Clashes Continue, Turning Central Bangkok In Virtual Warzone

[Insight]

The Bon Kai community, which was a major clash site between troops and protesters, remained very tense very late Friday night.

Fresh protesters turned up to confront troops, trying the break the military siege of the area.

At about 11 pm, some M79 grenades were fired at troops at the security checkpoint there.

The Nation

Where did these fresh terrorists come from?

Brought in with an invisible stealth vehicle:

And it's taking the govt over a month to remove them.

What's wrong with this picture?

[datum]

Well, I am quite new on Bangkok but I dare to comment on the situation. I think that the main lesson to be learned from the whole situation is that "Democracy is NOT working in Thailand". I am sorry to say this but I feel that in all sites (reds, yellows, army, political parties, etc.) there are people that have some causes/interests and they want to fight for them. This is not bad and it is happening in all societies but the problem with Thailand is that all involved groups do not accept basic principles of democracy and the try to correct previous mistakes by doing new ones.

I first visited Thailand after the 2006 coup. A a principle I believe that coups are not part of a democratic governance system but I'll forget the story of 2006 because we need to forget some things in order to evolve. In the 2008 elections a party won. You can say that it won by using non-democratic measures but is is the Thai political system as a whole that allowed this. Let as assume then that the elected 2008 government was not reflecting the "public will". The yellows close the airport and after some weeks the then government resigns. Lesson taught to Thai society: If you don't like an elected government then demonstrate, use extreme pressure and the government will collapse.

Another government is appointed and again it seems that the "public will" is against this government. So the opposition thinks that it can use the same pressure as the other group and get rid of the government. Lesson taught to Thai society: You can use measures that you don't want your opponent to use.

Clearly (and please do not think that I support anyone hear) the government can not control the situation. I'll not examine why BUT the overall feeling is that the government is unable to resolve the issue. In democracies, governments that can not control such major political issues have only one choice: Ask the people's vote. If the government feels that it has the public support then an election will strengthen it. If the government feels that it can not guaranty free elections then it asks for international mediation. Simple and clear. All other options are just nonsense.

That's for the time being. And because you will try to find where I belong I'll tell you the following. I do not belong to any of the reds or yellows groups. I found though a test in a web site (designed mainly for non-Thais) that tries to tell you which groups would you support in Thailand. I took the test and I ended up "Orange". For more info on what this means you can take the test and after this see all the potential results. I am not saying that is is credible but at least it is a bit fun.

The test: www.helloquizzy.com/tests/red-or-yellow-in-modern-thailand

Edited May 14, 2010 by datum

[elkangorito]

Aljazeera is calling this debacle "The Battle of Bangkok".

[redparrot]

I think I just found out why we haven't heard anything from Abhisit or Suthep.

[littleMo]

@datum

That's a nice post, except I wonder about giving authority to a website to pidgeon-hole your political views. Its people thinking that they must belong to some faction or another that allows others to manipulate the public and drive these problems for their own personal gain in the first place.

Just my thoughts.

[on-on]

Al Jazeera English usually has excellent coverage, but they're kind of interesting in this coverage and the only major international outlet that's portraying the red shirts somewhat negatively (this is a sentiment some of us have been discussing for weeks). I'm guessing part of this is because their AJE HQ is in Kuala Lumpur and has a completely different outlook than the typical BBC/CNNi editorial staff.

[Neilly]

I really dont understand kissdani or what she is called playing the farang this and that card on a expat website for the most part.

kissdani went on the ignore list a few pages back...you can only put up with so much drivel

[datum]

@datum

That's a nice post, except I wonder about giving authority to a website to pidgeon-hole your political views. Its people thinking that they must belong to some faction or another that allows others to manipulate the public and drive these problems for their own personal gain in the first place. Just my thoughts.

Thanks littleMo; on the site issue: I don't see it so seriously. It is just a site that I go for fan and I found this test. I do believe it is not credible but I think some fun at this moment is not bad

I do agree that the public can be manipulated by making it to believe that it must belong to a fraction but I also believe that the ones that they see a bit beyond the obvious can "suspect" the manipulation.

Thanks again

[khun_nick]

NO COMMENT NEEDED

does anyone know if this poor soldier lived or died? How sad.

I saw this today and it was probably the worst thing I’ve seen in this country. I was on the other side of the road (I live at Din Daeng Triangle) and I was further away, but what I saw, maybe because it was real, was worse. The army truck, which later on someone told me, was carrying 5 soldiers, came towards the Din Daeng Triangle intersection, about to turn left into Rajaprarop. I can only think that they hadn’t been given the information about what the situation was like at the intersection and how many protesters were there, as it was in the middle of the protesters and quite far away from the other soldiers.

There was a lot of shouting and people started running towards the truck. They started hitting the truck windows. I didn’t see them open the door on the left side of the truck as I was on the other side. What I did see was lots of protesters climb on the back of the truck and confront a soldier on the back. He pointed his gun at one, but didn’t shoot, and the protesters took the gun off him. The protesters started hitting him. Lots of them. Then they threw him off the back of the truck into more protesters. I couldn’t see so clearly as he was behind the truck, but there were lots of people around him, hitting him. Then I heard one gunshot. I didn’t see the gun. I don’t know whether they shot him or not. Shortly after, the protesters carried him to one of the minivan ambulances nearer to me and put him in the back.

The protesters then pushed the army truck towards where the soldiers had set up their perimeter.

Something else happened just after that. I saw lots of protesters running into Century Park Hotel, which is opposite the Din Daeng Triangle. I’m not sure why, but I’m guessing one or some of the soldiers ran in there. I went back inside my apartment shortly after because like I said it was one of the worst things I have seen.

That’s what I saw. Here’s some stuff that I’m less certain about. The handyman / technician of my

apartment building later told me that 2 soldiers had been killed and that the protesters (outside of the soldier’s barricade) had taken some guns and bombs. I saw them take the gun from the soldier on the back of the truck and I’m guessing they took more, but he also said something about M79 grenades.

[lannarebirth]

Well, I am quite new on Bangkok but I dare to comment on the situation. I think that the main lesson to be learned from the whole situation is that "Democracy is NOT working in Thailand". I am sorry to say this but I feel that in all sites (reds, yellows, army, political parties, etc.) there are people that have some causes/interests and they want to fight for them. This is not bad and it is happening in all societies but the problem with Thailand is that all involved groups do not accept basic principles of democracy and the try to correct previous mistakes by doing new ones.

I first visited Thailand after the 2006 coup. A a principle I believe that coups are not part of a democratic governance system but I'll forget the story of 2006 because we need to forget some things in order to evolve. In the 2008 elections a party won. You can say that it won by using non-democratic measures but is is the Thai political system as a whole that allowed this. Let as assume then that the elected 2008 government was not reflecting the "public will". The yellows close the airport and after some weeks the then government resigns. Lesson taught to Thai society: If you don't like an elected government then demonstrate, use extreme pressure and the government will collapse.

Another government is appointed and again it seems that the "public will" is against this government. So the opposition thinks that it can use the same pressure as the other group and get rid of the government. Lesson taught to Thai society: You can use measures that you don't want your opponent to use.

Clearly (and please do not think that I support anyone hear) the government can not control the situation. I'll not examine why BUT the overall feeling is that the government is unable to resolve the issue. In democracies, governments that can not control such major political issues have only one choice: Ask the people's vote. If the government feels that it has the public support then an election will strengthen it. If the government feels that it can not guaranty free elections then it asks for international mediation. Simple and clear. All other options are just nonsense.

That's for the time being. And because you will try to find where I belong I'll tell you the following. I do not belong to any of the reds or yellows groups. I found though a test in a web site (designed mainly for non-Thais) that tries to tell you which groups would you support in Thailand. I took the test and I ended up "Orange". For more info on what this means you can take the test and after this see all the potential results. I am not saying that is is credible but at least it is a bit fun.

The test: www.helloquizzy.com/tests/red-or-yellow-in-modern-thailand

What if the parliament is dissolved and the insurgency doesn't abate, what then? Do you think you should hold elections under those conditions? What if you hold an election and the Red Shirts don't win? You know they'll start right up again with the violence as "democracy" to them means that everyone should do as they want them to do. It's a pretty big mess and holding elections won't solve any of it. At least not until the violence and implied threats of violence stop.

.

I'm sure you mean well but most of the "facts" you've outlined are incorrect.

Edited May 14, 2010 by lannarebirth

[ice1318]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

I understand the pros and cons. But do not shoot protesters. You're going back into the dark ages.

Many (probably most) army people in BKK puke at the thought of what they are being asked to do.

Do you honestly think the Redshirts are being overly violent ??? There were a 100,000 of these people not so long ago. Think of the mayhem they could have caused. They didn't !!!

Sure if the army shoot real bullets into you, you are going to be pretty angry.

Vested interests don't care a toss.

[datum]

Al Jazeera English usually has excellent coverage, but they're kind of interesting in this coverage and the only major international outlet that's portraying the red shirts somewhat negatively (this is a sentiment some of us have been discussing for weeks). I'm guessing part of this is because their AJE HQ is in Kuala Lumpur and has a completely different outlook than the typical BBC/CNNi editorial staff.

I do agree with this. On another note about the media of any type. The last two months I've seen that tens of sites (usually blogs) that I used to visit have been blocked and i get a message from the ministry of information I think (I can't understand the message, it is only in Thai so if someone can tell me what is says I would appreciate it!). That's another evident of non-democratic governance.

Edited May 14, 2010 by datum

[littleMo]

@Khun-Nick

Seems like the gun went of by accident, I just hope the bullet went into the truck and not the soldier.

Edited May 14, 2010 by littleMo

[Jingthing]

Do you honestly think the Redshirts are being overly violent ???

Yes! Honestly. I do! They are not protesting, they are staging a violent insurgency. Name me a government in the world that would have been as patient at Abhisit? You cannot.

BTW, Al Jazeera English is by far the BEST English language t.v. coverage about the Thai crisis.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[on-on]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

Sure they do, it's just not a good idea or a good practice. In my country we had military shooting protesters all throughout the sixties, probably into the seventies as well. These days we shoot them with rubber bullets and taze them instead (mostly). The joke would be to harp on us not being civilized, but we were undergoing a period of major civil unrest and national upheaval. Any nation whose national identity is being torn apart is going to be visited by the violence fairy from all sides, as Thailand currently is.

[kissdani]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

I understand the pros and cons. But do not shoot protesters. You're going back into the dark ages.

Many (probably most) army people in BKK puke at the thought of what they are being asked to do.

Do you honestly think the Redshirts are being overly violent ??? There were a 100,000 of these people not so long ago. Think of the mayhem they could have caused. They didn't !!!

Sure if the army shoot real bullets into you, you are going to be pretty angry.

Vested interests don't care a toss.

+1

[littleMo]

@ice1318

But what are they actually protesting about? I thought they got elections, but now it seems they don't want them.

I'm confused. What do they specifically want?

Edited May 14, 2010 by littleMo

[datum]

What if the parliament is dissolved and the insurgency doesn't abate, what then? Do you think you should hold elections under those conditions? What if you hold an election and the Red Shirts don't win? You know they'll start right up again with the violence as "democracy" to them means that everyone should do as they want them to do. It's a pretty big mess and holding elections won't solve any of it. At least not until the violence and implied threats of violence stop.

.

I'm sure you mean well but most of the "facts" you've outlined are incorrect.

Look I maybe sound "naive" but yes: elections is the only answer. Take a look in the world. Even in countries like Afghanistan that has so deep political problems they try to hold elections. Are they free? NO but at least they are done and then they can be debated. I do think that the Thai society is able (with international support) to hold free elections. Imagine for example an election that will be organised and observed by an international group of independent organisations (including the UN). If the Reds will not win then they will not have the legitimacy from a theoretical point of view to demonstrate. Now they have some kind of legitimacy in their request for elections because the government is APPOINTED and not elected!

A strong elected government after free elections will be able to control in the very begging ANY opposition protest that it is not justified. And for making a long story short. Think about two countries that their governments doesn't want to hold elections: Burma and Zimbabwe. Is the Thai political system and society so failed as in these two countries? Definitely NO! And this is why Thailand and the current government has a golden opportunity to improve the democratic institutions of the Kingdom. Because it is neither Burma nor Zimbabwe; it is just a country that strives for progress but it is a bit confused on how this will be done.

Edited May 14, 2010 by datum

[animatic]

@datum

That's a nice post, except I wonder about giving authority to a website to pidgeon-hole your political views. Its people thinking that they must belong to some faction or another that allows others to manipulate the public and drive these problems for their own personal gain in the first place. Just my thoughts.

Thanks littleMo; on the site issue: I don't see it so seriously. It is just a site that I go for fan and I found this test. I do believe it is not credible but I think some fun at this moment is not bad

I do agree that the public can be manipulated by making it to believe that it must belong to a fraction but I also believe that the ones that they see a bit beyond the obvious can "suspect" the manipulation.

Thanks again

Just for the yucks I took that test,

it said I was " Simply Red, but don't know why."

This certainly make give some chuckles to many here.

I try to think 1024 levels each of RGB , but am called yellow, by reds,

and then this test says I am red.... go figure.

Edited May 14, 2010 by animatic

[Norcan]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

I understand the pros and cons. But do not shoot protesters. You're going back into the dark ages.

Many (probably most) army people in BKK puke at the thought of what they are being asked to do.

Do you honestly think the Redshirts are being overly violent ??? There were a 100,000 of these people not so long ago. Think of the mayhem they could have caused. They didn't !!!

Sure if the army shoot real bullets into you, you are going to be pretty angry.

Vested interests don't care a toss.

+1

The "real" protesters (if you can call them that) have every chance to distance themselves from the hardcore, and you well know that!

If they choose to mix with the hardcore, and get caught up in something, well...som nam na

[redparrot]

I'm a bit concerned about the foreign reporter being shot by the army after he clearly called for help and they knew he was a foreign reporter...

[animatic]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

Sure they do, it's just not a good idea or a good practice. In my country we had military shooting protesters all throughout the sixties, probably into the seventies as well. These days we shoot them with rubber bullets and taze them instead (mostly). The joke would be to harp on us not being civilized, but we were undergoing a period of major civil unrest and national upheaval. Any nation whose national identity is being torn apart is going to be visited by the violence fairy from all sides, as Thailand currently is.

Even the most civilaized nations periodically have to use

violence to quell their own citizerns run amok. Sad but true.

Some groups just forget, or ignore, the social contract in their zealotry,

and need reigning in the hard way...

[lannarebirth]

What if the parliament is dissolved and the insurgency doesn't abate, what then? Do you think you should hold elections under those conditions? What if you hold an election and the Red Shirts don't win? You know they'll start right up again with the violence as "democracy" to them means that everyone should do as they want them to do. It's a pretty big mess and holding elections won't solve any of it. At least not until the violence and implied threats of violence stop.

.

I'm sure you mean well but most of the "facts" you've outlined are incorrect.

Look I maybe sound "naive" but yes: elections is the only answer. Take a look in the world. Even in countries like Afghanistan that has so deep political problems they try to hold elections. Are they free? NO but at least they are done and then they can be debated. I do think that the Thai society is able (with international support) to hold free elections. Imagine for example an election that will be organised and observed by an international group of independent organisations (including the UN). If they Reds will not win then they will not have the legitimacy from a theoretical point of view to demonstrate. Now they have some kind of legitimacy in their request for elections because the government is APPOINTED and not elected!

A strong elected government after free elections will be able to control in the very begging ANY opposition protest that it is not justified. And for making a long story short. Think about two countries that their governments doesn't want to hold elections: Burma and Zimbabwe. Is the Thai political system and society so failed as in these two countries? Definitely NO! And this is why Thailand and the current government has a golden opportunity to improve the democratic institutions of the Kingdom. Because it is neither Burma nor Zimbabwe; it is just a country that strives for progress but it is a bit confused on how this will be done.

The Thaksi>Phuea Thai>UDD>Red Shirt>Black Shirt cabal have no legitimacy NOW! What you are witnessing is the attempted violent overthrow of a legitimate government. In a weeks time I'll bet you'll agree with me. Welcome to Thailand.

[daboyz1]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

I understand the pros and cons. But do not shoot protesters. You're going back into the dark ages.

Many (probably most) army people in BKK puke at the thought of what they are being asked to do.

Do you honestly think the Redshirts are being overly violent ??? There were a 100,000 of these people not so long ago. Think of the mayhem they could have caused. They didn't !!!

Sure if the army shoot real bullets into you, you are going to be pretty angry.

Vested interests don't care a toss.

What if the protesters shoot at the soldiers first? Are they supposed to stand there and act like target practice for the protesters?

[animatic]

Civilised nations do not shoot protesters!!

I understand the pros and cons. But do not shoot protesters. You're going back into the dark ages.

Many (probably most) army people in BKK puke at the thought of what they are being asked to do.

Do you honestly think the Redshirts are being overly violent ??? There were a 100,000 of these people not so long ago. Think of the mayhem they could have caused. They didn't !!!

Sure if the army shoot real bullets into you, you are going to be pretty angry.

Vested interests don't care a toss.

+1

The "real" protesters (if you can call them that) have every chance to distance themselves from the hardcore, and you well know that!

If they choose to mix with the hardcore, and get caught up in something, well...som nam na

Yes there were 100k people at one point,

and 98,000 of them acted reasonably peaceful, if disruptive.

The other 2,000 are what is being cleared out now. This small minority of a minority,

that have clearly been itiching for a fight, and trying every way possible for 2 months,

to force this confrontation. They have it now, but I venture too late in the day to

gain the political traction they sought.

April 10 showed that 'some players' were willing to sacrafice red pawns to cause a mess,

it is entirely possible they decided to sacrafice a Red Knight to kick off a bigger mess.

[on-on]

Even the most civilaized nations periodically have to use

violence to quell their own citizerns run amok. Sad but true.

Some groups just forget, or ignore, the social contract in their zealotry,

and need reigning in the hard way...

That's the authoritarian anti-red point of view and if we asked a red poster they'd have the opposite opinion. Speaking objectively it's irrelevant what either of you thinks about who deserves what or who has to respond how, but speaking personally it's simply not helpful to use provocative prose. All that matters from a 30,000 foot view is that you have a significant portion of the population who has decided that the political system does not work for them and another significant portion of the population who support the existing system, right or wrong on either side. Anytime that happens and no rapprochement can be achieved you're going to inevitably end up with violence filling the gap. Which party is 'right' about the social contract doesn't matter because the wrong party can win just as easily and the end justifies the means speaking pragmatically (if not morally). This has been going on for almost half a decade now and both sides have plenty of blood and mischief on their hands - as do a number of officially unaligned groups and institutions. Many have even switched sides in that time to one side or the other. Who is right? Who is wrong? That hasn't been determined and at different times either side has the upper hand, but the only constant is that it devolves into violence because no political solution has yet prevailed.

This, incidentally, is why datum's solution of an election, while well-intentioned, won't work. For an election to work, the parties involved have to have some chance of accepting the outcome. In Thailand the loser is guaranteed to throw the switch the second they think they have a shot at reversing the result (whether they're successful or not). Until that changes, new elections won't help anything. Yellows, Reds, military - other institutions. None of them are interested in accepting any result other than their winning and they're prepared to use almost any means in order to realize their goal of reversing the result.

[redparrot]

This video is horrible:

[datum]

The Thaksi>Phuea Thai>UDD>Red Shirt>Black Shirt cabal have no legitimacy NOW! What you are witnessing is the attempted violent overthrow of a legitimate government. In a weeks time I'll bet you'll agree with me. Welcome to Thailand.

Sorry but you are missing the point in my posts. I am not a Thai and I do not vote in Thai elections so I can not have an inside opinion about who is wrong and who is right. My whole point is a very simple one: Legitimate governments that have public support are very keen on having elections as soon as possible and not to postpone them. A government is not keen of having elections if:

1) it is not legitimate; or

2) it doesn't feel that can win; or

3) it doesn't have the capacity to organise free and fair elections.

or of course all of the above. Case 1 and 2 are not excuses in democracies. Case 3 can be an excuse but this is why a number of international forums have proposed a mediation process with international support that will lead to free elections as soon as possible. And in any case, there is so much speculation right now about how much % of the Thais support the Reds. Why the government want to support all these speculation by making the Reds martyrs? If reds are minority then they will be kicked off in the elections and believe me they will not have the guts to come back.

[Roadman]

Scott I suggest you remove that comment right now.

[george and dragon]

Ten killed in Thailand as police join Red Shirt protest

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...rt-protest.html