Conciliation Or Clampdown?

[Deeral]

Reconciliation or retribution?

Conciliation or clampdown?

It's very sad to see the aftermath of recent events unfolding in Thailand.

Much has been said about "putting things as they were" - clearly this is not possible as that would only start the cycle again.

however the govt appears to be saying one thing and going another. I'm left wondering if there was in fact a coup whilst we weren't looking? – before the crisis there was a govt – now, most of the edicts etc seem to originate from the army – have they taken over and left K.Abhisit as there spokesman?

Branding people "terrorists" is in reality little more than a get out \clause - it draws attention away from any govt responsibility for past events and invokes a stereotypical response from the media and general public.

THe govt seems to be just lashing out at anything.

Thaksin has been declared "ATerrorist" - whatever that means - a measure that would require him to stand trial - which the govt must be aware is extremely unlikely - so why have they done this - a figurehead for millions in Thailand how is this reconciliatory?

Two foreigners who (ill-advisedly?) got involved in supporting the Redshirts have been arrested - presumably the same fate will befall those foreigners who advocated violent action AGAINST the Redshirts (including supporting assassination?). many of whom posted those views on this site.

Today a senior military official - the military appear to have unfettered powers at present - announced that the continuing curfew would "separate the terrorists from the public"...and would cause little or no disruption for the rest of the people.......a very short-sighted view IMO - one example is the disruption of transport of goods....another would be those returning to the suburbs late at night.

and finally, on the English language news by MCOT this morning, the follow up investigations and prosecutions were described as the "INQUISITIONS" - which hardly bodes well for any future actions by the govt....or is it the military that are in charge now?

[RPETER65]

I would first ask the question, do you consider the actions by the red shirts at the end of the protest as acts of terrorism? If so then I would have to say Thaksin, as the origin of the UDD protests, is implicit in acts of terrorism in Bangkok.

Second as Thailand is under a state of emergency, I am not surprised to see the army taking the lead, make sure law and order has been restored and will prevail, then talk about reconsiliation. What would you expect after what has taken place in Bangkok?

[Ned]

The "system" is under threat and it's us and them now.......kill or be killed.

[givenall]

The "system" is under threat and it's us and them now.......kill or be killed.

The Thai Government, police and the army were the Joke of the world for couple month and I think they are now realizing it, so they want to looks strong to world and especially the Thai people. Imagine the Thai people no longer are scared of the Police and the Government, and then you will have total anarchy as the Red shirt showed.

There were are only about 50,000 Red who did this if you allow 11 million to go wild, oh well you get the picture

[Deeral]

So you are advocating more killing?

I find the myopic views expressed on this site very disturbing.

Civil unrest and destruction of property has occurred in countries all over the world for centuries without the label "terrorism" - and that is what is is - a label - the reasons for it's use I've touched on above - of course there may other reasons too but my question is how is this useful for conciliation - the rank and file Redshirts like it or not are NOT violent or terrorists but regard these people as leaders - branding them can hardly be conciliatory.

[h90]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

[Deeral]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

OK - I can't spell it out so you call it what you like - I call it a great big banana skin.

I don't want to get enmeshed in a debate on semantics - it's not even pertinent to my posting - we all have a dictionary, but as PART of the post, the comment I made is about the USAGE of the word, the purpose behind or the results of using it.

I can't believe the shallowness of perception by some posters - please try and understand what I'm saying - use some critical or analytical thinking before you post - my post is NOT About perceived definitions of the word "terrorism" it is about policy after the event.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Deeral

[chaoyang]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

OK - I can't spell it out so you call it what you like - I call it a great big banana skin.

I can't believe the shallowness of perception by some posters - please try and understand what I'm saying - use some critical or analytical thinking before you post - my post is NOT About perceived definitions and usages of the word "terrorism" it is about policy after the event.

The term terrorist sure carries a lot of baggage. In the past a leader who advocated the violent overthrow of his own nation might be termed subversive, an insurgent, or perhaps even a traitor.

Terrorism could be a way to instill more fear that requires a stronger central government, so here we go on the crackdown route while the underlying problems are not addressed.

If one continually paints people as terrorists, its not then a big leap for them to become one. Is that what they want to do -- make a few million terrorists?

Perhaps a reconcilliation board and elections might be a better way to go.

[Deeral]

Chaoyang - I seem to have edited between my last post and your reply.

Yes I take your point but at present, Who would you put on a reconciliation board? - half of them would have to be "terrorists"!

[noahvail]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

OK - I can't spell it out so you call it what you like - I call it a great big banana skin.

I don't want to get enmeshed in a debate on semantics - it's not even pertinent to my posting - we all have a dictionary, but as PART of the post, the comment I made is about the USAGE of the word, the purpose behind or the results of using it.

I can't believe the shallowness of perception by some posters - please try and understand what I'm saying - use some critical or analytical thinking before you post - my post is NOT About perceived definitions of the word "terrorism" it is about policy after the event.

Two days ago you posted: "I have posted on this subject but not anymore on this site the level of debate is WAY too low. I really think that TV has degraded itself terribly in the last 2 months."

This site of course is ThaiVisa.com, not a specific forum. So you said on 24 May you will not post anymore on this site. Then you insult the other posters. Today, you insult other posters yet again, although narrowing the group a bit.

The worth of one's advice is often shown by not taking one's own advice.

Your own advice to yourself, as posted, is not to post to ThaiVisa anymore. May I suggest that you take your own advice? Otherwise all of your other postings become suspect.

[chaoyang]

Who would you put on a reconciliation board?

Moderate Reds, Yellows and Abhisit.

[kunash]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

like has previosuly been stated. what is terrorism to one person, can be described as freedom fighting to another. it is called labelling theory. labels are very convenient ways of putting people into groups, defining them as ''deviants'' if they dont fit into your way if thinking. so, from the perspective of a red shirt, they are not terrorists. from the perspecftive of the PM, they are.

[robblok]

I would say clampdown on the extremist reds and reconciliation with the moderate ones.

[chaoyang]

I would say clampdown on the extremist reds and reconciliation with the moderate ones.

Also in the interests of fairness, crack down on extremist Yellows as well -- those who led the illegal closure of the airport.

[robblok]

I would say clampdown on the extremist reds and reconciliation with the moderate ones.

Also in the interests of fairness, crack down on extremist Yellows as well -- those who led the illegal closure of the airport.

Why ... if you let the moderate reds go.. that is compareable with the airport closure.. violence and burning is not

[chuang]

So you are advocating more killing?

I find the myopic views expressed on this site very disturbing.

Civil unrest and destruction of property has occurred in countries all over the world for centuries without the label "terrorism" - and that is what is is - a label - the reasons for it's use I've touched on above - of course there may other reasons too but my question is how is this useful for conciliation - the rank and file Redshirts like it or not are NOT violent or terrorists but regard these people as leaders - branding them can hardly be conciliatory.

Well said, it's is refreshing to read some educated points in this forum......the government is only looking for a scapegoat......which country in the world uses their army to slaughter their innocent countrymen...and called them terrorists...

[chaoyang]

Why ... if you let the moderate reds go.. that is compareable with the airport closure.. violence and burning is not

See there we go again ... the BKK elite get a free pass and the leaders of the peasants from the provinces are held accountable.

The airport closure was illegal, but nothing was done.

[whybother]

I would say clampdown on the extremist reds and reconciliation with the moderate ones.

As we saw towards the end of the protests, the moderate reds were overridden by the extremist reds.

The red leaders all advocated what was being done in the name of the "reds". That is until Veera decided to go walk about.

You can't say that 99% (or whatevery percentage you want to pick out of the hat) of the protestors were peaceful protestors when they supported and protected the violent protestors and "terrorists".

How do you separate moderate and extremist when they all supported and advocated the same thing?

[noahvail]

Why ... if you let the moderate reds go.. that is compareable with the airport closure.. violence and burning is not

See there we go again ... the BKK elite get a free pass and the leaders of the peasants from the provinces are held accountable.

The airport closure was illegal, but nothing was done.

Actually, the leaders were charged, arrested, and out on bail. If you search TV, you'll find where the courts have a several-year backlog. The government at the time - not Democrat, not yellow - did not ask the court to fast-track those who were arrested. Perhaps the government wanted the arrested yellows to stew in their own juices for a while... I have no way of knowing. So if you want to call double-standards, just be aware that the old government, with very close ties to Thaksin, didn't fast-track the yellows, and the current government chose to do so. Not happy about the yellows not being tried yet? So am I! But there's no one but the prior government to blame for that.

[whybother]

So you are advocating more killing?

I find the myopic views expressed on this site very disturbing.

Civil unrest and destruction of property has occurred in countries all over the world for centuries without the label "terrorism" - and that is what is is - a label - the reasons for it's use I've touched on above - of course there may other reasons too but my question is how is this useful for conciliation - the rank and file Redshirts like it or not are NOT violent or terrorists but regard these people as leaders - branding them can hardly be conciliatory.

Well said, it's is refreshing to read some educated points in this forum......the government is only looking for a scapegoat......which country in the world uses their army to slaughter their innocent countrymen...and called them terrorists...

Well ... in the last week - Jamacia.

[robblok]

Why ... if you let the moderate reds go.. that is compareable with the airport closure.. violence and burning is not

See there we go again ... the BKK elite get a free pass and the leaders of the peasants from the provinces are held accountable.

The airport closure was illegal, but nothing was done.

If you check the deeds.. moderate reds closed part of the city and don't get prosecuted, yellows close the airport peacefully and get not prosecuted. Then you just arrest the hardcore reds with the guns the ones who burned it down.

I don't see the problem looks fair to me.

But like an other poster said the yellows are arrested and out on jail.

[Deeral]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

OK - I can't spell it out so you call it what you like - I call it a great big banana skin.

I don't want to get enmeshed in a debate on semantics - it's not even pertinent to my posting - we all have a dictionary, but as PART of the post, the comment I made is about the USAGE of the word, the purpose behind or the results of using it.

I can't believe the shallowness of perception by some posters - please try and understand what I'm saying - use some critical or analytical thinking before you post - my post is NOT About perceived definitions of the word "terrorism" it is about policy after the event.

Two days ago you posted: "I have posted on this subject but not anymore on this site the level of debate is WAY too low. I really think that TV has degraded itself terribly in the last 2 months."

This site of course is ThaiVisa.com, not a specific forum. So you said on 24 May you will not post anymore on this site. Then you insult the other posters. Today, you insult other posters yet again, although narrowing the group a bit.

The worth of one's advice is often shown by not taking one's own advice.

Your own advice to yourself, as posted, is not to post to ThaiVisa anymore. May I suggest that you take your own advice? Otherwise all of your other postings become suspect.

yep - it's like a bad movie or something - you keep having to go back and make sure it is actually what you thought. It's even a bit ghoulish - however insult is something I don't intend - but I don't think anyone could argue in favor of enlightened debate on this site - it is rather fascinating for all the wrong reasons though.

I'm an advocate of critical thinking and that has lea me to my conclusions - if you find that insulting I'm sorry but I believe it to be the truth - can you lay out an argument to the contrary?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Deeral

[chaoyang]

Actually, the leaders were charged, arrested, and out on bail

That's good. Let's see if any convictions come from it. Often after a decent interval and a wink these things are swept under the rug.

I fail to see why prosecution of the illegal occupation and closure of an international airport should have to be "fast tracked" -- but hey TIT, right?

Just make sure the mai phen rai cuts both ways.

[NaiGreg]

Civil unrest and destruction of property has occurred in countries all over the world for centuries without the label "terrorism" - and that is what is is - a label - the reasons for it's use I've touched on above -

Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. It is only the narrow legal definitions that are more recent.

Why are the Osama Bin Ladin Red Shirt supporters here suddenly confusing civil disobedience (I refuse to pay taxes) with rioting (I'm drunk and I'm stupid and I want to burn cars in the street) and terrorism (systematically, strategically and violently striking fear into the population)

Boggles the mind Mr. Deeral.

[noahvail]

you haven't seen the burnings in Bangkok and the shooting with the army?

If this isn't terrorism than what is terrorism?

OK - I can't spell it out so you call it what you like - I call it a great big banana skin.

I don't want to get enmeshed in a debate on semantics - it's not even pertinent to my posting - we all have a dictionary, but as PART of the post, the comment I made is about the USAGE of the word, the purpose behind or the results of using it.

I can't believe the shallowness of perception by some posters - please try and understand what I'm saying - use some critical or analytical thinking before you post - my post is NOT About perceived definitions of the word "terrorism" it is about policy after the event.

Two days ago you posted: "I have posted on this subject but not anymore on this site the level of debate is WAY too low. I really think that TV has degraded itself terribly in the last 2 months."

This site of course is ThaiVisa.com, not a specific forum. So you said on 24 May you will not post anymore on this site. Then you insult the other posters. Today, you insult other posters yet again, although narrowing the group a bit.

The worth of one's advice is often shown by not taking one's own advice.

Your own advice to yourself, as posted, is not to post to ThaiVisa anymore. May I suggest that you take your own advice? Otherwise all of your other postings become suspect.

yep - it's like a bad movie or something - you keep having to go back and make sure it is actually what you thought. It's even a bit ghoulish - however insult is something I don't intend - but I don't think anyone could argue in favor of enlightened debate on this site - it is rather fascinating for all the wrong reasons though.

I'm an advocate of critical thinking and that has lea me to my conclusions - if you find that insulting I'm sorry but I believe it to be the truth - can you lay out an argument to the contrary?

I accept your lack of intent to insult at your word; no further clarification needed.

What you believe to be a truth is in fact, by definition, only an opinion. You do not back it up with facts - which is your job. It is not my job to dispute you; rather, I would ask you to either state such a comment as your opinion, rather than fact, or else back it up with fact.

However, to bring you back from whence you strayed: you said that you would not post any more, yet here you are, two days later, doing an admirable job of trying to trip people up.

You are obviously an intelligent and capable writer. Perhaps your intent was not to refrain from posting, even though that is what you said?

At this point, it really is curiosity on my part. Frankly, I am glad that you continue to post. Like you, I too am a critical thinker - at least I would like to think that (opinion, therefore, and not fact lol). I actually enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't always agree with you. That is the essence of the forum; the dross one finds in any forum can be easily cast aside.

[thaigold]

Many people say you have to love the strategic thinking Thai leadership. Instead of trying to quiet the thundering tides of revolt and seeking conciliation, they create more by applying ex post facto crimes against PM Thaksin.

What do these “leaders” do? They label the hero of Thai democracy a "terrorist." It buggers belief. These people are playing right into the hands of the resistance. Thaksin, in his shrewd game probably welcomes this silly appellation. It only strengthens his hold on his supporters – who many say make up more than 55% of the Thai populace.

[whybother]

Many people say you have to love the strategic thinking Thai leadership. Instead of trying to quiet the thundering tides of revolt and seeking conciliation, they create more by applying ex post facto crimes against PM Thaksin.

What do these "leaders" do? They label the hero of Thai democracy a "terrorist." It buggers belief. These people are playing right into the hands of the resistance. Thaksin, in his shrewd game probably welcomes this silly appellation. It only strengthens his hold on his supporters – who many say make up more than 55% of the Thai populace.

What is an "ex post facto crime"?

What Thaksin needs to do at the next election is to tell more of his supporters to vote. His puppet party could only get 40% of the vote, and have lost some of that in by-elections since then.

[Chaimai]

Chaoyang - I seem to have edited between my last post and your reply.

Yes I take your point but at present, Who would you put on a reconciliation board? - half of them would have to be "terrorists"!

No they wouldn't. Only people involved in or convicted of such/similar offences.

There are many 'red shirts' who could contribute - equally, there are several 'yellow shirts' you would want to exclude.

Extremists on either/any side not welcome. Conciliation will only come through moderates of whichever hue.

[Abrak]

Extremists on either/any side not welcome. Conciliation will only come through moderates of whichever hue.

Absolutely right. Conflict of any sort is inherently destructive.

After the May 1992 riots, Anand said there were seven pillars to Democracy - elections, political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization and civil society.

That really is all both sides want.

[clausewitz]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...e-30130095.html

a nice balanced article in the Nation:

nice balanced article in the Nation:

26 May 2010 Read TopicIn Topic: A Premeditated Plan To Burn Bangkok http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...e-30130095.html

QUOTE The red shirts have become a real peril in this land. They are a serious threat to national security, with or without Thaksin being around to finance their future destructive campaigns. Such horrible scenarios could be prevented if the ringleaders and their network of extremist supporters are uprooted once and for all.

The violence and tragedy - with up to 100 dead and several hundreds injured - captured headlines around the world, and news networks had a field day, some with fair reporting. However, a few major news organisations showed how they could be biased to make the country's administration look much worse than in reality.

The US saw 9/11, and the bringing down of the World Trade Centre. We just suffered May 19, with the CentralWorld complex, earlier named the World Trade Centre, going up in smoke. A "ground zero" on a smaller scale.

The US has an enemy by the name of Bin Laden, who has eluded capture for years. We have an enemy named Thaksin Shinawatra who deserves the title of public enemy number one, and has already been branded a terrorist by the government. .

The Americans have seen the Black Panthers and other urban terrorists, freak groups led by the likes of Jim Jones, and violent incidents like Waco. We have the red shirts, who are mean and lethal, comprising thugs, thieves, looters, assassins, saboteurs, vandals and charlatans campaigning for "democracy" on Thaksin's payroll.

America had an excellent newscaster named Dan Rather, but now we have the new-rich Dan Rivers of CNN, who lives here and gives Thailand a bad name it does not deserve

Edited May 26, 2010 by clausewitz