workers do labour-intensive work and produce very little worth. Why? they aren't slaves or even serfs, they have chosen a low-pay career, maybe for the lifestyle, to stay home with mum, who knows. But they are quite free to join the army, move, try their hand at something that pays better. No, they prefer a 6-7 month a year work ethic of a rice farmer, or sitting under a tree watching a couple of cows. Get a haircut and get a real job!

Having just returned from Surin after 1 week for Songkran I can assure you that all of the villagers I and the wife spoke too had no interest in the Red Shirt Brigade or Thaksin, sure some had been involved in the rally prior to Songkran as they said ''the 1,000 baht a day was Songkran fun money no political motives involved''.

All of those who had been involved all said they would not return as they are indeed happy with their current lifestyle, remember that a large number of these folks still remember the communists from Cambodia as the area we reside in is adjacent to the border, seeing and experiencing is a great educational experience as these Surin folk have seen over the years.

As an aside we spend at least 6 weeks a year on our farm and have done for the last 18 of the 20 years I have lived here. t

Yes OzMike is spot on target my in-laws are totally happy with their life style, they have a pleasant house ( built and paid for by themselves). a stress free lifestyle and couldn't and indeed don't give a buffalo's fart for Thaksin and the Red Shirt Brigade.Strangely enough the greater majority of the Surin folk are just the same as my in-laws

I enjoy our sojourns in Surin and in another year I shall retire there along with the wife and our children, schools contrary to popular belief are good as is the lifestyle, no pollution, no rush and tear, no know it all farangs who pontificate from the comfort of bars on Sukhumvit road, Phuket etc. All insulated from and have little or no contact with the ordinary Thai population.

Edited April 18, 2010 by siampolee

[otherstuff1957]

.....and....what's more:

Some amongst you will know and have learned about the French Revolution* which started in 1789 and the Thai situation is almost exactly the same as what happened back than, some 220 years ago.

It was, in short: "The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European history."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

(almost) The same will and is happening in and with Thailand.

L'histoire se répète and if it's not this Government or the next, in the end Thaksin will be long forgotten, but the poor will demand their respectable place in Thailand's society.

A place they deserve.

LaoPo

In between the reign of Louis the 16th and Napoleon there was another era: (from wiki again)

The Reign of Terror (27 June 1793 – 27 July 1794), also known as The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of violence that occurred for one year and one month after the onset of the French Revolution ... marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution." ... Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000;

I don't remember who said this: "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it", but it's a singularly appropriate quote that the Redshirt supporters should try to keep in mind.

[rabo]

look at the nation's pic. there is a green van at the back. ok, now look at the before pic. the green van is still there. look at the after and it has been covered up with photoshop!!!!!!!

Where are these pictures, can't find them.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3878...id=328167122854

the others are on pages of the forum - called before and after

Thanks. Well, I spent some time to try and investigate these "fake" images.

The image on the right posted on page 15 here http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thai-Army-Pl...html&st=365 definitely fake (extra people filled in), but now, who did it?

When I follow some links I come to a website http://www.pantip.com/cafe/rajdumnern/topi...0/P9134000.html that has a full page study on various fake images. A red site I assume. Some of their points seem a bit dubious to me.

The fact that they have the before and after images is quite suspicious. I also note various images were taken at different times of the day. Particularly the images that have umbrellas were earlier in the morning perhaps when there was still some rain.

Comparing images with umbrellas with later images that have a lot of people can be very deceptive simply because umbrellas and peoples heads are very different in size, thus the sense of high density and low density are very different.

I also note that the image on pantip.com of a large crowd (said to be fake) is different than the one in the nation.

The image posted here on page 15 are early morning pictures that have umbrellas and few people (the one of the right being the fake one). I'm also suspicious why anyone would want to fake the early morning picture that has fewer people, and of course how do they have the before and after of the same image if they did not make the fake??????????

They also make some claims about the photo shop version name "CS3" being shown in one of the images (i.e. on a handrail and on an umbrella), which makes little sense to me.

So, who did it? My guess is the red shirt supporters are making the fakes, OR (get this one) maybe BOTH!

Anyway, the case can be settled if anyone can find the fake right image on page 15 on an actual nation webpage. If not, then I think this is just more fake red propaganda.

This morning, the NATION has refuted the iReport chaims by publishing the original uncompressed version of the image in question and..... it's not altered or fake.

Thus the fake, altered images floating around, presumably originating from the pantip.com website, are just more Thaksin camp lies and distortions aimed at the international media.

Case closed.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Don't we all have to think it got a lot harder to get Thai military men to charge toward the area the Reds now hold after the army say over 200 of their com rads in arms shot down in roughly 1 minute.

Most were shot with rubber bullets--THIS TIME.

Funny thing is likely the men doing the shooting wearing black with faces covered are also Thai military special forces.

Bet they are telling the boys in the army to stay the heck away or die.

I really doubt that any Thai general can get a strong group to charge again.

After all. most of the army people are Pro Red anyway being from Issan.

I think the next step for the reds is a complete shutdown of Bangkok which they could do easily.

Maybe they will pick out a few buildings owned by Backers of the regime and burn then down to the ground. Who could stop it?

It is easy to start a fire but difficult to put out.

It is easy to start a war but difficult to stop it.

This war, started when the Thai elite regime did the Coup against Thai love Thai.

Often in an all out fight, the loser could be the side that has the most to lose--the current regime.

The Reds mean business.

I think if they wanted to, they could hold the current area against even tank fire. City warfare is impossible to win. The entire city would be gone and the reds would still be alive and fighting.

If the building start to burn, it might be best for all farangs to leave Thailand in a wind-sprint.

If the reds want to win, and do not care how, they will win.

From one of our newer Thaksin supporters.

What a lot of speculative nonsense.

Lots of if, if, if.

Yes we know that the red cheerleaders would like to burn down Bangkok for Thaksin.

For 500 baht mostly anything goes.

And Thaksin is prepared to pay it.

Indeed; that's exactly where the problem is...

If the rural Thai people who are so deadly poor would have more money at their disposal, nobody would travel all the way to BKK to protest...whatever the cause, Thaksin or no Thaksin

A staggering 43% of ALL Thai Laborers are agricultural workers, producing a lousy, mere 12.3% of Thailand's TOTAL GDP....those workers represent 17 million workers....with wives, husbands, children, parents and grandparents to take care of...these people represent the majority of Thailand's people and they are, since centuries POOR...dead poor!

Would YOU do it for Baht 500 ?

I don't think so because you talk from a likely comfortable position.

Easy to comment on those people but go out there yourself and YOU start living in their place and do the same hard work for a few lousy Baht.

Than you will know and realize.

LaoPo

Strangely enough, you got something right! 43% of thai workers do labour-intensive work and produce very little worth. Why? they aren't slaves or even serfs, they have chosen a low-pay career, maybe for the lifestyle, to stay home with mum, who knows. But they are quite free to join the army, move, try their hand at something that pays better. No, they prefer a 6-7 month a year work ethic of a rice farmer, or sitting under a tree watching a couple of cows. Get a haircut and get a real job!

You are not in the picture.

France in the 50's, just after second World War was in a similar situation with half of the population farming. Now farmer number has dropped to something like 5%.

First those poor people are on the soil of their ancesters, nobody has really taken care of them . Successive thai government wear an heavy responsability about this situation. Education is poor in Issan: overcrowded classes, low quality teachers (I have been in touch with the students of Northern Thailand; except Khon Khaen, the english level is nearly nil). So issaners cannot get a good job. They currently provide the workforce of the Bangkok industrial belt, the maid, the taxi drivers, and also the massage parlour girls...Already difficult to find a job with low qualification, an important number of jobless youngsters: they go to Bangkok and come back to the village for surviving when the job has been dropped. Not enough jobs for them in Bangkok.

More, this is a stupid "laissez aller" (let go) situation: imagine if 40% of the population migrate today suddenly to Bangkok, Issan becoming a desert... It will be a "monster" social disorder, how to provide accomodation, food, transportation .... Stupid, and a lot more costly than to organise ISSAN and fix the population there.

In France, it has been a consensus of all the successive Governments (No struggle about that): the policy has been named "Amenagement du Territoire" ("Town and Country planning" is the translation).

It is a large and long term policy: investments in infrastructure, (highways, railways), decentralisation of some industries, creation of Economical Hubs, decentralisation of some administrations. On the political side, the 90+ Departments have been regrouped in Regions,(something like 10 regions), each region is a mini-state (limited powers) with an Elected President and a local Parliament, Regions have also their own budget.

So every region has taken advantage of local assets to orientate the development. Local industries are developing. (Example Toulouse -hub of Aeronautical Industry before it was in the Paris belt). The extension of Paris suburb has been slowed down, for a same purpose (for example 1km of highway), the cost of investments are far cheaper in the Country than in the Capital.

It is the well thought interest of Thailand to fix its population on the country side. And it has to be quickly adressed: the current disorders are just a sample of much more important unrests which may happen in the future.

The current situation is the results of years neglecting the Country People.

Such a policy has to be worked out by utilising the Brains (Academics, MPs, Industrials...) of Thailand and changing some rules, particularly it is abnormal that the Military manage an important surface of the territory instead of Civilians. Examples: Don Muang Airport development is managed by Royal Thai Air Force, Nakhon Phanom ex US base has been given to Royal Thai Air force, impossible to develop a small industrial hub there: an industrial exporting Mekong fishes wanted to be present on Airport: not possible, strategic....

[Thai at Heart]

This morning, the NATION has refuted the iReport chaims by publishing the original uncompressed version of the image in question and..... it's not altered or fake.

Thus the fake, altered images floating around, presumably originating from the pantip.com website, are just more Thaksin camp lies and distortions aimed at the international media.

Case closed.

Makes me feel a whole lot better that a truly independent organisation backed up the Nation's claims. If their reporting stood up to more independent scrutiny for a sustained period of time more people might believe them.

I suggest they go out and PROVE that the pictures aren't photoshopped. It can't be that hard.

[Insight]

If you still have the link handy, I would like to see it. I hadn't seen or heard about this yet. However, I did watch the video many times of the red shirt with the flag being shot in the front of the head as he turned to face the Red crowd ... not the military. So, unless there was an army guy shooting from within the red crowd, he was not shot by the military.

Here ya go:

Badly in need if English subs...

[rametindallas]

Thanks for acknowledging that the U.S. is a repuplic and not a democracy. After the constitution was voted in, Benjamin Franklin said, "God Help Us! We have a republic... if we can keep it".

Do you mean that a republic is not a democracy?

My understanding is that there is no true democratic government in the world if you use a strict meaning of the term.

Most countries have "democratic" systems in place where the people vote for representatives to run the government.

I thought that would include republics.

All Republics have democratic tools but not all Democracies are Republics. The words are not interchangeable. For me, (pure) Democracy is anarchy of he masses.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. Republic. ... this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

Knowing Thai people as I do, with all their independence and individuality in mind, I believe they would like to have a Republic with the rights with the individual. Unfortunately the Reds are infiltrated by Communist who finds Repulics anathma.

Edited April 18, 2010 by rametindallas

[Jerrytheyoung]

.....and....what's more:

Some amongst you will know and have learned about the French Revolution* which started in 1789 and the Thai situation is almost exactly the same as what happened back than, some 220 years ago.

It was, in short: "The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European history."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

(almost) The same will and is happening in and with Thailand.

L'histoire se répète and if it's not this Government or the next, in the end Thaksin will be long forgotten, but the poor will demand their respectable place in Thailand's society.

A place they deserve.

LaoPo

In between the reign of Louis the 16th and Napoleon there was another era: (from wiki again)

The Reign of Terror (27 June 1793 – 27 July 1794), also known as The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of violence that occurred for one year and one month after the onset of the French Revolution ... marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution." ... Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000;

I don't remember who said this: "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it", but it's a singularly appropriate quote that the Redshirt supporters should try to keep in mind.

Not to justify the actions done during the Terror period, but just to underline than the Revolution was facing external Threats organised by the Elite (Noble+ Clergy); they were requesting other Monarchic Countries to intervene. So, from inside France, some traitors to Revolution were acting to build an external coalition (Valmy battle in 1792, for example). There were some attempts to build some Monarchic Army in the Countryside that the Revolution has been obliged to crushed (Bloody Campaign of Vendee/ Brittany) You must also remember that Marie Antoinette, the Queen, of Austrian origin, has some responsabilities in the Revolution ( luxurious expenses, extravagant loan to pay jewelry Affaire du Collier de la Reine", trying to escape to Austria (Varennes Story). Folowing all that, the Terror period has been a cleaning from Traitors organising unrests inside and outside France( cleaning which has degenerated because Revolution leaders themselves, Danton, Robespierre have been executed).

[otherstuff1957]

.....and....what's more:

Some amongst you will know and have learned about the French Revolution* which started in 1789 and the Thai situation is almost exactly the same as what happened back than, some 220 years ago.

It was, in short: "The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of radical social and political upheaval in French and European history."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

(almost) The same will and is happening in and with Thailand.

L'histoire se répète and if it's not this Government or the next, in the end Thaksin will be long forgotten, but the poor will demand their respectable place in Thailand's society.

A place they deserve.

LaoPo

In between the reign of Louis the 16th and Napoleon there was another era: (from wiki again)

The Reign of Terror (27 June 1793 – 27 July 1794), also known as The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of violence that occurred for one year and one month after the onset of the French Revolution ... marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution." ... Estimates vary widely as to how many were killed, with numbers ranging from 16,000 to 40,000;

I don't remember who said this: "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it", but it's a singularly appropriate quote that the Redshirt supporters should try to keep in mind.

Not to justify the actions done during the Terror period, but just to underline than the Revolution was facing external Threats organised by the Elite (Noble+ Clergy); they were requesting other Monarchic Countries to intervene. So, from inside France, some traitors to Revolution were acting to build an external coalition (Valmy battle in 1792, for example). There were some attempts to build some Monarchic Army in the Countryside that the Revolution has been obliged to crushed (Bloody Campaign of Vendee/ Brittany) You must also remember that Marie Antoinette, the Queen, of Austrian origin, has some responsabilities in the Revolution ( luxurious expenses, extravagant loan to pay jewelry Affaire du Collier de la Reine", trying to escape to Austria (Varennes Story). Folowing all that, the Terror period has been a cleaning from Traitors organising unrests inside and outside France( cleaning which has degenerated because Revolution leaders themselves, Danton, Robespierre have been executed).

Good point! I'm pretty sure that we can expect to see Comrade Weng and the other Red Siam members tossed by the wayside as soon as they are no longer needed.

[rabo]

RE: Fake NATION Image not fake

[......] The image on the right posted on page 15 here http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thai-Army-Pl...html&st=365 definitely fake (extra people filled in), but now, who did it? When I follow some links I come to a website http://www.pantip.com/cafe/rajdumnern/topi...0/P9134000.html that has a full page study on various fake images. A red site I assume. Some of their points seem a bit dubious to me.

The fact that they have the before and after images is quite suspicious. I also note various images were taken at different times of the day. Particularly the images that have umbrellas were earlier in the morning perhaps when there was still some rain.

Comparing images with umbrellas with later images that have a lot of people can be very deceptive simply because umbrellas and peoples heads are very different in size, thus the sense of high density and low density are very different.

I also note that the image on pantip.com of a large crowd (said to be fake) is different than the one in the nation.

The image posted here on page 15 are early morning pictures that have umbrellas and few people (the one of the right being the fake one). I'm also suspicious why anyone would want to fake the early morning picture that has fewer people, and of course how do they have the before and after of the same image if they did not make the fake?????????? They also make some claims about the photo shop version name "CS3" being shown in one of the images (i.e. on a handrail and on an umbrella), which makes little sense to me.

So, who did it? My guess is the red shirt supporters are making the fakes, OR (get this one) maybe BOTH!

Anyway, the case can be settled if anyone can find the fake right image on page 15 on an actual nation webpage. If not, then I think this is just more fake red propaganda.

my point really was that there wasn't anywhere near 5,000 people at this event. If you look at the pictures on nation's facebook page and the fake 'before' picture. Take a green vehicle(back left) as point of reference. The vehicle really isn't very far back in the crowd. Look at the before pic and see how far the green vehicle is back in the shot. There are more people in the nation's pic but this is due to the crowds filling up. I believe the 'before' and the nation's are real but if you took the nation's pic from the same viewpoint that the 'before' was taken it would look much less impressive. Its actually quite a small area up to the green vehicle, just condensed with people. I would reckon about 1000 to 1500.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...n-30127345.html

Jucel,

I understand your point exactly and I too initially thought the NATION image was indeed fake, mostly because of the crown density issue. If the nation is showing fake images I want to know. However, trying to resolve the various images I began to realize the early morning "umbrella" images and the latter images of peoples' heads creates a natural optical illusion. In one image, the mind judges "density" from the sea of umbrellas and in the other from the sea of people's heads. This optical illusion was probably the starting point for the pantip "analysis" but they went on to make the fake right hand "umbrella" image, etc.

That's kind of dumb as it gives away their hand. If the NATION faked the right hand image then how does pantip.com have the left-hand image????

All said and done, I would agree that 5000 seems too high, but then again we don't see the whole croud. I was more interested in the war of lies and who was lying.

Cheers.

Edited April 18, 2010 by rabo

[Jerrytheyoung]

Thanks for acknowledging that the U.S. is a repuplic and not a democracy. After the constitution was voted in, Benjamin Franklin said, "God Help Us! We have a republic... if we can keep it".

Do you mean that a republic is not a democracy?

My understanding is that there is no true democratic government in the world if you use a strict meaning of the term.

Most countries have "democratic" systems in place where the people vote for representatives to run the government.

I thought that would include republics.

All Republics have democratic tools but not all Democracies are Republics. The words are not interchangeable. For me, (pure) Democracy is anarchy of he masses.

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. Republic. ... this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

Knowing Thai people as I do, with all their independence and individuality in mind, I believe they would like to have a Republic with the rights with the individual. Unfortunately the Reds are infiltrated by Communist who finds Repulics anathma.

I do not think we must go so farther. Power in Thailand is too much centralised at the opposite of USA (federation of States with one elected Governor in each states) or France with our Regions and "president of Region".

Decision making must be decentralised: it is also a way to fight against some lobbies for example Bus. It is obvious than the Bus companies are acting against the railway development. Local government (US Governors, French president de region) are under direct scrutiny of people at a size which is more contollable. Transparency of Decision making in Bangkok is blurred through an Administrative Jungle, only few specialists are able to navigate through the network of "Committees.

Budget must be also split between a National program and local ones.

Some entity like Ministry of Defence must give back the management of large part of the territory to Civilian structures.

[patjem]

Thats the old fashioned way. The new way is to set up a committee eg ECCC (the Elite Corruption Commission Committee), dig up dirt until you find something and prosecute the opposition... you know, just like they did for Thaksin. Everyone can be nailed for something if you look hard enough.

Maybe they will set up one for Abhisit, i'm sure they can get him for something he has done. Slap a few years on him and make him eat his words.

In the case of Thaksin, though, he was bathing in corruption cases. didn't really need a committee to uncover it.

[animatic]

Thanks for acknowledging that the U.S. is a repuplic and not a democracy. After the constitution was voted in, Benjamin Franklin said, "God Help Us! We have a republic... if we can keep it".

Do you mean that a republic is not a democracy?

My understanding is that there is no true democratic government in the world if you use a strict meaning of the term.

Most countries have "democratic" systems in place where the people vote for representatives to run the government.

I thought that would include republics.

Ok here goes:

re·pub·lic –noun

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote

and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4. ( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France.

Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.

5. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing

with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

Origin: 1595–1605; < F république, MF < L rēs pūblica, equiv. to rēs thing, entity + pūblica public

Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

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

Republic vs. Democracy

United States Constitution Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.” [Not a democracy.]

Pledge of Allegiance – “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands …”

As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed,

a lady asked him what kind of government the convention had created. A very old, very tired, and very wise Benjamin Franklin replied;

“A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.” (Webster’s dictionary definition: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens

entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.)

Democracy:

Operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it;

the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling (what the Founding Fathers described as “mobocracy”).

Example:

in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

Republic:

Where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation … a republic is rule by law.

Our republic is a form of government where power is separated, [our Founding Fathers knew that people are basically weak,

sinful and corruptible, (Jeremiah 17:9)], pitting men against each other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.

WARNINGS

John Witherspoon, signer -

“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state –

it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.”

Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal text -

“It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.”

Benjamin Rush, signer - “ a simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils.”

John Quincy Adams -

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”

Noah Webster -

“In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders …

Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

James Madison -

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security

or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

John Adams -

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.

There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the First Amendment -

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction.

These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.

The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call,

and the ignorant believe to be liberty !! NOTE … look at today’s sexual freedoms.

Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the Constitution -

“We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate … as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism …

Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt.”

Samuel Adams –

“… it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds …”

End of Warnings

What is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

“Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible,

particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.”

In our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God.

In the American republic, principles that do not change and which are certain and universal in their operation

upon all the members of the community of man were the principles of Biblical natural law …

the basis of our Declaration, Constitution and legal system.

Professor Montesquieu, a French professor, author and legal philosopher who wrote the highly influential book,

The Spirit Of The Laws, (which was read and studied intently in America) was the source of our division of power in our government.

Baron Charles Montesquieu was the second most frequently quoted source, next to the Holy Bible, out of all the references used by

our Founding Fathers.He was the source of our division of power in government; (i.e.. legislative, administrative, judicial)

claiming Isaiah 33:22 as the source; the Lord is our King, the Lord is our Judge and the Lord is our Lawgiver.

Montesquieu identified the rule of law as “natural law” which is based on the Holy Bible.

He identified the rule of law as “principles that do not change”. Natural Law is the law God gave

His people through the Bible and the Ten Commandments.

In 1748, Montesquieu wrote;

“Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power.

If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary,

for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor.

All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers.

Our Founding Fathers gave us an Electoral College because we are a Republic … not a democracy.

The Electoral College follows the principle of elected representation. It was designed to further promote the ideals of balance, a

nd of separation of powers. It gives the smaller States true representation in a fair and just manner by allowing their voices

(as well as rural America) to be heard. It prevents the control of the Nation by highly populated urban centers,

thus reducing the risk of elections being bought or won by fraud where power could be consolidated.

Noah Webster -

“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers,

let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God.

The preservation of a Republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty;

if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office the government will soon be corrupted;

laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes;

corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men;

and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a Republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness,

it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.”

Jedediah Moore, Founding educator -

“To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness

which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation … in the same proportion will the

people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom …All efforts to destroy the foundations of our Holy religion,

ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown

our present Republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”

George Mason, father of Bill of Rights -

“We are now to rank among the nations of the world; but whether our independence shall

prove a blessing or a curse must depend upon our own wisdom or folly, virtue or wickedness …

Justice and virtue are the vital principles of a republican government.”

Edited April 18, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.

An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly.

But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys,

heard in the very hall of government itself.

For the traitor appears no traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims,

and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in hearts of men.

He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city.

He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared."

Cicero, 42 B.C.

[bangkoklight]

This fine, hardworking nation is steering towards becoming a republic and we cannot deny this. If the nation and its people want to move forward and lead ASEAN, the current system must be torn down. The new Thailand will, for the first time, give opportunities to the rural poor (the backbone of the country where profitable international trade begins) so that 43 million more people will be able to learn new skills, mechanize their farms, pursue their dreams, express their views freely, and be truly free from the ruling classes and their yellow shirted messengers. The new Thailand will be a leader in new technologies of agriculture, medicine, and sustainable energies. Not only the old school elite will have jobs in these new industries, but the so far untapped, repressed potential of the rural poor will be utilized. And what will the elite have to sacrifice to make this happen? They will need to return the land to the farmers. A feudal system in which a farmer cannot make profit on his land for having to pay rent to a landowner in a far away city is wrong and fails the people. Stand up for your rights my red shirted friends. Stay together and don't let the messengers pollute your good minds.

[chadintheusa]

Laws change to suit the needs of the people at the time. If the needs of the people cannot be met because a political party that won majority vote cannot be in power, then laws need to be broken. Simple. You think the Americans or the French got where they are today by obeying laws set by the British Empire and the French aristocracy?

Which political party won a majority vote?

Or do you mean a party that wins 40% of the vote should be in power?

In a multiparty system like Thailand is quite likely that the party that forms the government receives less than 40% of the vote. There can be 6 to 10 parties competing for each seat, so you don't need 50% to win, sometimes 20-30% is enough if the rest is split between the other groups. Thailand is not an American style republic with only two choices in each election.

But the highest percentage isn't a "win".

You need more than 50% to form a government.

So even if a party has 40% of the vote/seats, that doesn't give them automatic rule.

The other 60% of the vote/seats can still form government even if it involves 60 parties with 1% each.

The popular vote has nothing to do with the amount of seats the parties receive. Sure if one party holds 40% of the seats the others can still form the government. But in practice the party with the largest number of seats has the easiest time gathering a coalition of parties that are willing to work with it. A coalition of 6, 10, or 20 small parties is difficult to manage as they have wide ranging interests. Traditionally the party with the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form a government. In countries where regional parties take large percentages of local votes and the rest of the country is split among 3 or more parties it is possible to form a government with only 30% of the popular vote going to the winning party. If you want a democratic system you have to accept the results and work toward the next election to make your party more appealing to more people. There will always be a large portion of the population that is not represented by the party in power. That does not give them the right to usurp the government. We have seen what lies down that road, mobs of protesters forcing their will on the legitimate government and paralyzing it.