Clashes Continue, Turning Central Bangkok In Virtual Warzone

[OldgitTom]

there is no need for "negotiations" with these war mongers at this point, round them up and punish them. they are keen on burning buses and inciting violence.

when I passed through the area about 1:00 pm I could feel the tension in the air. happy I got outta there in time before it really started up. Man oh man are the supporters just a bunch of filthy scrubs. you have to seem 'em and then you can't deny.

Javowl, herr Uebermensch! These poor people must be crushed without pity. They dare to challenge the rich rulers armed with guns & tanks?! Intolerable! Heil Hitler. OGT

[thefusilier]

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...

From how it looks to me, he was wearing a BLACK shirt and NO green armband to signify he was with the media, and he was moving around amongst other protesters.

The conscripts are in the midst an urban battle - there's a lot of confusion and chaos as it without innocent people getting mixed in. I think he should have known better when deciding what to wear. The conscripts are not particularly well trained and under enormous pressure being in this situation with similarly dressed people firing off different types of weaponry at them.

I didn't see anything to suggest the army KNEW he was a foreign reporter. Definitely not at that distance either.

I am not making an excuse for the army... it was unacceptable. But haven't seen anything to suggest he was targeted because he was a journalist. More like they failed in properly identifying a threat and having effective fire control.

He should have freaken known to wear something different.

[ding]

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.

In the USA Bush put peaceful protesters along his motorcade route into chain-link temporary prisons. They called them "free speech zones". You couldn't wear the wrong tee shirt or have the wrong bumper sticker on your car or you'd be grabbed out of your own town hall meeting.

People can say what they want about Abhisit, but he's not a fascist. He has been tolerant and patient until now. IMHO

[tlongdon]

Scott I suggest you remove that comment right now.

Unfortunately, it's sweeping a lot of issues under the carpet in Thailand that has led to this kind of situation in the first place.

However, with almost no intervention to date during the current crisis, I see little impact either way. I think religion is more likely to play a part in keeping the situation as far away from a civil war as is ever going to be possible in a 3rd world country.

[lannarebirth]

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.

It is #3 that is in play, among other things. The current government DID call for early elections and that was agreed to by the protesters. The protesters subsequently reneged on that agreement due to their funder and chief, a fugitive from Thai justice pulling the plug on the agreement. They have since stepped up violent acts and the survival of the state itself hangs in the balance. There is no loyal opposition. A loyal opposition is fundamental to the election process, wouldn't you agree?

Edited May 14, 2010 by lannarebirth

[tlongdon]

oh lord, and I just saw some <deleted> of a Londoner, wearing a black t-shirt and a mask, interviewed by the BBC (this is on BBC One), somewhere around Rama 4/Silom junction by the look of it, supposedly helping out the reds. "It's not the land of smiles any more" he said, or words to that effect. "Not with tw*ts like you interfering, its not" was wisely not the reply the interviewer gave (but should've).

[RKASA]

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...

You mean that social contract being the constitution they stepped all over starting in 2006. Your right that is part of whats happening. A little revolution now and then I guess.

" need reigning in the hard way.." ? them little peons

[Roadman]

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.

Thats your list, which you chose to leave off what lannarebirth was putting forward as a genuine reason as to what is going on here.

So to correct that for you:-

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.

4) it is faced with a violent mob intent on crippling the country.

Edited to add and of course you overlook that elections were offered by, no even begged to Reds by Abhisit to accept.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Roadman

[on-on]

Bush

As awful as he was, and I truly believe he is the most awful President we've ever had, I'm glad we didn't oust him in a coup. The institution of democracy can't survive that. Can you imagine what the teabagger and militia movement would be like armed with a legitimate grievance and a powerful martyr patron? We'd be in a situation probably worse than what we're seeing in Thailand. Still, I don't want to digress too far into our politics, but there is an object lesson there involving the respect for institutions. Conservatives have tried every legal club in their bag to unseat Democratic Presidents, but they haven't staged a coup or even attempted one since The Depression era because as bad as things get, even if they could pull it off, they still have respect for the institution and know that it wouldn't be worth inhabiting if it were that tainted. That's the lesson that hasn't been absorbed by society here, or probably more correctly the incentives aren't strong enough yet for the powerful to buy into that lesson. Because of impending events it's still more profitable for them to jockey for position no matter the cost to society.

[datum]

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.

@ on-on

You give the solution yourself actually in what you are writing. You say: "For an election to work, the parties involved have to have some chance of accepting the outcome". OK, how the Thai government can work towards this? By postponing the elections and hiding the problem under the carpet? No. It can work towards this by going to the international organisations that belongs (UN, ASEAN, etc.) and say to them: "Look, I am paying my subscription to your organisations every year and now I want some services from you. I have a bit of a problem in my back yard and if I'll try to clean up the mess myself, the opposition will accuse me that I used a vacuum cleaner that was selectively sucking red garbages only and it was leaving the yellow garbages at their place. Can you please give me a color-blind vacuum cleaner to clean up the mess? I need also you to convince the red and yellow flowers that your vacuum cleaner is the right one and it will suck both the yellow and red garbages."

This option (int it's political correct form) has been proposed to the Thai government by an very credible international body but it has not been accepted. And for me this is another evidence that the government just want to avoid elections at any cost.

[datum]

Thats your list, which you chose to leave off what lannarebirth was putting forward as a genuine reason as to what is going on here.

So to correct that for you:-

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.

4) it is faced with a violent mob intent on crippling the country.

Edited to add and of course you overlook that elections were offered by, no even begged to Reds by Abhisit to accept.

Option 4: In this case it handles the situation over to the police/army and it puts people to jail. And if the police/army is not capable of doing this then it sends the police/army leaders home and appoints new ones. And it is doing this until it gives the signal that "it governs" otherwise it goes to elections.

[ding]

Bush

As awful as he was, and I truly believe he is the most awful President we've ever had, I'm glad we didn't oust him in a coup. The institution of democracy can't survive that. Can you imagine what the teabagger and militia movement would be like armed with a legitimate grievance and a powerful martyr patron? We'd be in a situation probably worse than what we're seeing in Thailand. Still, I don't want to digress too far into our politics, but there is an object lesson there involving the respect for institutions. Conservatives have tried every legal club in their bag to unseat Democratic Presidents, but they haven't staged a coup or even attempted one since The Depression era because as bad as things get, even if they could pull it off, they still have respect for the institution and know that it wouldn't be worth inhabiting if it were that tainted. That's the lesson that hasn't been absorbed by society here, or probably more correctly the incentives aren't strong enough yet for the powerful to buy into that lesson. Because of impending events it's still more profitable for them to jockey for position no matter the cost to society.

American democracy is far more a facade than Thai democracy. Still, American democracy is the best democracy money can buy.

I just hope the Thais get their military under governmental control or it's going from the 'Roaman Republic' to a 'Caesarian rule' under Thaksin or some other sword-funder.

[anon8]

what is up with BBC World News coverage? 3 times now, every hour, there's this ignorant and RETARDED report and 'analysis' ending with a British guy running with reds shirts, face mask and all.

Granted, CNN and BBC have no clue whats going on, and they really do not care since Thailand has never been part of Empire and a 'news report' has to filed since this thing in Bankok is getting big,

still if the current BBC guy in bkk does not know what time it is, may be he should catch up with current events.. perhaps he should not put together a news report at all? please BBC, DO NOT have a white European male running with Reds on BBC every hour!

[lannarebirth]

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.

@ on-on

You give the solution yourself actually in what you are writing. You say: "For an election to work, the parties involved have to have some chance of accepting the outcome". OK, how the Thai government can work towards this? By postponing the elections and hiding the problem under the carpet? No. It can work towards this by going to the international organisations that belongs (UN, ASEAN, etc.) and say to them: "Look, I am paying my subscription to your organisations every year and now I want some services from you. I have a bit of a problem in my back yard and if I'll try to clean up the mess myself, the opposition will accuse me that I used a vacuum cleaner that was selectively sucking red garbages only and it was leaving the yellow garbages at their place. Can you please give me a color-blind vacuum cleaner to clean up the mess? I need also you to convince the red and yellow flowers that your vacuum cleaner is the right one and it will suck both the yellow and red garbages."

This option (int it's political correct form) has been proposed to the Thai government by an very credible international body but it has not been accepted. And for me this is another evidence that the government just want to avoid elections at any cost.

In all of your posts you've gotten at least one fact wrong. I'll just address this latest one. The government is not postponing elections at all. Election are due in Jan/Feb of 2012. The government offered to move elections up to November 2010, the Red Shirts agreed. They subsequently reneged on that agreement and the offer was withdrawn. The PM CANNOT call new elections simply because any group threatens violence if he doesn't. That would be a pretty bad precedent, don't you think?

[on-on]

American democracy is far more a facade than Thai democracy. Still, American democracy is the best democracy money can buy.

Because Thai democracy doesn't exist functionally. You can hate our system or you can think as I do that it's captured by industry and riddled with corruption (as are societies everywhere, in indigenous forms), but it doesn't grind to a halt every year and result in some form of violent change of government.

That's why I say that I'm not sure democracy is a necessary outcome here. Stability and rule of law have to be in place first, followed by an orderly transition to self-rule. Plenty of Asian countries have otal facade democracies where one party rules for decades, corrupt to the bone, but if these governments can provide stability, economic growth and don't clamp down too hard on personal and economic freedoms then it's a good stepping stone to democracy. The disappointing thing with Thailand is that it's already gone through this stage and should be a functional democracy. Still, coming from another country I don't feel comfortable dictating that someone else live under an authoritarian system, but I live here and work here and this is my country of residence and I personally wouldn't be bothered by living under a quasi-democratic state like Singapore, Hong Kong, DLP Japan, pre-1990s ROK or the like if it meant social progress for the rural underclasses along with stability and rule of law. Certainly it would be favorable to a country that's burying itself step by step.

Edited May 14, 2010 by on-on

[datum]

It is #3 that is in play, among other things. The current government DID call for early elections and that was agreed to by the protesters. The protesters subsequently reneged on that agreement due to their funder and chief, a fugitive from Thai justice pulling the plug on the agreement. They have since stepped up violent acts and the survival of the state itself hangs in the balance. There is no loyal opposition. A loyal opposition is fundamental to the election process, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, and I have to say that I was quite supportive of the PM's proposal for elections on November. And then, two days ago he decided that he will call the elections off because "the reds didn't keep their promises". Are we serious? If the reds are a mob of criminals as the government says was anyone expecting that they will keep their promises? What about a statement saying "I go with the plan for election on November and at the same time I take all legal measures to stop the demonstrations". He is the PM of a country, he is not a kid that will abandon his toy just to break the toy of the other kid! Generally I like him, he seems a calm, educated person but his governance style doesn't work out! It is to "amateur". It is not aboung being patient as some members say, I think it is about being non-decisive at all! When you are a PM, and especially one that want to bring change in a country, you have to make difficult but necessary decission. And these decisions have not been made so far IMHO.

[Neilly]

oh lord, and I just saw some <deleted> of a Londoner, wearing a black t-shirt and a mask, interviewed by the BBC (this is on BBC One), somewhere around Rama 4/Silom junction by the look of it, supposedly helping out the reds. "It's not the land of smiles any more" he said, or words to that effect. "Not with tw*ts like you interfering, its not" was wisely not the reply the interviewer gave (but should've).

Just seen the same on BBC World...kin tw4t

[lannarebirth]

It is #3 that is in play, among other things. The current government DID call for early elections and that was agreed to by the protesters. The protesters subsequently reneged on that agreement due to their funder and chief, a fugitive from Thai justice pulling the plug on the agreement. They have since stepped up violent acts and the survival of the state itself hangs in the balance. There is no loyal opposition. A loyal opposition is fundamental to the election process, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, and I have to say that I was quite supportive of the PM's proposal for elections on November. And then, two days ago he decided that he will call the elections off because "the reds didn't keep their promises". Are we serious? If the reds are a mob of criminals as the government says was anyone expecting that they will keep their promises? What about a statement saying "I go with the plan for election on November and at the same time I take all legal measures to stop the demonstrations". He is the PM of a country, he is not a kid that will abandon his toy just to break the toy of the other kid! Generally I like him, he seems a calm, educated person but his governance style doesn't work out! It is to "amateur". It is not aboung being patient as some members say, I think it is about being non-decisive at all! When you are a PM, and especially one that want to bring change in a country, you have to make difficult but necessary decission. And these decisions have not been made so far IMHO.

There are really only two ways to proceed in Thailand. There is Abhisit's way, which may not succeed, whereby you try to neutralize all the variables in a highly entropic situation as the country undergoes the only succession its people have ever experienced, OR you let the military take over, who may not relinquish power after the succession. Those are the choices. You might imagine there are many other choices but really there are not if Thailand is to not become a failed state.

[ding]

American democracy is far more a facade than Thai democracy. Still, American democracy is the best democracy money can buy.

Because Thai democracy doesn't exist functionally. You can hate our system or you can think as I do that it's captured by industry and riddled with corruption (as are societies everywhere, in indigenous forms), but it doesn't grind to a halt every year and result in some form of violent change of government.

That's why I say that I'm not sure democracy is a necessary outcome here. Stability and rule of law have to be in place first, followed by an orderly transition to self-rule. Plenty of Asian countries have otal facade democracies where one party rules for decades, corrupt to the bone, but if these governments can provide stability, economic growth and don't clamp down too hard on personal and economic freedoms then it's a good stepping stone to democracy. The disappointing thing with Thailand is that it's already gone through this stage and should be a functional democracy. Still, coming from another country I don't feel comfortable dictating that someone else live under an authoritarian system, but I live here and work here and this is my country of residence and I personally wouldn't be bothered by living under a quasi-democratic state like Singapore, Hong Kong, DLP Japan, pre-1990s ROK or the like if it meant social progress for the rural underclasses along with stability and rule of law. Certainly it would be favorable to a country that's burying itself step by step.

This is the goal of fascists everywhere as Kristallnacht is repeated and democracy is usurped. Should fascists be rewarded for their treason?

Edited May 14, 2010 by ding

[spongeman]

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.

At the end of the day the Redshirts are causing mayhem. Economic mayhem. They are destroying the Hotel and Banking and shopping and general vendor businesses in that area. Dimwits.

And the only way out of this is to use force. The same tactics should have been used during the airport siege with those other buffoons.

[datum]

In all of your posts you've gotten at least one fact wrong. I'll just address this latest one. The government is not postponing elections at all. Election are due in Jan/Feb of 2012. The government offered to move elections up to November 2010, the Red Shirts agreed. They subsequently reneged on that agreement and the offer was withdrawn. The PM CANNOT call new elections simply because any group threatens violence if he doesn't. That would be a pretty bad precedent, don't you think?

I answered partially in my other post but let me make one more time things more clear. And PLEASE try to read my posts not as a supporter of reds or yellows but as a "third person".

The fundamental purpose of a government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. When a government faces such a big political crisis that has seriously threaten public order it has one option. To restore order with all possible legal means and to put people that are breaking the law in jail. If the government can not do this it means more or less that is is not capable to manage a country and it should seek re-assurance from the public. And that was IMHO the reason behind the PM's proposal for election on November. The people have trusted you to do a job if you can not do the job you have to ask again your people if they trust you or if they want to try something else. It sounds very simplistic but it is the essence of democratic governance.

PS: I have to go to sleep now so I am sorry but I'll not be able to post more tonight. I promise that I'll come back Good night to everybody.

[yoshiwara]

In all of your posts you've gotten at least one fact wrong. I'll just address this latest one. The government is not postponing elections at all. Election are due in Jan/Feb of 2012. The government offered to move elections up to November 2010, the Red Shirts agreed. They subsequently reneged on that agreement and the offer was withdrawn. The PM CANNOT call new elections simply because any group threatens violence if he doesn't. That would be a pretty bad precedent, don't you think?

I answered partially in my other post but let me make one more time things more clear. And PLEASE try to read my posts not as a supporter of reds or yellows but as a "third person".

The fundamental purpose of a government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. When a government faces such a big political crisis that has seriously threaten public order it has one option. To restore order with all possible legal means and to put people that are breaking the law in jail. If the government can not do this it means more or less that is is not capable to manage a country and it should seek re-assurance from the public. And that was IMHO the reason behind the PM's proposal for election on November. The people have trusted you to do a job if you can not do the job you have to ask again your people if they trust you or if they want to try something else. It sounds very simplistic but it is the essence of democratic governance.

PS: I have to go to sleep now so I am sorry but I'll not be able to post more tonight. I promise that I'll come back Good night to everybody.

That would be a political ladyboy, no?

[animatic]

It is #3 that is in play, among other things. The current government DID call for early elections and that was agreed to by the protesters. The protesters subsequently reneged on that agreement due to their funder and chief, a fugitive from Thai justice pulling the plug on the agreement. They have since stepped up violent acts and the survival of the state itself hangs in the balance. There is no loyal opposition. A loyal opposition is fundamental to the election process, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, and I have to say that I was quite supportive of the PM's proposal for elections on November. And then, two days ago he decided that he will call the elections off because "the reds didn't keep their promises". Are we serious? If the reds are a mob of criminals as the government says was anyone expecting that they will keep their promises? What about a statement saying "I go with the plan for election on November and at the same time I take all legal measures to stop the demonstrations". He is the PM of a country, he is not a kid that will abandon his toy just to break the toy of the other kid! Generally I like him, he seems a calm, educated person but his governance style doesn't work out! It is to "amateur". It is not aboung being patient as some members say, I think it is about being non-decisive at all! When you are a PM, and especially one that want to bring change in a country, you have to make difficult but necessary decission. And these decisions have not been made so far IMHO.

It seems he IS making decisions, based on best possible information.

and after making decisions tends to wait and see if agreement can be reached.

He is deliberate, not prone to snap judgments, some see this as a negative,

but in the hot seat he holds, well considered deliberatness of action is a plus.

If a situation changes, then NOT being locked into a decision is also called flexability.

Every day he makes hundreds or even thousands of decisions,

all based on intractable problems where NO good perfect working decision exists,

only a series of 'best probables' leading to a hoped for best case resolution.

You may not like several of his decisions, but he has had to make some really

horrendously tough ones, and it's easy for us to be armchair quarterbacks.

Most TVF members would fade very, very quickly under the pressure to perform he is under.

[retdson]

Sorry if this link has been posted before - but imho it deserves to be seen again and again. In fact, they should show this clip every hour on every TV station in Thailand. You want civil war? This is what it looks like - retribution and counter-retribution - where murderers rule and all good things go out of the window. Dangerous, dangerous, precedents being set here.

[lannarebirth]

In all of your posts you've gotten at least one fact wrong. I'll just address this latest one. The government is not postponing elections at all. Election are due in Jan/Feb of 2012. The government offered to move elections up to November 2010, the Red Shirts agreed. They subsequently reneged on that agreement and the offer was withdrawn. The PM CANNOT call new elections simply because any group threatens violence if he doesn't. That would be a pretty bad precedent, don't you think?

I answered partially in my other post but let me make one more time things more clear. And PLEASE try to read my posts not as a supporter of reds or yellows but as a "third person".

You may read my posts as a red supporter who believes they are being led as lambs to slaughter by a violent megalomaniacal madman.

The fundamental purpose of a government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. Agree. When a government faces such a big political crisis that has seriously threaten public order it has one option. To restore order with all possible legal means and to put people that are breaking the law in jail. Agree. In fact this is the first government to even attempt that. If the government can not do this it means more or less that is is not capable to manage a country I disagree. The PM inherited a government with wholly incompetent, corrupt and disloyal parties. This crisis is flushing them out and he is making adjustments as necessary in about as stressful an environment as can be imagined. It may not appear like it but he has made progress. and it should seek re-assurance from the public. And that was IMHO the reason behind the PM's proposal for election on November. The people have trusted you to do a job if you can not do the job you have to ask again your people if they trust you or if they want to try something else. It sounds very simplistic but it is the essence of democratic governance. I think your first sentence is the essence of democratic government. Without it, elections don't mean very much.

Another point I'd like to make. Earlier tonight there were rumors circulating that the Deputy PM had been shot in the head by the Army. No corroboration so it probably didn't happen, but there isn't anyone reading this that doesn't believe that it is possible something like that could happen right now. That is not a climate for elections. Especially elections not due.

PS: I have to go to sleep now so I am sorry but I'll not be able to post more tonight. I promise that I'll come back Good night to everybody. Good Night.

Edited May 14, 2010 by lannarebirth

[jupiler]

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.

You must be joking dude!!

Didn't they (red shirts) killed 4 soldiers before ???

[on-on]

This is the goal of fascists everywhere as Kristallnacht is repeated and democracy is usurped. Should fascists be rewarded for their treason?

It's a nice buzzword to just yell fascist or communist at things, but look around you - there are functional societies all around the world that don't embrace our Western ideals of How A Country Must Govern Itself. I'm completely disinterested in emotionally provocative poo-flinging, I just want whatever works best for Thailand. If the end result of your "democracy" is year after year of street wars while the poor suffer and the country devolves into anarchy as the national identity tears along partisan lines then I think an alternative approach to governing is preferable pragmatically, so long as the end result of that approach isn't worse than the anarchy it replaces (i.e. I wouldn't want to live under Pinochet, but Lee Kuan Yew? Sure.). Actual freedom and philosophical freedom are two entirely different things. The freedom to vote is relatively meaningless if the pragmatic result is a never-ending series of coups followed by political violence and economic instability that end up with undemocratic governments. My logic ont his is unassailable, frankly, unless you appeal to abstract philosophical concerns, which don't matter much when you can't eat and your neighborhood is riddled with random gunfire week after week.

[rametindallas]

As for the FARANG tourists that you seem to dislike so much- they prop up the economy in this country, without them the economy will crash imo.

You seem to thing that Tourism is the main source of income for thais. Its not. Remove yourself from Tourist Thailand and go check the rest of it out......tourist schmourist.

As i stated above i have and still do get out and see Thailand, as for tourist area's - i don't live in one. Do you understand anything about economics? Because if your capital city and economic centre crashes so does the country, who do you think will suffer most if that happens??? The elite and the army, NO it will be the poor people of rural thailand who suffer first and suffer the most. Tourism brings a huge amount of money into the Thai economy, NOTICE i use the word ECONOMY, because without an economy the country will fail not just Bangkok. Check the official government figures, they are online, even from Thaksins time. If the tourists go, the Farang that live here wont be far behind, is that what you want???? No one but thai's in thailand? "we all hate tourists and farang"???? Sounds very much like the point of view an Austrian bloke had in 1939!!. If you'd actually read my post you'd know a lot of my friends are very poor and NOT from tourist Thailand, they dont support the reds at all, are they all wrong??? Will you kick them out of thailand with the farang and tourists if you get your way?????

Rant over...

I would point out that tourism, while not a large percentage of the whole economy, benefits the lower income working people more than some of the other sectors of the economy e.g. banking, import/export, etc.

[rametindallas]

Why doe they have to disperse a crowd with live ammunition? I've seen several time hooligans being dispersed with a water canon.

Why do these clashes always have to be so bloody and cause so many casualty's?

Because the red insurgents are using LETHAL weapons, that's why. Duh.

What some bang fai rockets and sling shots ??

The gunfire is a little one sided no ??

It's supposed to be one-sided; the government, representatives and protectors of the population at large, is always supposed to win as opposed to letting the mob win. Unless you think you would like to live with anarchy. IMHO bad govt. is preferrable to anarchy.

[proto]

My greatest clap of hands to whatever entity is in charge of Thailand for not having turned things into a bloodbath several weeks ago. My barricade life came and went way back in the 60'ties and 70'ties but I were illegally arrested a sufficient number of times to understand why law enforcers can get away with a lot of things during times of civic unrest even in countries like tiny Denmark where otherwise poor police behavior is frontpage stuff for months. Can't imagine any other country on planet Earth that would have allowed such a clearly lawbreaking mob to have the say for such a long time without removing them with whatever means were necessary. No, I don't want the government (assuming it is in power) to clean out the streets - just want to clap my hands for severe bloodshed not to have happened (yet).