Thailand: A Simple Guide To Anarchy And Chaos

[generalgrant]

Some of the funny things we read here.

Anti Reds

1) Yes elections are good but

2) Thaksan this and that and soon

3) Army should take them out

4) Issan people are all simple and corrupt.

5) Reds just buy votes.

Translated and looked at

1) Elections are good only if my side wins and since my side will lose, we need to put off elections.

2) All people in the red are crooks because I say thaksan is a crook. Never mind the fact that the current Red leaders are neither rich nor named thaksan and likely they could be your next Thai leaders.

3) The army, most of its men, are pro Red and the last time they got shot up has pretty much stopped the military option--but keep begging because it is good for some topic here.

4)So they all should be disallowed from voting. They look best in the fields, in bed, or crawling on their knees while they are in my presence.

5) But the other side has more money and buys too and still loses.

[bangkoklight]

If I voted for a president based on getting a tax break, should I not be allowed to vote?

Good point, you should be allowed to vote.

Now, if you don't earn much money and you don't pay much tax (let’s say you are quite poor), then why would you vote for a PM who is giving out tax breaks? Tax breaks in the end mean that there's less money in the budget to spend on development projects and to help the needy. So, wouldn't these poor people rather vote for someone who gives them an affordable (30 baht) healthcare system?

[thaihome]

You're right , it's about a cultural shift, but it's a shift BACKWARDS to the days where the poor were beholden to their rural chao por. All law, economics, world view stemmend from the feudal families of the provinces. They hate given up that peasantry they fed on for so many years. They hate the fact thatbanks might make loans rather tha loan sharks. That the government establishes price supports for rice, rather than the owner of the local mill just telling you how it is. C'mon man, WAKE UP!

Excellent post, but you will see that it will not be aknowledged by the pro-red side here. This is a fact they don't want to admit. It pretty much throws out thier whole agrument that this is some sort of social revolution.

TH

[bangkoklight]

Some of the funny things we read here.

Anti Reds

1) Yes elections are good but

2) Thaksan this and that and soon

3) Army should take them out

4) Issan people are all simple and corrupt.

5) Reds just buy votes.

Translated and looked at

1) Elections are good only if my side wins and since my side will lose, we need to put off elections.

2) All people in the red are crooks because I say thaksan is a crook. Never mind the fact that the current Red leaders are neither rich nor named thaksan and likely they could be your next Thai leaders.

3) The army, most of its men, are pro Red and the last time they got shot up has pretty much stopped the military option--but keep begging because it is good for some topic here.

4)So they all should be disallowed from voting. They look best in the fields, in bed, or crawling on their knees while they are in my presence.

5) But the other side has more money and buys too and still loses.

Good post generalgrant. You can join my army any day.

[vicco]

Abhisit has been trying to negotiate with the red shirts... trouble is, the red shirt leaders are terrorists... he has mistakenly said that the terrorists are these shadowy soldiers in black... but the real terrorists are the obvious leaders on stage in red. You can't negotiate with terrorists - i.e., the red shirt leaders.

Sorry but you do have to negotiate with "terrorists" sooner or later. The British Government negotiated with the IRA (behind closed doors) Many senior NATO commanders, diplomats and politicians are stating openly that negotiations with the Taliban will have to take place because they can not win an overall military victory so they need a political solution. Every major conflict in modern history has ended with people sitting down and cutting a deal. Calling the reds terrorists was a tactical error in the first place, and quite frankly is ridiculous. A few random acts of terror does not make a whole movement or its leaders terrorists. The term terrorist is thrown around in a very loose manner these days. During the Bush years, just about anybody who disagreed with US policy was called a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. When the Taliban and the Muhjah Hadeen were fighting the Soviets--they were freedom fighters...now they are terrorists.... just depends on who you are fighting with. There is no question that some of the redshirt leaders have engaged in over the top rhetoric but that is just what it is...rhetoric to put pressure on the government. SOP. Putting them in he terrorist category is just raising the heat...nothing more...and it makes any possibility of future negotiations even less likely. There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides.

[BKjohn]

If I voted for a president based on getting a tax break, should I not be allowed to vote?

Good point, you should be allowed to vote.

Now, if you don't earn much money and you don't pay much tax (let's say you are quite poor), then why would you vote for a PM who is giving out tax breaks? Tax breaks in the end mean that there's less money in the budget to spend on development projects and to help the needy. So, wouldn't these poor people rather vote for someone who gives them an affordable (30 baht) healthcare system?

wow this is a really "wise" statement - tax brakes are to help the economy, to help those who generate and pay taxes in the first place who create the jobs your Isaani relatives work in and earn money .... Jesus its difficult to remain polite facing such ...........

Tax breaks mean more export, more companies opening their doors here and employing local staff .......

Abhisit is working on an improved health-care plan for the poor but even he can not do so within such a short period of time. Now of course, the reds have destroyed the economy for considerable time and damaged the country to a degree that it will take a lot longer.

Edited April 23, 2010 by BKjohn

[bangkoklight]

Sorry but you do have to negotiate with "terrorists" sooner or later. The British Government negotiated with the IRA (behind closed doors) Many senior NATO commanders, diplomats and politicians are stating openly that negotiations with the Taliban will have to take place because they can not win an overall military victory so they need a political solution. Every major conflict in modern history has ended with people sitting down and cutting a deal. Calling the reds terrorists was a tactical error in the first place, and quite frankly is ridiculous. A few random acts of terror does not make a whole movement or its leaders terrorists. The term terrorist is thrown around in a very loose manner these days. During the Bush years, just about anybody who disagreed with US policy was called a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. When the Taliban and the Muhjah Hadeen were fighting the Soviets--they were freedom fighters...now they are terrorists.... just depends on who you are fighting with. There is no question that some of the redshirt leaders have engaged in over the top rhetoric but that is just what it is...rhetoric to put pressure on the government. SOP. Putting them in he terrorist category is just raising the heat...nothing more...and it makes any possibility of future negotiations even less likely. There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides.

Good post vicco.

And anyway, which is worse for a truly free society? - a few clashes in the streets for a few days or thousands of oppressors and their messengers dictating and oppressing for decades?

[BKjohn]

There is no question that some of the redshirt leaders have engaged in over the top rhetoric but that is just what it is...rhetoric to put pressure on the government. SOP. Putting them in he terrorist category is just raising the heat...nothing more...and it makes any possibility of future negotiations even less likely. There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides.

Lets see now, the children and husband of the dead women and the many injured from last nights "rethoric" eeeh grenade attacks might disagree with you on that point

Or the thousands of dead, had the RPG launched into the fuel tank in Lam Luka caused an explosion as was intended would have disagreed with you too

Edited April 23, 2010 by BKjohn

[danc]

Abhisit has been trying to negotiate with the red shirts... trouble is, the red shirt leaders are terrorists... he has mistakenly said that the terrorists are these shadowy soldiers in black... but the real terrorists are the obvious leaders on stage in red. You can't negotiate with terrorists - i.e., the red shirt leaders.

Sorry but you do have to negotiate with "terrorists" sooner or later. The British Government negotiated with the IRA (behind closed doors) Many senior NATO commanders, diplomats and politicians are stating openly that negotiations with the Taliban will have to take place because they can not win an overall military victory so they need a political solution. Every major conflict in modern history has ended with people sitting down and cutting a deal. Calling the reds terrorists was a tactical error in the first place, and quite frankly is ridiculous. A few random acts of terror does not make a whole movement or its leaders terrorists. The term terrorist is thrown around in a very loose manner these days. During the Bush years, just about anybody who disagreed with US policy was called a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. When the Taliban and the Muhjah Hadeen were fighting the Soviets--they were freedom fighters...now they are terrorists.... just depends on who you are fighting with. There is no question that some of the redshirt leaders have engaged in over the top rhetoric but that is just what it is...rhetoric to put pressure on the government. SOP. Putting them in he terrorist category is just raising the heat...nothing more...and it makes any possibility of future negotiations even less likely. There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides.

yes - controversial but good stuff to throw into the pot for people to think about. It has been repeated here on the forum that the world media uses the term "terrorist" in a heavily qualified manner, always saying that it is the word used by the Thai government and them only. I do think that it is tactical error in the media battle, when it is played out on the international stage to label them as such.

I will add one final point that will have me hung out to dry..but in any country where guns are available so easily, I think the idea of no one being armed in a group of protestors is naive at best. I somehow do not see in the year 2010, people walking in great lines, hands held, orchids tucked behind their ears, following some no-shoed Mohandas Ghandi type figure, Wherever there is political conflict in developing countries and indeed in developed ones, now in the modern day, regrettably, there is violence of varying degrees with the use of firearms as part and parcel.

That is not to say I condone it but as an observation...

Edited April 23, 2010 by danc

[bangkoklight]

wow this is a really "wise" statement - tax brakes are to help the economy, to help those who generate and pay taxes in the first place who create the jobs your Isaani relatives work in and earn money .... Jesus its difficult to remain polite facing such...

Tax breaks mean more export, more companies opening their doors here and employing local staff...

Abhisit is working on an improved health-care plan for the poor but even he can not do so within such a short period of time. Now of course, the reds have destroyed the economy for considerable time and damaged the country to a degree that it will take a lot longer.

Previous "old money" governments have had years to improve healthcare, but they didn't give a ****. Thaksin improved healthcare for these people. Abhisit has only made a "plan" to improve it further. The people will remain loyal to those who got the ball rolling and who actually delivered results, not to puppets on a string who say they will (might) do something, but then not do it and go back to the old ways. Plus, Abhisit’s government is illegal so it's not up to him to say that he's going to improve the healthcare system or not.

[anotherpeter]

wow this is a really "wise" statement - tax brakes are to help the economy, to help those who generate and pay taxes in the first place who create the jobs your Isaani relatives work in and earn money .... Jesus its difficult to remain polite facing such...

Tax breaks mean more export, more companies opening their doors here and employing local staff...

Abhisit is working on an improved health-care plan for the poor but even he can not do so within such a short period of time. Now of course, the reds have destroyed the economy for considerable time and damaged the country to a degree that it will take a lot longer.

Previous "old money" governments have had years to improve healthcare, but they didn't give a ****. Thaksin improved healthcare for these people. Abhisit has only made a "plan" to improve it further. The people will remain loyal to those who got the ball rolling and who actually delivered results, not to puppets on a string who say they will (might) do something, but then not do it and go back to the old ways. Plus, Abhisit's government is illegal so it's not up to him to say that he's going to improve the healthcare system or not.

Thaksin didn't do much for healthcare for the poor. He made it cheaper for them to access, but didn't put any money into the health system. So the poor had access to it, but the standards became so poor that it was very little use to most people.

edit: why, in your opinion, is the Abhisit government illegal?

Edited April 23, 2010 by anotherpeter

[bangkoklight]

Thaksin didn't do much for healthcare for the poor. He made it cheaper for them to access, but didn't put any money into the health system. So the poor had access to it, but the standards became so poor that it was very little use to most people.

That's how it starts. It's affordable and then it gets better. Thaksin initiated it (which no other PM had done before) and these people remain and will remain loyal to him and associated parties. (They can be loyal to and vote for any candidate they choose, which they did but which was taken away from them in an illegal coup). Others want change to the whole political and social system.

[BKjohn]

wow this is a really "wise" statement - tax brakes are to help the economy, to help those who generate and pay taxes in the first place who create the jobs your Isaani relatives work in and earn money .... Jesus its difficult to remain polite facing such...

Tax breaks mean more export, more companies opening their doors here and employing local staff...

Abhisit is working on an improved health-care plan for the poor but even he can not do so within such a short period of time. Now of course, the reds have destroyed the economy for considerable time and damaged the country to a degree that it will take a lot longer.

Previous "old money" governments have had years to improve healthcare, but they didn't give a ****. Thaksin improved healthcare for these people. Abhisit has only made a "plan" to improve it further. The people will remain loyal to those who got the ball rolling and who actually delivered results, not to puppets on a string who say they will (might) do something, but then not do it and go back to the old ways. Plus, Abhisit's government is illegal so it's not up to him to say that he's going to improve the healthcare system or not.

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

To start, Abhisit's government is not illegal - why do you red supporters always have to say that ? you must know that this is rubbish !

Your propaganda does not work here, except among yourselves. The government was voted in by parliament and therefore is legal. Abhisit has not removed the heath care for these "people" but works on improving it so what is your point?

In the USA there is no health care system - if you do not have money to pay for insurance, you are screwed. In Thailand even the poor always had health care. May be perfect, but when compared to the USA, Thailand is an emerging third world country.

[retarius]

It seems this forum has been taken over by the red shirts and I wish you a lot of fun writing propaganda

No, I think what you might find is that the moderators have started removing the inflammatory "send-in-the-army-to-kill-the-red-terrorists" remarks that emanate from the yellow shirts on this site....

[BKjohn]

If Abhisit was to say .. every red shirt will get 100 k baht if they leave now, cash ia waiting for you by the bus ...... there would be a very small mob left - and thisis what it boils down to, money

[retarius]

Some of the funny things we read here.

Anti Reds

1) Yes elections are good but

2) Thaksan this and that and soon

3) Army should take them out

4) Issan people are all simple and corrupt.

5) Reds just buy votes.

Translated and looked at

1) Elections are good only if my side wins and since my side will lose, we need to put off elections.

2) All people in the red are crooks because I say thaksan is a crook. Never mind the fact that the current Red leaders are neither rich nor named thaksan and likely they could be your next Thai leaders.

3) The army, most of its men, are pro Red and the last time they got shot up has pretty much stopped the military option--but keep begging because it is good for some topic here.

4)So they all should be disallowed from voting. They look best in the fields, in bed, or crawling on their knees while they are in my presence.

5) But the other side has more money and buys too and still loses.

Excellent post exposing the sweet sweet smell of the yellow hypocrites

[bangkoklight]

To start, Abhisit's government is not illegal - why do you red supporters always have to say that ? you must know that this is rubbish!

Your propaganda does not work here, except among yourselves. The government was voted in by parliament and therefore is legal. Abhisit has not removed the heath care for these "people" but works on improving it so what is your point?

BKjohn krab, when was the last election and who won it? - actually at the ballot box, not a reshuffling to provide for the Yellows.

[danc]

To start, Abhisit's government is not illegal - why do you red supporters always have to say that ? you must know that this is rubbish !

Your propaganda does not work here, except among yourselves.

I posted this yesterday in reply to jingthing, when he/she made the same point as bkjohn about the legality of the incumbents. I am neutral in all this. It was an attempt takes a bit of the sting out these discussions, to no avail!!

The problem here is one of perception, jingthing. As an exercise, let's assume you are right - I know I am right, I can hear you saying...but bear with me. Assuming you are right and there are many many people of the same opinion, there are equally many many of the opinion that something is rotten in the "State of Denmark" - both on a national and dare I say it, international stage. For those that do not have the unique wisdom of the posters here on this forum, the perception is that the Abhisit government has arrived at this point following a coup, international airport closures that resulted in literally tens of thousands of stranded foreigners and a few other shenanigans besides, those probably more of relevance here in Thailand, disqualifed parties, red cards, yellow cards etc etc. If I was to sit down with my father or brother or my mates from the pub and say the present government is legal, they would say "get out of here, there the ones who did this this and this......leaving my Aunt Mo not able to get back for little Johnny's christening"...So, whilst I might agree with you, it is equally good reasoning to see the other side of the coin too...

It is part of the reason why one cannot see this problem just fading away if they all packed up and went home this evening...

[ChiangMaiFun]

You're right , it's about a cultural shift, but it's a shift BACKWARDS to the days where the poor were beholden to their rural chao por. All law, economics, world view stemmend from the feudal families of the provinces. They hate given up that peasantry they fed on for so many years. They hate the fact thatbanks might make loans rather tha loan sharks. That the government establishes price supports for rice, rather than the owner of the local mill just telling you how it is. C'mon man, WAKE UP!

Excellent post, but you will see that it will not be aknowledged by the pro-red side here. This is a fact they don't want to admit. It pretty much throws out thier whole agrument that this is some sort of social revolution.

TH

Absolute rubbish - 'shift' is happening - we move slowly forward - away from the elite who bankroll themselves and their family's lives to the detriment of the poor - here we have it - young and stupid 'boys' crashing their Porches into reds that Mummy and Daddy bought them - and we have poor Issan farmers who scrape together 100 baht a day if they are very lucky - change is coming - slowly, deftly and surely - it's a cultural shift that cannot die and will happen.

Don't think 'scaring' the poor into believing that western banks, with all their money grabbing, bonus loving greed can save them - and, of course, nor can the loan sharks. Shame on you for siding with the elite as they struggle and grasp and cradle their wealth and power at the expense of ordinary Thais.

[animatic]

To start, Abhisit's government is not illegal - why do you red supporters always have to say that ? you must know that this is rubbish!

Your propaganda does not work here, except among yourselves. The government was voted in by parliament and therefore is legal. Abhisit has not removed the heath care for these "people" but works on improving it so what is your point?

BKjohn krab, when was the last election and who won it? - actually at the ballot box, not a reshuffling to provide for the Yellows.

4 points

1 ) Abhisit one his election to his constituency as a MP, thus qualifying him as PM candidate.

2 ) A great number of MP's won their seats allowing THEM to vote for PMs.

They voted for THREE different ones. All legally.

3 ) Some leadership of PPP, and a few dems, lost their seats to corruption charges

and were replaced with by election candidates.

4 ) The majority of defunct PPP party members are STILL in parliament in other parties,

including PPP child PTP, which controls the red shirts.

This has been stated endlessly here. but the red side doesn't want to acknowledge this chain of truth.

[BKjohn]

Some of the funny things we read here.

Anti Reds

1) Yes elections are good but

2) Thaksan this and that and soon

3) Army should take them out

4) Issan people are all simple and corrupt.

5) Reds just buy votes.

Translated and looked at

1) Elections are good only if my side wins and since my side will lose, we need to put off elections.

2) All people in the red are crooks because I say thaksan is a crook. Never mind the fact that the current Red leaders are neither rich nor named thaksan and likely they could be your next Thai leaders.

3) The army, most of its men, are pro Red and the last time they got shot up has pretty much stopped the military option--but keep begging because it is good for some topic here.

4)So they all should be disallowed from voting. They look best in the fields, in bed, or crawling on their knees while they are in my presence.

5) But the other side has more money and buys too and still loses.

Excellent post exposing the sweet sweet smell of the yellow hypocrites

The red shirts side was Thaksin and family or better partners in crime who got caught in the act even during their short stunt as PM's and had to leave office - than parliament voted in Abhisit

You reds have to really reach into the realm of the bizarre for your arguments by now –

all the reds are is a peaceful lot of poor farmers –no comment necessary

the oppressed masses – yea sure, 100,000 or so rioting and throwing grenades trying to take over a country of 61 Million

the best one though one has to admit is:

“This is not about Thaksin”

sure he would disagree since he is paying for the party

Edited April 23, 2010 by BKjohn

[bangkoklight]

If Abhisit was to say .. every red shirt will get 100 k baht if they leave now, cash ia waiting for you by the bus... there would be a very small mob left - and thisis what it boils down to, money.

Only about money? 555+ What a blind man you are BKjohn.

And the fact that you are suggesting that Abhisit should tempt the Reds with money to go home only means that there's a problem in the first place - these people are poor.

[tomahawk]

In any real democracy, a civiian is in charge of the military. I think maybe bigger problem is when military is in charge of government.

[quiksilva]

Abhisit has been trying to negotiate with the red shirts... trouble is, the red shirt leaders are terrorists... he has mistakenly said that the terrorists are these shadowy soldiers in black... but the real terrorists are the obvious leaders on stage in red. You can't negotiate with terrorists - i.e., the red shirt leaders.

Sorry but you do have to negotiate with "terrorists" sooner or later. The British Government negotiated with the IRA (behind closed doors) Many senior NATO commanders, diplomats and politicians are stating openly that negotiations with the Taliban will have to take place because they can not win an overall military victory so they need a political solution. Every major conflict in modern history has ended with people sitting down and cutting a deal. Calling the reds terrorists was a tactical error in the first place, and quite frankly is ridiculous. A few random acts of terror does not make a whole movement or its leaders terrorists. The term terrorist is thrown around in a very loose manner these days. During the Bush years, just about anybody who disagreed with US policy was called a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. When the Taliban and the Muhjah Hadeen were fighting the Soviets--they were freedom fighters...now they are terrorists.... just depends on who you are fighting with. There is no question that some of the redshirt leaders have engaged in over the top rhetoric but that is just what it is...rhetoric to put pressure on the government. SOP. Putting them in he terrorist category is just raising the heat...nothing more...and it makes any possibility of future negotiations even less likely. There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides.

yes - controversial but good stuff to throw into the pot for people to think about. It has been repeated here on the forum that the world media uses the term "terrorist" in a heavily qualified manner, always saying that it is the word used by the Thai government and them only. I do think that it is tactical error in the media battle, when it is played out on the international stage to label them as such.

I will add one final point that will have me hung out to dry..but in any country where guns are available so easily, I think the idea of no one being armed in a group of protestors is naive at best. I somehow do not see in the year 2010, people walking in great lines, hands held, orchids tucked behind their ears, following some no-shoed Mohandas Ghandi type figure, Wherever there is political conflict in developing countries and indeed in developed ones, now in the modern day, regrettably, there is violence of varying degrees with the use of firearms as part and parcel.

That is not to say I condone it but as an observation...

Good points all round, they definitely need to talk, but there also has to be accountability for the acts of violence that has been made, so far, on all sides.

Peace will never return to Thailand without it.

[Crash999]

Taken with a greater cultural overview - this is paradigm shift happening NOW - countries go through it in different ways. The point is that, at the very basic, grass roots there is a call for CHANGE... a change from the 'old' ways of being ruled by an elitist group who make all the money and have all the power. It is true that most of the 'foot soldiers' will not realize they are a part of this shift - but they are.

Although the story of a lower class awakening and realizing their political power is a compelling and sympathetic one, sadly that is not what we have here. What we have is an exiled politician who is using every means necessary to regain his lost power and money and the red shirts are simply a tool at his disposal, just as the rural population were used to place him into power to begin with.

Any of us who remember how things were under Thaksin will remember that the government was no less elitist than now. In fact Thaksin was accelerating in his consolidation of power and manipulation of the system and any rivals, whether they be in business or politics or in the media, were steamrolled. He was a force of personality and anything he wanted happened, regardless or whether or not it followed legal or other protocols and regardless of the impact on other people.

[BKjohn]

If Abhisit was to say .. every red shirt will get 100 k baht if they leave now, cash ia waiting for you by the bus... there would be a very small mob left - and thisis what it boils down to, money.

Only about money? 555+ What a blind man you are BKjohn.

And the fact that you are suggesting that Abhisit should tempt the Reds with money to go home only means that there's a problem in the first place - these people are poor.

What you call blind is realism - and I'm not suggesting he should do so which is obvious if you care to read my post fully -

these people are poor - so are many millions of Americans, Germans, Britts, etc.....

They are poor and they just want more and a lot of Isaanies do get more because they work for it and do not riot on the streets of Bangkok

[rabo]

wow this is a really "wise" statement - tax brakes are to help the economy, to help those who generate and pay taxes in the first place who create the jobs your Isaani relatives work in and earn money .... Jesus its difficult to remain polite facing such...

Tax breaks mean more export, more companies opening their doors here and employing local staff...

Abhisit is working on an improved health-care plan for the poor but even he can not do so within such a short period of time. Now of course, the reds have destroyed the economy for considerable time and damaged the country to a degree that it will take a lot longer.

Previous "old money" governments have had years to improve healthcare, but they didn't give a ****. Thaksin improved healthcare for these people. Abhisit has only made a "plan" to improve it further. The people will remain loyal to those who got the ball rolling and who actually delivered results, not to puppets on a string who say they will (might) do something, but then not do it and go back to the old ways. Plus, Abhisit's government is illegal so it's not up to him to say that he's going to improve the healthcare system or not.

Many (not all for sure) of the northeasters I know no longer

believe that Thaksin's programs really helped them in the long run. They were

short term look good programs. You can find discussion elsewhere. Some of my

own family members have echoed the same sentiment and said that when all was

said and done, Thaksin's programs eventually worsened the economic situation of

those family members still living in the country. For which, I, my wife, and

family members in Bangkok are paying the price. Many of the rural families' old

and new generations are similarly split between rural and urban existence.

From my understanding of Abhisit's economic programs, they

are economically sound and would produce long term benefits to the rural areas.

You can take your choice, but your vote, and mine, won't make much difference.

No, Ahhisit's government is not "illegal", please stop saying that unless you can present

your case based entirely and conclusively on relevant Thai law.

Edited April 23, 2010 by rabo

[anotherpeter]

To start, Abhisit's government is not illegal - why do you red supporters always have to say that ? you must know that this is rubbish!

Your propaganda does not work here, except among yourselves. The government was voted in by parliament and therefore is legal. Abhisit has not removed the heath care for these "people" but works on improving it so what is your point?

BKjohn krab, when was the last election and who won it? - actually at the ballot box, not a reshuffling to provide for the Yellows.

The last election, PPP won the most seats, but not enough to form government on their own. So they did NOT "win" the election.

The PPP set up a coalition with smaller parties to form government.

The PPP were disbanded, the PTP (ex-PPP MPs) were still in government.

At this point a group of MPs led by Newin (BJT) decided to no longer support the PTP "... for the benefit of the country" as Newin said.

This meant that the Democrats with the help of BJT and some other smaller parties were now able to form government.

[BKjohn]

Taken with a greater cultural overview - this is paradigm shift happening NOW - countries go through it in different ways. The point is that, at the very basic, grass roots there is a call for CHANGE... a change from the 'old' ways of being ruled by an elitist group who make all the money and have all the power. It is true that most of the 'foot soldiers' will not realize they are a part of this shift - but they are.

Although the story of a lower class awakening and realizing their political power is a compelling and sympathetic one, sadly that is not what we have here. What we have is an exiled politician who is using every means necessary to regain his lost power and money and the red shirts are simply a tool at his disposal, just as the rural population were used to place him into power to begin with.

Any of us who remember how things were under Thaksin will remember that the government was no less elitist than now. In fact Thaksin was accelerating in his consolidation of power and manipulation of the system and any rivals, whether they be in business or politics or in the media, were steamrolled. He was a force of personality and anything he wanted happened, regardless or whether or not it followed legal or other protocols and regardless of the impact on other people.

Crash999 - great post - at least there are some here who understand what is really going on

[vicco]

Lets see now, the children and husband of the dead women and the many injured from last nights "rethoric" eeeh grenade attacks might disagree with you on that point

Or the thousands of dead, had the RPG launched into the fuel tank in Lam Luka caused an explosion as was intended would have disagreed with you too

OK..but surely you are stating the obvious. Rhetoric may or may not lead to actions. There is also the assumption that the reds fired the grenades, but we can not be certain that they did (even though many will want to believe that it was them without leaving any possibility that it could have been somebody else). I think however that your statement is already covered by the last line of my post. "There has been a serious and ongoing lack of sound strategy here...from both sides" I'm not sure why so many of us take up these very partisan and at times almost hysterical positions. If you step back and take a hard look at the developments that started back on April 10th...the only thing that is clear is that nothing is really clear. We trade all kinds of theories, opinions, hyperbole, and unfortunately just plain nastiness---but we KNOW very little....other than the casualty count.