Red-Shirt Leaders To Spell Out Conditions In Joining Peace Process

[WinnieTheKhwai]

In Thailand, a year after the 2005 election, Thaksin dissolved parliament. That meant that he was no longer PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election. Thaksin could get enough seats to satisfy the constitution even without any opposition.

not this again............................. . . . . . .

(and why wasn't there a result in the 2006 election.... etc.)

(...and then ultimately, this justified the disaster of moving the tanks into bangkok and establishing junta rule?? Thailand was plunged back DECADES because of that. We're seeing the fruits of that action still around today.)

Edited May 11, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[silk]

If it is really true that the international community needs to "resist evil", then one needs to be consistent in that view. Was the coup that deposed an elected government here not wrong? (Does it REALLY make me an apologist for the Reds to keep asking this question?)

Yes, resisting evil and supporting democracy where the rule of law is supreme means supporting the coup and supporting the people who tried to restore the rule of law. It means resisting the reds who are trying to usurp the rule of law through tyranny of the majority.

what u call "tyranny of the majority" most civilized people call democracy.

you hail those who used UNLAWFUL means to restore the rule of law. to you and your ilk, the means justify the ends.

it is precisely what hitler claimed of his 1923 putsch.

in fact, your pro coup position can only imply two things: you respect neither majority rule nor the rule of law.

what you are in effect advocating is violence to achieve your objective, which is the tyranny of the minority over the issan untermensch. this is the real agenda of the anti red european brown shirts who blog here.

unlawful means ? what are you talking about? - look at this video, who is wearing a yellow shirt at that time - who killed unlawful?

[whybother]

In Thailand, a year after the 2005 election, Thaksin dissolved parliament. That meant that he was no longer PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election. Thaksin could get enough seats to satisfy the constitution even without any opposition.

not this again............................. . . . . . .

(and why wasn't there a result in the 2006 election.... etc.)

(...and then ultimately, this justified the disaster of moving the tanks into bangkok and establishing junta rule?? Thailand was plunged back DECADES because of that. We're seeing the fruits of that action still around today.)

I wasn't justifying the coup. I was pointing out that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

There wasn't a result in the 2006 election for several reasons. The main one being that Thaksin couldn't get 20% of the vote in some electorates that there was no opposition. Thaksin also paid some people to be opposition so this rule wouldn't apply.

The Democrats boycotted the election because the Election Commission was controlled by Thaksin. I have never seen any laws forcing a party to run for election.

The Constitution Court ruled that the election was invalid because the EC set up polling booths so the voters had no privacy, among other things.

We'll never know if Thailand was plunged back decades or was saved from dictatorship. All Thaksin needed was control of the army and that would have given him a full house.

[animatic]

At the time of the coup he was NOT the PM, having resigned...

At the time of the coup Thaksin was not PM? Huh?

He's right, he was not PM. He did resign. He was a "caretaker", although he actually appointed another person to do that, but then took it back for himself. I remember clearly.

Right. And so by your logic Gordon Brown is not today PM of Britain.

The level of logical analysis, not to mention historical understanding, is revealed for all to laugh at.

No, not so by his logic.

BROWN has, yet to at this hour.

Thaksin RESIGNED, and passed the chair to the deputy PM.

I believe the DP went to the palace and was confirmed as replacement caretaker PM.

(but not 100% certain on that last point)

So Thaksin can't just on his own say ' I am now caretaker PM again."

Resigned is resigned.

But try and take the chair back he did.

He resigned and unilaterally took back the job.

Not confirmed and quite clearly not welcomed back.

He resigned after a meeting at the palace, a word was quite obviously had,

in great contrast than his loud bluster going in,

he said NOT A WORD on the trip out, " No Comment",

the next day he PUBLICLY RESIGNED.

A week later changed his mind... but that was too late.

This was all reported in TV andPrint news in Thai and Ebglish.

[animatic]

In Thailand, a year after the 2005 election, Thaksin dissolved parliament. That meant that he was no longer PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election. Thaksin could get enough seats to satisfy the constitution even without any opposition.

not this again............................. . . . . . .

(and why wasn't there a result in the 2006 election.... etc.)

(...and then ultimately, this justified the disaster of moving the tanks into bangkok and establishing junta rule?? Thailand was plunged back DECADES because of that. We're seeing the fruits of that action still around today.)

No we are seeing the fruits of Thaksins meglomania

and his monomaniacly driven need to regain his face and money.

His whole action set since losing office, HAVING RESIGNED as PM in 2006,

and then not being welcomed back, has proven his instability of mind.

Anyone who could think revenge of this level is a good thing

is not a 'capable national leader' in any proper sense of the meaning.

[yoshiwara]

In Thailand, a year after the 2005 election, Thaksin dissolved parliament. That meant that he was no longer PM.

There was no result in the 2006 election. Thaksin could get enough seats to satisfy the constitution even without any opposition.

not this again............................. . . . . . .

(and why wasn't there a result in the 2006 election.... etc.)

(...and then ultimately, this justified the disaster of moving the tanks into bangkok and establishing junta rule?? Thailand was plunged back DECADES because of that. We're seeing the fruits of that action still around today.)

I wasn't justifying the coup. I was pointing out that Thaksin wasn't the elected PM at the time of the coup.

There wasn't a result in the 2006 election for several reasons. The main one being that Thaksin couldn't get 20% of the vote in some electorates that there was no opposition. Thaksin also paid some people to be opposition so this rule wouldn't apply.

The Democrats boycotted the election because the Election Commission was controlled by Thaksin. I have never seen any laws forcing a party to run for election.

The Constitution Court ruled that the election was invalid because the EC set up polling booths so the voters had no privacy, among other things.

We'll never know if Thailand was plunged back decades or was saved from dictatorship. All Thaksin needed was control of the army and that would have given him a full house.

Spot on.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Newsflash (apparently!) : In democracies, government is supposed to have control of the army.

It's better that way, as Abhisit is finding out right now.

[A_Traveller]

^ Yet again, not correct. The position of many democracies [the US is different] is that the military act within an advise and consent structure. That is to say, ultimately the military may endeavour to decline an operational request from the government, if they view it is outside their sphere of competence.

Regards

[Siam Simon]

Right. And so by your logic Gordon Brown is not today PM of Britain.

The level of logical analysis, not to mention historical understanding, is revealed for all to laugh at.

He isnt he has stepped down as leader of the Labour party, they had an election and Labour came third.

What a clown this earthpig is where do the reds find them?

He's stepping down in September. Labour came second in the election. Brown is, at this moment, still the sitting Prime Minister due to a 'hung' Parliament. and there is a chance (albeit a very slim one) that he will remain as Prime Minister until the Labour Party conference in September.

Bit foolish to name-call from a position of obvious factual inaccuracy imo.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ Yet again, not correct. The position of many democracies [the US is different] is that the military act within an advise and consent structure. That is to say, ultimately the military may endeavour to decline an operational request from the government, if they view it is outside their sphere of competence.

Decline a request is one thing, overthrowing the (caretaker) government and shredding the constitution is quite another! Perhaps someone else can comment, but I'm pretty sure that this doesn't happen in stable democracies; in stable democracies, the government tells the army what to do, not the other way around! (right?)

[WinnieTheKhwai]

He's stepping down in September. Labour came second in the election. Brown is, at this moment, still the sitting Prime Minister due to a 'hung' Parliament. and there is a chance (albeit a very slim one) that he will remain as Prime Minister until the Labour Party conference in September.

Can't compare Britain with Thailand. For Britain to be comparable to Thailand, the following would need to happen:

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election! And due to a technicality in the election laws, this results in a state of limbo, with the Blair caretaker government still in place, but no replacement parliament in sight. Now the British Army moves in and commits a coup d'etat while Tony Blair is away at the UN. HM Queen Elizabeth II recognizes the new military junta government, which, in the eyes of the Conservatives at least, makes it perfectly legitimate, and they happily join in rewriting (or in the case of Britain: writing) a constitution that's more favourable to their chances of getting elected even though it generally weakens the power of elected government. It even includes a large number of non-elected, appointed members to the House of Lords! (oh..wait.. )

Lo and behold, when elections are finally held, they DONT win again and Blairs proxy, Mr. Brown is elected PM!! Oh No!! Protests of Conservative sympathizers happen, taking over Heathrow Airport, paralizing the country. Finally the Judiciary sends Gordon Brown home, on charges of hosting a cooking show on BBC 2. Conservatives of course STILL don't have an actual majority anywhere, so they go talk to some Labour back-benchers from Wales and basically promise them the sun and the moon. Lo and behold, they break away and join a coalition with the Conservative party!! Now they are finally able to form a government, and, in the eyes of the Conservatives at least, this is perfectly legitimate and they feel they have a legal mandate. ( Which is probably true. Still, the people who voted for those guys thinking they'd get Tony Blair back, aren't happy. )

Sorry if I fast forwarded through some parts, but you see the overall picture. Good night.

Edited May 11, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Wow. I guess nobody has a response to that one.

[animatic]

Of course the level of vote buying and physical intimidation of voters and opposition speakers is ALSO quite different.

So if the Conservatives gave a physical beating in Barking to the Lib Dems and Labor speakers who tried to talk,

this might make it MORE like Thailand. Yes win the election by force and intimidation.

And of course the English courts HAVE changed the cabinet structures of various governments by charging

convicting various cabinet members and causing their removal, and this has signally effected PM's.

England is many centuries past allowing a Thaksin figure to actually get enough control to need removing.

Lately there is a lot of talk about Samak being banned...

he was not, Thaksin declined to reinstate him as PM and put in Somchai.

Somchai had to resign after his part in the election farud.

The scenario a few posts up is predicated on free and fair elections actually having happened,

they didn't because of Thaksin machine transgressions and the clear cut convictions of

the TRT and PPP leadership is proof on the tip of that iceberg.

Thailand is not England, other than the word LAND being in the name.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Of course the level of vote buying and physical intimidation of voters and opposition speakers is ALSO quite different.

So if the Conservatives gave a physical beating in Barking to the Lib Dems and Labor speakers who tried to talk,

this might make it MORE like Thailand. Yes win the election by force and intimidation.

And of course the English courts HAVE changed the cabinet structures of various governments by charging

convicting various cabinet members and causing their removal, and this has signally effected PM's.

England is many centuries past allowing a Thaksin figure to actually get enough control to need removing.

Lately there is a lot of talk about Samak being banned...

he was not, Thaksin declined to reinstate him as PM and put in Somchai.

Somchai had to resign after his part in the election farud.

The scenario a few posts up is predicated on free and fair elections actually having happened,

they didn't because of Thaksin machine transgressions and the clear cut convictions of

the TRT and PPP leadership is proof on the tip of that iceberg.

Thailand is not England, other than the word LAND being in the name.

The usual twaddle by someone who doesn't understand English politics - same Twaddle as 'Thaksin sells national asset to Singapore' when he owned the dam_n company - Yanks do it all the time (as do Brits - we sold all sort of 'national assets' including telecoms). Anyway the UK now has a coalition - first time in 35 years - no fighting, no bribing, no coloured shirst! UK politics is light years ahead of Thai politics - not even worth mentioning them in the same breath.

PS Name ONE cabinet member removed by a court which 'signally' effected any PM

Edited May 12, 2010 by ChiangMaiFun

[Siam Simon]

He's stepping down in September. Labour came second in the election. Brown is, at this moment, still the sitting Prime Minister due to a 'hung' Parliament. and there is a chance (albeit a very slim one) that he will remain as Prime Minister until the Labour Party conference in September.

Can't compare Britain with Thailand. For Britain to be comparable to Thailand, the following would need to happen:

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election! And due to a technicality in the election laws, this results in a state of limbo, with the Blair caretaker government still in place, but no replacement parliament in sight. Now the British Army moves in and commits a coup d'etat while Tony Blair is away at the UN. HM Queen Elizabeth II recognizes the new military junta government, which, in the eyes of the Conservatives at least, makes it perfectly legitimate, and they happily join in rewriting (or in the case of Britain: writing) a constitution that's more favourable to their chances of getting elected even though it generally weakens the power of elected government. It even includes a large number of non-elected, appointed members to the House of Lords! (oh..wait.. )

Lo and behold, when elections are finally held, they DONT win again and Blairs proxy, Mr. Brown is elected PM!! Oh No!! Protests of Conservative sympathizers happen, taking over Heathrow Airport, paralizing the country. Finally the Judiciary sends Gordon Brown home, on charges of hosting a cooking show on BBC 2. Conservatives of course STILL don't have an actual majority anywhere, so they go talk to some Labour back-benchers from Wales and basically promise them the sun and the moon. Lo and behold, they break away and join a coalition with the Conservative party!! Now they are finally able to form a government, and, in the eyes of the Conservatives at least, this is perfectly legitimate and they feel they have a legal mandate. ( Which is probably true. Still, the people who voted for those guys thinking they'd get Tony Blair back, aren't happy. )

Sorry if I fast forwarded through some parts, but you see the overall picture. Good night.

You forgot to mention the essential ingredient of Sir Jock Stirrup 'leaning on' the Labour back-benchers from Wales.

[rixalex]

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election!

The Democrats had faced the likely prospect of losing elections before but had not boycotted them. The reason why they did so in 2006 wasn't because they would lose, it was because for one they weren't playing on a level playing field with the TRT, and for two, Thaksin was using the ballot box as a way of scaring off any looming legal action resulting from the highly dubious aspects involved in the selling of Shin Corp to Temasek. Thaksin has a well-earnt and deserved reputation of using his popularity to subvert justice - see the assets concealment case. The Democrats used the only means at their disposal to try and prevent this. Good for them.

[pornsasi]

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election!

The Democrats had faced the likely prospect of losing elections before but had not boycotted them. The reason why they did so in 2006 wasn't because they would lose, it was because for one they weren't playing on a level playing field with the TRT, and for two, Thaksin was using the ballot box as a way of scaring off any looming legal action resulting from the highly dubious aspects involved in the selling of Shin Corp to Temasek. Thaksin has a well-earnt and deserved reputation of using his popularity to subvert justice - see the assets concealment case. The Democrats used the only means at their disposal to try and prevent this. Good for them.

.... and bribed other smaller parties to do the same , which is totally illegal

... and were acquited for doing so by a wise court under the wise military junta (while TRT was disbanded

under an imposed constitution) even though the attorney general pressed the case

Long live justice !!!

[whybother]

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election!

The Democrats had faced the likely prospect of losing elections before but had not boycotted them. The reason why they did so in 2006 wasn't because they would lose, it was because for one they weren't playing on a level playing field with the TRT, and for two, Thaksin was using the ballot box as a way of scaring off any looming legal action resulting from the highly dubious aspects involved in the selling of Shin Corp to Temasek. Thaksin has a well-earnt and deserved reputation of using his popularity to subvert justice - see the assets concealment case. The Democrats used the only means at their disposal to try and prevent this. Good for them.

.... and bribed other smaller parties to do the same , which is totally illegal

... and were acquited for doing so by a wise court under the wise military junta (while TRT was disbanded

under an imposed constitution) even though the attorney general pressed the case

Long live justice !!!

Totally illegal? Maybe they were aquitted because it is not totally illegal.

You can't compare the results of two entirely different court cases. That's just a standard red propaganda tactic.

One person kills someone in self defense, so gets off a charge of murder. Another kills someone while robbing a store, so gets convicted of murder.

Double standards? NO. Different situations.

Edited May 12, 2010 by whybother

[pornsasi]

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election!

The Democrats had faced the likely prospect of losing elections before but had not boycotted them. The reason why they did so in 2006 wasn't because they would lose, it was because for one they weren't playing on a level playing field with the TRT, and for two, Thaksin was using the ballot box as a way of scaring off any looming legal action resulting from the highly dubious aspects involved in the selling of Shin Corp to Temasek. Thaksin has a well-earnt and deserved reputation of using his popularity to subvert justice - see the assets concealment case. The Democrats used the only means at their disposal to try and prevent this. Good for them.

.... and bribed other smaller parties to do the same , which is totally illegal

... and were acquited for doing so by a wise court under the wise military junta (while TRT was disbanded

under an imposed constitution) even though the attorney general pressed the case

Long live justice !!!

Totally illegal? Maybe they were aquitted because it is not totally illegal.

You can't compare the results of two entirely different court cases. That's just a standard red propaganda tactic.

One person kills someone in self defense, so gets off a charge of murder. Another kills someone while robbing a store, so gets convicted of murder.

Double standards? NO. Different situations.

yeah .. no comments

[whybother]

Totally illegal? Maybe they were aquitted because it is not totally illegal.

You can't compare the results of two entirely different court cases. That's just a standard red propaganda tactic.

One person kills someone in self defense, so gets off a charge of murder. Another kills someone while robbing a store, so gets convicted of murder.

Double standards? NO. Different situations.

yeah .. no comments

Yes ... that's usually the result with a red supporter. Given a valid argument, they give up and go back to the start.

[rixalex]

The Conservatives, seeing they'd never get back into power (this analogy will work better during the Tony Blair years), decide to boycott the election!

The Democrats had faced the likely prospect of losing elections before but had not boycotted them. The reason why they did so in 2006 wasn't because they would lose, it was because for one they weren't playing on a level playing field with the TRT, and for two, Thaksin was using the ballot box as a way of scaring off any looming legal action resulting from the highly dubious aspects involved in the selling of Shin Corp to Temasek. Thaksin has a well-earnt and deserved reputation of using his popularity to subvert justice - see the assets concealment case. The Democrats used the only means at their disposal to try and prevent this. Good for them.

.... and bribed other smaller parties to do the same , which is totally illegal

... and were acquited for doing so by a wise court under the wise military junta (while TRT was disbanded

under an imposed constitution) even though the attorney general pressed the case

Long live justice !!!

If they did bribe other parties then they should have been punished i agree, but that doesn't change my belief that they were right and justified in boycotting the election. Those who ridicule the decision as being made simply because they would have lost demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what was happening at the time.

[bkkjames]

Sorry maybe I missed this in another thread, weren't the Reds supposed to announce some "GOOD NEWS" at noon today?

[FatherF]

Sorry maybe I missed this in another thread, weren't the Reds supposed to announce some "GOOD NEWS" at noon today?

Not still holding your breath are you?

FF

[bkkjames]

Sorry maybe I missed this in another thread, weren't the Reds supposed to announce some "GOOD NEWS" at noon today?

Not still holding your breath are you?

FF

Ah thought so.

[rixalex]

HM Queen Elizabeth II recognizes the new military junta government, which, in the eyes of the Conservatives at least, makes it perfectly legitimate, and they happily join in rewriting (or in the case of Britain: writing) a constitution that's more favourable to their chances of getting elected even though it generally weakens the power of elected government. It even includes a large number of non-elected, appointed members to the House of Lords! (oh..wait.. )

The Democrats helped to rewrite the constitution??? Really? Care to elaborate?

[rixalex]

Finally the Judiciary sends Gordon Brown home, on charges of hosting a cooking show on BBC 2. Conservatives of course STILL don't have an actual majority anywhere, so they go talk to some Labour back-benchers from Wales and basically promise them the sun and the moon. Lo and behold, they break away and join a coalition with the Conservative party!!

Except that Gordon Brown wouldn't have been sent home on charges of hosting a cooking show, he would have been made to step down for having a second job and lying in court. And then when the time came for Gordon Brown to stand back up as PM, a convicted criminal living overseas decreed that he should stand aside for said convicted criminal's brother-in-law to become PM to better aid his fight against justice.

[haveaniceday]

Just so I can put a name that I read here to the faces I see on TV and in pics, I understand there are Red shirt leaders left at the Rally puling the strings for the black shirt killing squads and blocking the city and holding innocent people hostage, (not including the master), is the picture in post one of this thread the 4 remaining red leaders? Can someone lable them please for me left to right with their names?

Thanks

[george]

Closed. This story continues here:

Red-Shirt Leaders Turn Themselves In At National Police Office

Rajprasong rally ends; protesters to go home

Full story:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Red-Shirt-Le...al-t366886.html

Live updates Wednesday:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Bangkok-Red-...html&st=100