Reds Back Out In Chiang Mai

[ogb]

Perhaps the next wave of social outrage (post red) will be led from within and with the right leader who has the people's agenda as his own.

And what would be the chances, do you think, of such a leader ever gaining the kind of support among party cohorts and big business which would give him a shot at being PM?

The fact that Taksin has been the best thing for the 'masses' in living memory is an indictment of the entire political system itself. Yet the fact remains that he really was. So what do you expect the reds to do? Condemn the best leader they ever had because he was as corrupt as so many others?

It's the whole system that the reds are fed up with, and why shouldn't they be? I imagine most farangs would be as well, if they too were it's true subjects.

Well said

Ulysses G: Do you really believe it was not possible to have an election before November?

(clue: have a look at the Military reshuffle, and the police chief appointment)

Yellows airport invasion far outweighs the reds shopping centre occupation as a provocation

(but sadly the reds underestimated the double standard at play in Thailand, and when they woke up they were already backed into a corner).

Red leaders are detained without bail while yellow leaders are free, often refusing to even turn up to face charges (and free it seems to try to start a war with a neighbouring country)

Injustice will always create violence, so no one should be surprised when more comes - it's an unfortunate inevitability.

(however violence from the red side of politics can easily be avoided by simply allowing their votes to be counted and to stand - the bigger question is how can violence from the other brainwashed colour be avoided?)

[ogb]

I'd be happy if emergence laws continued indeffinately and don't care if some human rights groups get the hump about it.

I think you might be happier in the deep south of Thailand than the north - or if you like it up north, Burma might be the place for you

[canuckamuck]

Perhaps the next wave of social outrage (post red) will be led from within and with the right leader who has the people's agenda as his own.

And what would be the chances, do you think, of such a leader ever gaining the kind of support among party cohorts and big business which would give him a shot at being PM?

I think a proper approach to passive resistance would improve the odds. If something is difficult is that a reason not to do it?

The fact that Taksin has been the best thing for the 'masses' in living memory is an indictment of the entire political system itself. Yet the fact remains that he really was. So what do you expect the reds to do? Condemn the best leader they ever had because he was as corrupt as so many others?

It's the whole system that the reds are fed up with, and why shouldn't they be? I imagine most farangs would be as well, if they too were it's true subjects.

It is hard to imagine anyone who is not tired of the system, well I can think of a small group, but that's all.

If you are a true subject you would be happy with the system, no?

Edited August 24, 2010 by canuckamuck

[ianf]

Perhaps the next wave of social outrage (post red) will be led from within and with the right leader who has the people's agenda as his own.

And what would be the chances, do you think, of such a leader ever gaining the kind of support among party cohorts and big business which would give him a shot at being PM?

The fact that Taksin has been the best thing for the 'masses' in living memory is an indictment of the entire political system itself. Yet the fact remains that he really was. So what do you expect the reds to do? Condemn the best leader they ever had because he was as corrupt as so many others?

It's the whole system that the reds are fed up with, and why shouldn't they be? I imagine most farangs would be as well, if they too were it's true subjects.

Wrong. Thaksin was the best manipulator of the masses, not the best thing that happened to them! Even as owner of the Man City Football Club the staff there could see right through him, thought he was a fool and cheered when he left. The man is dangerous. Period.

[ogb]

[The man is dangerous. Period.

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

Before you bring it up, I agree his drug war was poorly executed (pun intended), but it was popular and it did alleviate a very serious problem (for a while).

It also seems to have been supported in high places.

Next you will probably bring up Tak Bai and Krue Se, but neither can be attributed to Thaksin, even though he did the usual trick of defending the indefensible (like PM Abhisit did with the Rohingya boat towing and continues to do with the killing of innocents including foreign journalists)

In summary, Thaksin is not the root of all evil in Thailand, and it's time people got over that fantasy.

Edited August 25, 2010 by ogb

[Piengrudee]

In my summary, Thaksin is the root of all evil in Thailand, and it's time people got over that fantasy.

[rixalex]

[The man is dangerous. Period.

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

Who are you accusing of having done that?

[ogb]

[The man is dangerous. Period.

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

Who are you accusing of having done that?

Sorry, but if you don't know by now, I doubt you ever will :sleepy:

[Ulysses G.]

The man is dangerous. Period.

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

He certainly would have if protesters had started demanding one before it was meant to be held.

Do you think for a moment that he would have not completely crushed any anti-government protests like the one that he sponsored in Bangkok? What Abhisit was finally forced into doing would not even come close to comparing to what Thaksin would have done in a similar situation. Thaksin does not mamby pamby around about trying to save lives.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[ogb]

The man is dangerous. Period.

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

He certainly would have if protesters had started demanding one before it was meant to be held.

Do you think for a moment that he would have not completely crushed any anti-government protests like the one that he sponsored in Bangkok? What Abhisit was finally forced into doing would not even come close to comparing to what Thaksin would have done in a similar situation. Thaksin does not mamby pamby around about trying to save lives.

Here we go again!

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

(btw, it might be instructive if you go back and look at the statements by Abhisit when he was opposition leader against Thaksin, Samak & Somchai, to see how he expected a PM to act)

Hope you are having as much fun as I am

Edited August 25, 2010 by ogb

[Ulysses G.]

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

They were NOTHING like the one that he payrolled.

[sbk]

Here we go again!

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

(btw, it might be instructive if you go back and look at the statements by Abhisit when he was opposition leader against Thaksin, Samak & Somchai, to see how he expected a PM to act)

Hope you are having as much fun as I am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tak_Bai_Incident

[rixalex]

[The man is dangerous. Period.

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

Who are you accusing of having done that?

Sorry, but if you don't know by now, I doubt you ever will :sleepy:

Making an accusation is easy. The hard work comes in explaining why. If you are not prepared to do that you are wasting your time.

[ogb]

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

They were NOTHING like the one that he payrolled.

Who funded the big one against him?

(or do you still think it was a non violent coup?)

Edited August 25, 2010 by ogb

[ogb]

Here we go again!

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

(btw, it might be instructive if you go back and look at the statements by Abhisit when he was opposition leader against Thaksin, Samak & Somchai, to see how he expected a PM to act)

Hope you are having as much fun as I am

http://en.wikipedia....ak_Bai_Incident

The money quote: "no members of the security forces responsible were brought to justice"

[ogb]

Did he kill ever to avoid an election?

Who are you accusing of having done that?

Sorry, but if you don't know by now, I doubt you ever will :sleepy:

Making an accusation is easy. The hard work comes in explaining why. If you are not prepared to do that you are wasting your time.

Thanks, but I already worked out I was wasting my time

[Ulysses G.]

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

They were NOTHING like the one that he pay rolled.

Who funded the big one against him?

(or do you still think it was a non violent coup?)

What does the coup have to do with your claim that he was "tolerant" of protests and why do you try to dismiss solid evidence that he was not?

Edited August 25, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[ogb]

Thaksin faced many protests, and was generally reasonably tolerant of them.

They were NOTHING like the one that he pay rolled.

Who funded the big one against him?

(or do you still think it was a non violent coup?)

What does the coup have to do with your claim that he was "tolerant" of protests and why do you try to dismiss solid evidence that he was not?

The protests by redshirts are a direct result of the military coup - prior to the coup, UDD (redshirts) did not even exist - they formed as a reaction to the coup.

Personally I don't doubt that Thaksin contributed to the protest funding (if I was deposed by a coup I would definitely contribute to the main movement opposed to that coup).

But he was by no means the only contributor, and you should know that redshirts were holding fundraising events for several months prior to the 2010 protests - to deny that is blind ignorance.

The more interesting question is who funded the PAD and the military coup?

[Ulysses G.]

You certainly like to split hairs and keep changing the subject. No one is denying that there was fund-raising done, but that was a mere drop in the bucket compared to the main benefactor's funds.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[rixalex]

Thanks, but I already worked out I was wasting my time

It's not only your time that you are wasting. Have a thought for mine and everybody else's.

[Ulysses G.]

I must concur.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Piengrudee]

If Thailand can provide more education to the Red-shirt, perhaps they may turn Yellow.

[wolf5370]

Why do you lot bother? You are never going to agree. Both 'sides' throw up propoganda and half truths at eachother or start the 'your-wrong-was-worse-than-mine' crap. Anyone can argue as easily that both Thaksin's last 'government' and the current onr were not voted for by the populous, both are as valid or invalid as eachother. The coup is historic, it happend, its over - deal with it. The poeple have a right to a fair goverment that will look after their social needs and support them - does anyone actually believe either camp is going to offer that? Abhisit could be a good PM, but he has too much baggage around him and too many strings pinning him down and manauvering him. While the reds continually attack, there is little he can do - and certainly the time to spend on social change is when the coffers are full - with ongoing troubles, the coffers are being drained and less is going in. The only real solution would be to wait, give him a chance and in a years time vote him in or out on results and not propoganda. This will give the reds time to bring forth a new unsoiled leader from the rank and file as a challenger. The poor have waited millennia for fairness here, will one more year really hurt them? Of course not. Will it hurt the red's movemeant in regard to their social reform policies? No. Will it hurt the red leaders that are using the rank and file to put them back into power and status quo? Lets hope so.

[ogb]

Why do you lot bother? You are never going to agree. Both 'sides' throw up propoganda and half truths at eachother or start the 'your-wrong-was-worse-than-mine' crap. Anyone can argue as easily that both Thaksin's last 'government' and the current onr were not voted for by the populous, both are as valid or invalid as eachother. The coup is historic, it happend, its over - deal with it. The poeple have a right to a fair goverment that will look after their social needs and support them - does anyone actually believe either camp is going to offer that? Abhisit could be a good PM, but he has too much baggage around him and too many strings pinning him down and manauvering him. While the reds continually attack, there is little he can do - and certainly the time to spend on social change is when the coffers are full - with ongoing troubles, the coffers are being drained and less is going in. The only real solution would be to wait, give him a chance and in a years time vote him in or out on results and not propoganda. This will give the reds time to bring forth a new unsoiled leader from the rank and file as a challenger. The poor have waited millennia for fairness here, will one more year really hurt them? Of course not. Will it hurt the red's movemeant in regard to their social reform policies? No. Will it hurt the red leaders that are using the rank and file to put them back into power and status quo? Lets hope so.

Agree up to a point, but would you bury your head in the sand after so many of your kind have been killed?

and when so many are still being detained, denied bail, (when their opponents are roaming free and some even in senior positions in government)?

btw, not all the leaders are Thaksin lackeys, but I accept the movement would never have got so big without Thaksin.

[ogb]

If Thailand can provide more education to the Red-shirt, perhaps they may turn Yellow.

What's brainwashing got to do with education?

[rixalex]

Why do you lot bother? You are never going to agree. Both 'sides' throw up propoganda and half truths at eachother or start the 'your-wrong-was-worse-than-mine' crap. Anyone can argue as easily that both Thaksin's last 'government' and the current onr were not voted for by the populous, both are as valid or invalid as eachother. The coup is historic, it happend, its over - deal with it. The poeple have a right to a fair goverment that will look after their social needs and support them - does anyone actually believe either camp is going to offer that? Abhisit could be a good PM, but he has too much baggage around him and too many strings pinning him down and manauvering him. While the reds continually attack, there is little he can do - and certainly the time to spend on social change is when the coffers are full - with ongoing troubles, the coffers are being drained and less is going in. The only real solution would be to wait, give him a chance and in a years time vote him in or out on results and not propoganda. This will give the reds time to bring forth a new unsoiled leader from the rank and file as a challenger. The poor have waited millennia for fairness here, will one more year really hurt them? Of course not. Will it hurt the red's movemeant in regard to their social reform policies? No. Will it hurt the red leaders that are using the rank and file to put them back into power and status quo? Lets hope so.

Why bother? Well you did.

Ending discussions for lack of agreement is better than continuing them in the hope of finding it? Really? No, not for me.

The rest of your post is spot on the money.

[wolf5370]

Personally, ignoring all the bad things that happened, I think the red's occupation of Bangkok succeeded in the only way it needed to - it raised the profile of the poor, showed that they would and could be rallied, and therefore put them squarely on the agenda - this is why I think a calming session of 'wait and see' is really needed. The reds money is best spent right now on political pressure and legal advice for those you mention. As to the Yellows, unfortunatly, to the vistor goes the spoils - again legal recourse could be sought after an election and a legitimate government takes seat (assuming it is not more of the same of course). I think there are probably those in government that would like to see the yellows that are awaiting trial to be stood down and for the legal process to be accelerated (if nothing else than to get it out of the red's arsenal); problem is, again, with potential troubles always looming and continual attack, the government (such as it is) needs all the allies it can muster.

In short, they have made their point, so sit back and see how it cascades (or not) - and if it doesn't then put their own guy in next time around.

I think part of the problem here is there are too many tiny parties - I think a two round election is needed to get the 3 or 4 big guys though and then to choose between them - otherwise its always going to be coallition.

Edited August 25, 2010 by wolf5370

[Ulysses G.]

Why do you lot bother?

[ogb]

Personally, ignoring all the bad things that happened, I think the red's occupation of Bangkok succeeded in the only way it needed to - it raised the profile of the poor, showed that they would and could be rallied, and therefore put them squarely on the agenda - this is why I think a calming session of 'wait and see' is really needed. The reds money is best spent right now on political pressure and legal advice for those you mention. As to the Yellows, unfortunatly, to the vistor goes the spoils - again legal recourse could be sought after an election and a legitimate government takes seat (assuming it is not more of the same of course). I think there are probably those in government that would like to see the yellows that are awaiting trial to be stood down and for the legal process to be accelerated (if nothing else than to get it out of the red's arsenal); problem is, again, with potential troubles always looming and continual attack, the government (such as it is) needs all the allies it can muster.

In short, they have made their point, so sit back and see how it cascades (or not) - and if it doesn't then put their own guy in next time around.

I think part of the problem here is there are too many tiny parties - I think a two round election is needed to get the 3 or 4 big guys though and then to choose between them - otherwise its always going to be coallition.

Agree

(except I'm wondering will the atrocities ever stop if they keep getting covered up, swept aside in the name of unity/harmony?)

[wolf5370]

Why do you lot bother? You are never going to agree. Both 'sides' throw up propoganda and half truths at eachother or start the 'your-wrong-was-worse-than-mine' crap. Anyone can argue as easily that both Thaksin's last 'government' and the current onr were not voted for by the populous, both are as valid or invalid as eachother. The coup is historic, it happend, its over - deal with it. The poeple have a right to a fair goverment that will look after their social needs and support them - does anyone actually believe either camp is going to offer that? Abhisit could be a good PM, but he has too much baggage around him and too many strings pinning him down and manauvering him. While the reds continually attack, there is little he can do - and certainly the time to spend on social change is when the coffers are full - with ongoing troubles, the coffers are being drained and less is going in. The only real solution would be to wait, give him a chance and in a years time vote him in or out on results and not propoganda. This will give the reds time to bring forth a new unsoiled leader from the rank and file as a challenger. The poor have waited millennia for fairness here, will one more year really hurt them? Of course not. Will it hurt the red's movemeant in regard to their social reform policies? No. Will it hurt the red leaders that are using the rank and file to put them back into power and status quo? Lets hope so.

Why bother? Well you did.

Ending discussions for lack of agreement is better than continuing them in the hope of finding it? Really? No, not for me.

The rest of your post is spot on the money.

Beg to differ, but I did not throw any red/yellow propaganda or half truths - and I did not say whom I support (if anyone). As to ending a discussion, I never said that either. I just believe that the only way you will ever reach an understanding is to use your own minds and look at the situation as it is now and how it could be better etc - not regurgatating sound bites that have been done to death a million times already. What has happened until now is past, it can't be unpicked, it is well that a discussio may take the form of prosecution etc of that which has gone, but that is not the same discussion as 'what next?' or even 'did it work?' Both sides have valid points, and have done wrongs, reading out lists to eachother all day is not looking for agreemnet - it's looking for submission.