Thai Protesters, Army Make Tentative Peace Overtures

[metisdead]

Hmmm, the PM is back to doing what he does best, being a stubborn mule.

You said that in the other thread and nope, it's the other guy, Thaksin.

[geriatrickid]

Well, the peace-loving reds have been ratted out by their celebrity member for distributing armaments, completely discredited and the leaders can now be convicted; more rats will emerge. Not like anyone didn't know this in the first place. I want to see Methee on television pointing his finger at the red leaders.

Show's over, no need to concede anything now, just get the hel_l out of here before we kick your arse.

First order of business once things get settled: firm up the charges against Taksin, have him declared a full-on criminal so he can't pull this kind of stuff again.

Get real. The man rolled over very fast which suggests that aside from being a fool he's a coward without the courage of his convictions. A turncoat like this hasn't snitched because he has seen the error of his ways, but because he wants to save himself. People under duress make for unreliable information sources. Has it it occurred to you that just this man may have been quick to join the Reds solely to further his sagging media career? Making heroic poses in front of as many cameras as possible. I doubt that the Red leadership had any use for this pretty boy, except for the media interest that he generated. Look at the other leaders. Veterans of the campaign and tough as nails. None of those guys would have rolled over that fast or cried in public. I can guarantee that the men in positions of leadership did not treat him as an equal or share details of their operations with him. There is something about a guy that doesn't get his hands dirty.

When Jane Fonda made the stupid mistake of posing on that AA gun during the Vietnam war, did that make her a leader of the VietCong? It just made her a foolish woman, that has had to live with that stupid lapse in judgement. In the same way, Mr. Delicate played rebel with the Reds. He was a PR opportunity when he was with the Reds and he's a PR opportunity for the government now that he's afraid he will be punished. This is why protest group and rebel leaders steer clear of the "Hollywood" celebrities. All talk, all posing and spinless cowards as soon as it gets hot. He will pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life. No one will ever trust him again. I sense a future career as a brothel manager in Boyztown Pattaya.

Edited April 24, 2010 by geriatrickid

[commons]

Well, the peace-loving reds have been ratted out by their celebrity member for distributing armaments, completely discredited and the leaders can now be convicted; more rats will emerge. Not like anyone didn't know this in the first place. I want to see Methee on television pointing his finger at the red leaders.

Show's over, no need to concede anything now, just get the hel_l out of here before we kick your arse.

First order of business once things get settled: firm up the charges against Taksin, have him declared a full-on criminal so he can't pull this kind of stuff again.

Get real. The man rolled over very fast which suggests that aside from being a fool he's a coward without the courage of his convictions. A turncoat like this hasn't snitched because he has seen the error of his ways, but because he wants to save himself. People under duress make for unreliable information sources. Has it it occurred to you that just this man may have been quick to join the Reds solely to further his sagging media career? Making heroic poses in front of as many cameras as possible. I doubt that the Red leadership had any use for this pretty boy, except for the media interest that he generated. Look at the other leaders. Veterans of the campaign and tough as nails. None of those guys would have rolled over that fast or cried in public. I can guarantee that the men in positions of leadership did not treat him as an equal or share details of their operations with him. There is something about a guy that doesn't get his hands dirty.

When Jane Fonda made the stupid mistake of posing on that AA gun during the Vietnam war, did that make her a leader of the VietCong? It just made her a foolish woman, that has had to live with that stupid lapse in judgement. In the same way, Mr. Delicate played rebel with the Reds. He was a PR opportunity when he was with the Reds and he's a PR opportunity for the government now that he's afraid he will be punished. This is why protest group and rebel leaders steer clear of the "Hollywood" celebrities. All talk, all posing and spinless cowards as soon as it gets hot. He will pay for his stupidity for the rest of his life. No one will ever trust him again. I sense a future career as a brothel manager in Boyztown Pattaya.

gk, i liked your posts. how comes you suddenly indulge character assassination?

i'm pretty sure neither you nor me would be that "actor" - as obviously we aren't, chai mai?

[kentucky]

There's a reason why Methee was among the 24 key reds to have arrest warrants issued weeks ago. He's part of the red inner circle.

BANGKOK, April 23 (TNA)

Regarding the arrest of Red Shirt ally Methee Amornwutthikul, one among 24 Red Shirt members under arrest warrants, Mr Tharit revealed that the detainee said he had seized the army’s weapons during the April 10 chaos in front of Satriwithaya School and later distributed them all to other red-shirted protesters.

As the police found weapons in Mr Methee’s car during the arrest, the actor-turned-activist finally confessed that the seized weapons were to be used against the troops.

Mr Tharit said that Mr Methee also confessed that his group of protesters had used “extremely dangerous weapons” against the soldiers who were attempting to retake the rally site back from the Red Shirt on April 10, according to the DSI director-general

http://www.mcot.net/cfcustom/cache_page/48028.cfm

Edited April 24, 2010 by kentucky

[kissdani]

Abhisit/Suthep ordered the army in, with live ammo, and people were killed with the live ammo on April 10th.......

If Abhisit and/or Suthep ordered the Army to have live ammo, then it was a smart move. However, I think Army top brass make such decisions after being given directive of achieving a goal from their political higher ups. The goal, on April 10th, was to repel protesters who were getting out of hand and causing a lot of peripheral damage.

It was a smart move to have soldiers bring combat ammo, because they needed it to protect themselves. Remember, the soldiers started out firing rubber bullets in to the air. Then they shot rubber in to the crowd (most of the injuries to the Reds were from rubber). At some point v. early in the melee, disguised gunmen embedded within the Red crowd, wearing latex gloves, shot combat weapons at the soldiers (and lobbed at least on grenade). Those same shooters (ronin, terrorists, black shirts, whatever you want to call them) may have also shot their fellow Reds, because that would further their agenda of causing as much mayhem as possible. Indeed, at least one Red was killed by a bullet in the back from close range, which was unlikely shot by a gov't security person.

If I send soldiers in to harm's way, I sure as shootin' want them to have the right tools for the job and to be able to protect themselves from any eventuality.

More correctly Abhisit and Suthep didn't try and PREVENT the army from ALSO providing live ammo.

Because no army gives it's soldiers weapons they can not use as they are built to use. Just not done.

Knowing that when an enemy sees a rifle, he EXPECTS it to shoot live rounds, that's what it was built for,

and so If he goes against live rounds he USES live rounds. Armies EXPECT to have live rounds used on them,

if they are fired on.

They MAY be loaded with blanks for crowd control, but no army assumes all opposing will understand that,

and so sending a soldier out with a weapon that doesn't work is a suicide mission.

They just do NOT do that.

Exactly, SOLDIERS are send out on MURDER missions, for the purpose to kill the ENEMY. That everybody EXPECT the army to do.

[Siam Simon]

'Abhisit, who has been holed up in a military barracks for weeks because of the protests, added: "I have a duty to solve the problem. If I can't I should not be here."'

The above is a direct quote from the article at the head of this thrtead.

It seems that Abhisit has already commited himself to resign as he has not solved the problem and it appears that he is no nearer to solving it than he was when it started .. Time for him to go for the sake of Thailand, the Thai peoples' lives and the Thai economy. With the correct wording of a statement from him the present government could step down without any further lose of face.

The problem is also the fact that it now seems pretty certain that because of the overwhelming evidence that the EC has the Democrat Party will be dissolved.

So Abhisit would be doing the country a favour by resigning now and letting what remains of the Democrat Party form a new Party to stand for election. This would mean that there will be no disruption to the new parliament.

The problem for Thaksin apologists is that support for the EC dissolution of the Democratic party also legitimises previous decisions by the EC.

No, it just highlights the fact that Thailand's major legal political decisions keep getting brought forward when the wealthiest families start losing money due to the collateral turmoil of said politics.

[rixalex]

'Abhisit, who has been holed up in a military barracks for weeks because of the protests, added: "I have a duty to solve the problem. If I can't I should not be here."'

The above is a direct quote from the article at the head of this thrtead.

It seems that Abhisit has already commited himself to resign as he has not solved the problem and it appears that he is no nearer to solving it than he was when it started .. Time for him to go for the sake of Thailand, the Thai peoples' lives and the Thai economy. With the correct wording of a statement from him the present government could step down without any further lose of face.

The problem is also the fact that it now seems pretty certain that because of the overwhelming evidence that the EC has the Democrat Party will be dissolved.

So Abhisit would be doing the country a favour by resigning now and letting what remains of the Democrat Party form a new Party to stand for election. This would mean that there will be no disruption to the new parliament.

The problem for Thaksin apologists is that support for the EC dissolution of the Democratic party also legitimises previous decisions by the EC.

No, it just highlights the fact that Thailand's major legal political decisions keep getting brought forward when the wealthiest families start losing money due to the collateral turmoil of said politics.

No? What are you saying "no" to?

The point you made relates in what way to the reds about-face on EC rulings? All you've done is explained why you think these decisions are being made. It does not explain how or why the reds can credibly mock them as unfair and injust when they go against them, and then moments later be applauding them as fair and just when they go against the Dems. Although perhaps the reds have simply given up caring about credibility. Did they ever is another question...

[brahmburgers]

Well, the peace-loving reds have been ratted out by their celebrity member......

(several long paragraphs of character denigration by geriatrickid omitted for brevity)

Hey, I don't like the guy either, but just because he's a creep, doesn't mean he's lying.

You haven't disputed what he asserts, but instead you attack his character because it exposes what many observers suspected: The Reds are harboring, withing their ranks, some combat trained people with lethal weapons who are quick and eager to use them against any perceived threats. The threats (to them) on April 10th were security personnel shooting rubber bullets in to the air. I watched an on-the-scene video of that scenario, and the security forces' shots sounded like five popcorn machines going full tilt. Yet at the same time, there were dozens of Red shirts standing (not taking cover and not looking too spooked), because they knew (or appeared to know) the security forces were shooting rubber in the air. Very soon after however, there appeared to be live rounds fired. That's when it appeared soldiers and demonstrators fell (simultaneously) or ran for cover. Who fired live rounds first? That's for investigators to determine.

The stool pigeon is singing a tune that rings true, and hopefully there are others who were at the scene and who will speak the truth of the matter. If there were people on the Red side who were shooting and bombing security forces with lethal force, then that needs to come to the fore. If found guilty, those people and their minders should be punished severely. Death penalty is not too harsh.

[RussellHantz]

The stool pigeon is singing a tune that rings true, and hopefully there are others who were at the scene and who will speak the truth of the matter. If there were people on the Red side who were shooting and bombing security forces with lethal force, then that needs to come to the fore. If found guilty, those people and their minders should be punished severely. Death penalty is not too harsh.

What about those who killed innocent reds ? The casualties were 4 times higher on the red side.

Or is your bloodthirsty justice only reserved for one side ?

[Ricardo]

That is ludicrous. What 'kill em all' brigade? There are people who would like to see the illegal protesters dispersed using the least possible force and avoiding unnecessary violence at all costs. These demonstrations are causing hardship to a great many people so it is natural that many would want the protests to end. But what is this 'kill em all' brigade you are referring to?

I am referring to some of the hardline anti-reds, who have been advocating a firm (=violent) military response to "resolve" things, and apparently will not be satisfied with anything less than blood.

I honestly haven't seen much of that here.

Me neither, IME any poster unwise enough to advocate killing on TV, generally gets an immediate 'rough ride', and rightly so.

The words "kill-em all brigade" suggests that there are several such posters, I must have missed them, or is it just an attempted slur against "the hardline anti-reds", perhaps ? There is a difference, in my own opinion, between wishing for a firm response, and wanting to kill all the foot-soldiers of the Red-Shirt leaders' "war" to get "a new Thai state".

And most posters who criticise Thaksin or his red-shirt leaders are still generally sympathetic, to the cause of improving conditions for the real poor, they just tend to doubt that this "war" has much to do with that !

[BKjohn]

I’m sure the reds in this forum will call the following opinionated, but I tried to make some sort of sense to this whole thing based on facts.

Is Thailand doomed?

Unfortunately the answer is probably “yes”.

Everybody knows the story of Thaksins corruption and how he used Thailand as his personal company to gain fantastic riches and power. We all know why the coup was inevitable and why the so called “yellow shirts” did what they did to avoid Thaksin coming back to power by proxy of his family and supporters.

The methods may have been questionable but looking back, were probably necessary.

Abhisit came to power legally despite of what the reds claim and proceeded to start reforms of many problem areas he saw within the Thai political and social system.

Reforms however take time, especially in a country ruled until then by vested interests of which Thaksin was the personification.

Reforms in such an environment are also dangerous because vested interests by nature want to retain a system in which they can thrive. With the megalomaniac Thaksin in self imposed exile but having access to his vast fortune which he had moved abroad to off shore banks was and is the biggest thread to Thailand. Especially since a large number of cohorts who benefited of him during his reign remained in the country, ready and willing to follow their “master”

A megalomaniac with vast amounts of money and supporters within the country that had just sentenced him to 2 years in jail, is a very dangerous adversary as we now see.

Add to this a vast pool of uneducated, credulous people like a substantial number of the Issanies who also believe in him because they were told by their local leaders that Thaksin was and will be taking care of them and you have a powder cake waiting to blow up.

Thaksin could not risk any of the reforms Abhisit had initiated to start and his stern base supporters in Isaan realizing that the PM wasn’t a bad guy after all.

The timing of the events currently unfolding was of utmost importance. It had to happen before any reforms could set roots and before a military re-shuffle because to make his return possible, he needs his own supporters in key army positions to avoid another coup.

If one does not understand why the reds are totally set on immediate change and are not willing to negotiate a more practical and possible term for new elections, this is the reason.

The megalomaniac Thaksin, who went as far as to offer the world governments his assistance to solve the financial crisis, is clearly willing to bring Thailand to its knees if this will accomplish his goals.

Unfortunately his control over the so called “red shirts” seems to be total and the government is forced to crack down on the mob to avoid total anarchy. There is no daubed that the red core, the terrorist part of the mob will than resolve to a terrorist war like happened in the UK during the 70’s/80’s with the IRA.

This, in my opinion will be unavoidable as long as Thaksin is alive and the driving force behind the reds.

Without Thaksins financial support the red shirt movement will eventually fizzle out and the terrorist core will be caught and eliminated, allowing Thailand to start rebuilding the by than shattered economy which will take years and the emotional healing process between the Thai’s will take even longer because the majority of the Thais will view the Isaanies with great suspicion for a long time.

Edited April 25, 2010 by BKjohn

[ChiangMaiFun]

Abhisit turning down the 30 day dissolution without coming back with 90 or 60 is going to lead to more bloodshed. Sure the Army can clear the streets - and probably will - you think that is the end? oh no...

[BKjohn]

Abhisit turning down the 30 day dissolution without coming back with 90 or 60 is going to lead to more bloodshed. Sure the Army can clear the streets - and probably will - you think that is the end? oh no...

You should ask the question - why did the reds not offer a more acceptable time frame ? If the reds want to avoid a clash, they are not trying very hard and by using weapons of war, killing, maiming and wounding people, one does not attempt change unless ones agenda is that of a terrorist

Also, you have to understand that the reds have no a legal foot to stand on. The country is ruled by law, take that away and you have anarchy. The reds have broken every criminal law there is and therefor they are criminals. You can argue as much as you want, they are CRIMINALS and clearly the worse kind, TERRORISTS

Edited April 25, 2010 by BKjohn

[ChiangMaiFun]

Abhisit turning down the 30 day dissolution without coming back with 90 or 60 is going to lead to more bloodshed. Sure the Army can clear the streets - and probably will - you think that is the end? oh no...

You should ask the question - why did the reds not offer a more acceptable time frame ? If the reds want to avoid a clash, they are not trying very hard and by using weapons of war, killing, maiming and wounding people, one does not attempt change unless ones agenda is that of a terrorist

I don't disagree that there negotiating has taken the form of a 5 year old and does them no credit - we are in desperate need of a 'neutral' middle-person who could broker a compromise before it's too late.

[BKjohn]

Abhisit turning down the 30 day dissolution without coming back with 90 or 60 is going to lead to more bloodshed. Sure the Army can clear the streets - and probably will - you think that is the end? oh no...

You should ask the question - why did the reds not offer a more acceptable time frame ? If the reds want to avoid a clash, they are not trying very hard and by using weapons of war, killing, maiming and wounding people, one does not attempt change unless ones agenda is that of a terrorist

I don't disagree that there negotiating has taken the form of a 5 year old and does them no credit - we are in desperate need of a 'neutral' middle-person who could broker a compromise before it's too late.

If you read my admittedly rather long post above you will see my opinion why .... its an opinion, but its based on facts and events as they happened

If one side is not willing to give in and offer realistic terms, even the best negotiator will fail. Anhisit had already offered a 90 day term and 6 months to new elections, perfectly acceptable if the reds didn't have different agenda

Edited April 25, 2010 by BKjohn

[ChiangMaiFun]

Abhisit turning down the 30 day dissolution without coming back with 90 or 60 is going to lead to more bloodshed. Sure the Army can clear the streets - and probably will - you think that is the end? oh no...

You should ask the question - why did the reds not offer a more acceptable time frame ? If the reds want to avoid a clash, they are not trying very hard and by using weapons of war, killing, maiming and wounding people, one does not attempt change unless ones agenda is that of a terrorist

I don't disagree that there negotiating has taken the form of a 5 year old and does them no credit - we are in desperate need of a 'neutral' middle-person who could broker a compromise before it's too late.

If you read my admittedly rather long post above you will see my opinion why .... its an opinion, but its based on facts and events as they happened

Yes I read that... it can't be just about reforms - the not negotiating I mean - because that's a very foolish game that they can't hope to win.

[midas]

" We do not need to see very far. We just see Thailand," she said. "Thaksin was an elected person. The military seized the power from an elected person. The constitution was drawn up by the military," she said. "After that, what happened with the first (government)? It was not stable," she said of the short-lived administration that followed the coup. "This was a result of the constitution being written by the military."

Aung San Suu Kyi yesterday

next people on this forum will be calling her a terrorist

[chadintheusa]

" We do not need to see very far. We just see Thailand," she said. "Thaksin was an elected person. The military seized the power from an elected person. The constitution was drawn up by the military," she said. "After that, what happened with the first (government)? It was not stable," she said of the short-lived administration that followed the coup. "This was a result of the constitution being written by the military."

Aung San Suu Kyi yesterday

next people on this forum will be calling her a terrorist

No, but she clearly has her own agenda. She wants the military government in Burma out, and so will be critical of any constitution that was written under a military government. The government she criticizes for being unstable was the PPP's government anyway. The instability within Thai politics cannot be blamed solely on the constitution. It may be a factor but it is hardly the root cause. If you think the Thai people want to take political advice from the Burmese or the Cambodians think again.

Thaksin may have been elected, but he ran virtually unopposed as the democrats had boycotted the elections, something Aung Sun Suu Kyi is planning to do later this year in their elections. If Aung Sun Suu Kyi boycotts her national elections will she consider the winner to be a legitimately elected government?

Edited April 25, 2010 by chadintheusa