Conciliation Or Clampdown?

[Deeral]

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.

what ALL of them???

[Deeral]

As for this post - felt that not posting on the other subject was to be the other thread - I put this post up to see if there were people who could take an analytical view of the situation - I would say the answer is yes - there are of course the usual smatterings of bizarre - rants based on one article that happens to agree with their own idea.

My take on the Nation article would be to try and see what axe they have to grind before I called anything in any paper unbiased - no reporting is completely unbiased but if it puts forward a dispassionate well thought out view then at least it may contain information about something - if only the people who are putting forward that viewpoint.

however comments like...

"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."

....can hardly be regarded as "nice" or "balanced"

they are pure emotion.

.and a rather ugly piece of writing.

these comments serve only to inflame the rank and file in the North.....a step backward in conciliation.

Secondly a reconciliation board - given the state of Thai politics I think it would be pretty much a no-no and ineffective - a face saving device.

everyone is saying only "moderates" from each side - but who decides what is moderate???

THe south African govt regarded and called the ANC terrorists - yet the reconciliation board there has dealt with the bitterest of enemies and has serious problems too - in THailand I can imagine the whole thing becoming embroiled in deciding who should and shouldn't be on it or it merely being a whitewashing instrument for govt policies.

I've said before RE -conciliation is not an option - that implies a return to the status quo that the governing elite yearn for as it gives them ultimate control of who governs Thailand - this status cannot be either stable or acceptable anymore - THailand is in the process of industrialisation and has a growing middle class - it cannot continue to exist with such lopsided distribution of wealth - the worst in the region - and what should now be installed is a REFORMATION plan. - An overhaul of the political system, the legal system and the constitution - but not dictated by the current govt - it has to be in consultation with ALL parties - it was achieved with Northern Ireland (at least to some extent) and in UK those once labelled as terrorists are now MPs.

Trying to "categorise" those involved in the unrest will only increase the divide.

An election might help too, but the govt is clearly going to drag it's heels hoping it can demonise the opposition enough for the govt to stand even a remote chance of getting a majority – something it has failed to do in the last 3 general elections.

Finally – I've had some comments as to being a “supporter of Thaksin”.....

Firstly this isn't a football match, although some of the behaviour and comments on this site have been pretty similar to the kind of conversions one hears in a pub before or after a match.

Secondly just because I criticise the way the government is handling the events does not mean I support anyone – I'm not Thai - I live here and I'm a concerned observer – sometimes the nationals of a country can benefit from an outsider's view – a matter of not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Thirdly I have NOT expressed any partizan views as such – my take is on how the Thai SYSTEM is not working and why this is so – regardless of who is in power.......(I DO have a vested interest in a prosperous ans stable Thailand as it pays my salary and I will benefit from this.....). The situation that has developed and shows no sign of going away is doing the Thai people no favours. The Redshirts are not the problem – they are a symptom of the problem - The entire nation needs to take a look at how a real democracy should work – and at present Thailand isn't a functioning one – at best in the past, it has been a country that LOOKED like a democracy – in true Thai style – ON THE FACE OF IT.

The last few weeks have been a wake up call for Thailand – they could take this opportunity to review the whole country's set up – or as appears to be the case set about a series of accusations, recriminations aimed at bolstering the old system

Edited May 26, 2010 by Deeral

[SamritT]

I heard so many rumours.

I see so many conflicting clips in youtube.

I do not know what to believe anymore.

[Crushdepth]

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?

Ermm...because he's a terrorist? Should we let terrorists go free just because they are popular? A lot of people like Bin Laden too.

[SamritT]

"The Chinese as an exclusive group refuse other group to enter, specially in economy. They were so exclusive that in their practice they become monopolistic."

I took this from the internet. Is this true?

[Deeral]

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?

Ermm...because he's a terrorist? Should we let terrorists go free just because they are popular? A lot of people like Bin Laden too.

- I would have thought that the US experience with Bin Laden would be an object lesson in what NOT to do for the Thai govt.

[Deeral]

"The Chinese as an exclusive group refuse other group to enter, specially in economy. They were so exclusive that in their practice they become monopolistic."

I took this from the internet. Is this true?

the net is full of stuff - true false misleading etc etc - the point of critical thinking is to be able to look at several views taken in their context understand that context and come to a REASONABLe conclusion.

not seen often on this site

[chaoyang]

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

This is more biased, poorly written drivel from the Nation. Any columnist who is halfway good does not resort to name calling like "mean and lethal, comprising thugs, thieves, looters, assassins, saboteurs, vandals and charlatans" blah, blah, blah. They are able to use finely honed words to cut all the deeper, not a brute's sledgehammer.

As well, Dan Rather was an idiot. Once he no longer had the Vietnam War and Watergate trains to ride he showed what a poor journalist he really was.

[hawthorne]

Call it what you want but until the haves of Bangkok do something about the have nots in the rural lands this will never be resolved. It does not have to be redistribution of the wealth but definitely spread the tax entitlements through equal eduacation, healthcare, road system and other support services. People like Thaksin and Hitler can use the plight of the masses to attack the elite. Greed of the elite is ultimately leading to their own demise.

[MiG16]

bump

[Arjay]

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.

Yellows did not burn the airport or use M-79's!

[Jingthing]

Chamberlain thought he was talking to "moderate" Nazis. Where are the APOLOGIES and REGRETS from red shirt leaders and red shirt masses about their outrageous actions in Bangkok? I have heard NOTHING of the kind. On the contrary actually. How can you seriously reconcile with such people?

Edited June 4, 2010 by Jingthing

[bkkjames]

bump

Why would you bump this thread, you on a commission Migsy?

[MiG16]

LOL

no

I closed a few other similar threads and told people they should discuss on this one

but this one had fallen off and getting drowned under all the closed ones

so.

are you my keeper James? monitoring my movements and actions?

[gregb]

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.

Yellows did not burn the airport or use M-79's!

Clearly the only fair thing to do now is to invite the yellow leaders and their followers out to destroy Suvarnabhumi airport. That thing is an abomination anyway. Burning it to the ground and reinstating Don Muang as the official Thai airport could only improve Thailand's image overseas.

Besides, why let the red terrorists have all the fun? If we are going to try and say the yellows are in the same league as the red miscreants, at least the yellows should get the same amount of fun out of their crimes.

Just remember "No Double Standards!" Every protest group is now entitled to be called terrorists and burn and plunder any building they want. I say someone needs to have a big protest at the Thai Mint up in Pathumthani. Given these new rules, that would probably draw alot of people.

BTW, in case anyone is curious, the statements above are dripping with sarcasm. The atrocities committed by the red camp far outweigh anything the yellows ever did. The reds don't like this inconvenient truth, but it is a truth nevertheless. The argument "the yellows dented the fender of my car so I was justified in setting fire to theirs" is getting a little tiring to those of us who still maintain a reasonable perspective.

As others have said, there clearly needs to be reconciliation with the moderate elements who are still in control of their faculties, and absolute punishment for the red terrorists who encouraged people to commit atrocities.

It is not a one or the other deal. Some people can be given amnesty and forgiveness. That includes the yellows and most of the reds. Acts of contrition by the reds and admissions of guilt and remorse would move many more reds into this category. So far I haven't seen that. Some of the reds can not be forgiven. Their crimes were too serious.

[Deeral]

Clampdown = no conciliation.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Deeral

[cmsally]

A little bit of analytical thought beyond the colour spectrum might help. Its amazing that even when there is an attempt to elevate the discussion a bit, it only takes a few paragraphs for it to go back to yellow and red.

Each colour are basically the creation of interest groups regarding backing for their power. Within these movements you then have people jumping onto the bandwagon to promote their own cliques and self interest. You also have those that genuinely follow their views and ideals.

To say that the reds burned down Bangkok and the Yellows took over the airport is a mass generalisation.

In the case of the airport, the yellow leaders and backers created the conditions that made it possible to take over the airport and they dutifully followed like lemmings on a little camping trip. Which in fact made them all in some way guilty by being there. Although I'm sure they will say the door was open wide and it was jolly hot outside.

In the case of the reds, again the leaders created the conditions to take over certain sections of Bangkok. Considering for the length of time the protest went on for, it was generally peaceful. What was different was that the top echelons were not willing to capitulate as in the case of the previous sit in. The hotspots were Silom BTS, where there didn't seem to be a case of any proof of who was responsible, although when news started to emerge of suspicious marks in the Chula Hospital toilets, that seemed to get hushed pretty quickly. So who was responsible? We will probably never know.

In the case of the fires the same; it has not been actually proven who was responsible. Targets weren't that random so it would be interesting to see a little analysis as to who would benefit from the chosen targets. It is quite possible chaos could have created the conditions for a little payback in the business world. Military clique retribution maybe. Government side creating conditions to label opposition terrorists. Red side retribution at defeat. It could be any of these. Are we going to see a government enquiry. Frankly would it be worth the paper it was written on, all this government seems to know about is censorship, demonisation and propaganda.

The government seems keen to paint over the gaping chasms to create a surface veneer of cohesion and group hugs. That some people will inconspicuously be handcuffed while smiling and hugging will bother it not one iota.

[Deeral]

Well said -

i've repeated said how dismayed I was about the posts on TV during this crisis, and I'm also astounded by some of the appalling journalism - (if you could even use that word).

I've also siad that it wasn't a football match - it's amazing how people have flocked to one colour or another, if someone posts on anything disagreeing than they are a "Red" (misnomer) or a "friend of Thaksin" (not Dorothy?).

When it comes to the govt's behaviour - (or revenge?) and the prosecution of anyone they can find for anything theycan think of - (I'm in particular of thinking of the two foreigners) - One wonders if those proposing equally distasteful or violent fates to the Redshirts et al on this site will also face prosecution. shortly...after all their ideas are down on this site in writing. (this thread even?)

Edited June 5, 2010 by Deeral

[robblok]

LOL

no

I closed a few other similar threads and told people they should discuss on this one

but this one had fallen off and getting drowned under all the closed ones

so.

are you my keeper James? monitoring my movements and actions?

Do you have a keeper.. hmmm a kept woman

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Clampdown = no conciliation.

Excactly. Inevitably, they will reap what they sow.

[cmsally]

This government will inevitably be its own worst enemy. Although they attempt to self justify, twist their neck around to get the "correct view" of the image etc., how long can it last for. The country at present has been worn down economically and most people want to take a break. The next logical hiccup will be that of elections. I can see it now , Suthep up on his little platform: "Oh elections, we are not having any, they are so passe, and against the interests of the Thai people".

The government will sooner or later discover that there are many types of mandate including that of the Thai people. Sooner or later they will have to return the mandate to the people.

In the meantime, they will have to see if they can control the bigger players they have on board. At the moment they can try and discourage the voice of dissent through threats and coercion. However as some of the bigger players start to stack their cards against them, they will be in trouble again.

[Deeral]

This government will inevitably be its own worst enemy. Although they attempt to self justify, twist their neck around to get the "correct view" of the image etc., how long can it last for. The country at present has been worn down economically and most people want to take a break. The next logical hiccup will be that of elections. I can see it now , Suthep up on his little platform: "Oh elections, we are not having any, they are so passe, and against the interests of the Thai people".

The government will sooner or later discover that there are many types of mandate including that of the Thai people. Sooner or later they will have to return the mandate to the people.

In the meantime, they will have to see if they can control the bigger players they have on board. At the moment they can try and discourage the voice of dissent through threats and coercion. However as some of the bigger players start to stack their cards against them, they will be in trouble again.

They seem to be engaging in stuff that history has time and again shown to fail.

It can only leads to more unrest in the long run or an unacceptably repressive regime (unelected)

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Abhisit's elected, let's not do that discussion again. A party in his coalition turned on their voters, but that's not against the law. They'll be facing considerable music during the next elections.

To me the larger issue is that elected parliament / government has very little power. Not enough to shape the country and govern it.

Edited June 5, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Deeral]

Abhisit was elected as a member of parliament, but whether or not his coalition can claim a mandate to form a govt is questionable.

"Legal" - Yes - but one has to accept that the legal system is unbiased and uninfluenced or just as it is

[Deeral]

It seems to me that the actions of the govt after - and in fact during - the Redshirt demos - is really getting to look more and more as if it was a coup, much in the same way Sarit organised a coup in 1958 when he was actually in govt.<div>This way the govt is able to suppress any opposition under the guise of "national security" or "anti-terrorism" - they are desperate are they not to try and get a majority in any election that they may permit?</div><div>but who are they trying to please this time China or America?....or both?</div>

[Deeral]

Surely the extended "date of emergency" (military rule?) is further evidence that CRES is now running the country -

[philw]

Surely the extended "date of emergency" (military rule?) is further evidence that CRES is now running the country -

Yep.

Got it one.

[thaibeachlovers]

Clampdowns NEVER work in the long term.

Neither does concilliation. That only postpones the next, inevitable, conflict.

Real peace can only come about when all sides talk to each other and resolve conflicts in EVERYONE'S best interests.

[Deeral]

I would agree - unfortunately Thailand as with many S.E. Asian states is obsessed with the notion of "harmony" - which usually translates into things like conformity, uniformity, and suppression of dissent.

[gregb]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed yet. The mods are being much more tolerant these days. I'll throw in my 2 cents before it is shut down.

The simple fact is, there is no way to reconcile with the reds. They support Thaksin, and Thaksin and his minions are intolerable to more than 50% of the Thai population. Yes, there are moderate elements within the Thai population, but *NOBODY* is moderate or neutral on Thaksin. Nobody. Everyone has an opinion.

Mine is that Thaksin is one of the greatest threat to the continued development of Thailand that the country has ever seen, and he must be eliminated at all costs. He is the great destroyer, and very much equivalent to the other brutal dictators that have subjugated developing countries throughout history. Is stopping him worth a life? Yes, if that is what it takes. Is that worth 1000 lives? Yes, if that is what it takes.

Would I allow my own son to fight and die in a war to protect Thailand from him? Well...my son is only 5 weeks old, but if he were older, and he came to me and expressed his sincere wish to die for his country, I would cry uncontrollably and let him go, but only after I put up one hel_l of a fight. What can I say. I'm human.

But I understand the need for someone to stand up to tyranny. I want my children to grow up in a land with at least a chance at justice. They can not do that subjugated under Thaksin. They may not be able to do it with the current government either, but the odds are at least much better.

I experienced first hand how he brutally suppressed competition and freedoms in the telecom industry. Many, including myself, lost their jobs and their livelihoods because of his dictatorial ways, unabashed corruption and illegal self enrichment. Thailand can never grow under that kind of oppression.

Thaksin is a threat to peace, democracy and continued development. You don't compromise with him. You eliminate him. If the reds denounce Thaksin, then yes, there can be reconciliation on all of their other complaints. I would even join the reds if they would denounce the evil tyrant. I support many of their ideals, though I can not join them as long as they are allied with that demagogue.

If they keep Thaksin? The only options are continued clampdown or civil war. Take your pick. There can not be any reconciliation until the threat of Thaksin is eliminated. It is fear pure and simple. Nobody will trust the reds as long as they keep wielding Thaksin like a weapon.