Reds Back Out In Chiang Mai

[hanuman1]

If a person thinks two wrongs make a right, should a person who thinks otherwise feel morally superior? Let us stroke our beards thoughtfully and discuss....

Let me check ... YES!

Okay, so the first wrong made a right and the second wrong would just be plain wrong, and the situation now is still right. I'm starting to feel like Donald Rumsfeldt. Time for a break, perhaps.

Edited August 26, 2010 by hanuman1

[rixalex]

Please rest assured, I don't want to do anything at all with your arse

A relief to us both.

I'm inclined to agree though that if there were a coup now the reds would probably celebrate under the principle of 'two wrongs (read coups) making a right'. Now, whether two wrongs actually do make a right is a moral question and open to debate. If a person thinks two wrongs make a right, should a person who thinks otherwise feel morally superior? Let us stroke our beards thoughtfully and discuss....

So all that stuff about the red shirts wanting true democracy was bunkum then.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, TV CM Friends,

We cannot help but agree with Khun Sao Jiang Mai's comment: "none of us could have forseen the political developments over the last decade."

We'd take that one step further, and predict that none of us (farang) can forsee the political developments of the next month, year, or decade here in Amazing Thailand.

When we see terms like "democracy," or "true democracy," used here, we do wonder what people are talking about. Our human component was manufactured in America: Is it interesting to note that the words: "democrat," "democratic," "democracy" do not appear at all in the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution ?

The "Declaration" does not use the words "republic," or "republican." The word: "republican" appears twice in the Constitution: once as the title of section 4 and once in the body of section 4. The words: "federal" and "federation" do not appear in the Constitution although the word "confderation" appears there several times. "Federation" and "federal" do not appear in the Declaration. If by "democracy" you mean "one person gets one vote" : how long did it take America to achieve the suffrage of women and people of color ?

Do we analyze/evaluate Thailand in terms of our own countries, while conveniently erasing the bloody past of our own countries' historical struggles to reach a relatively democratic and emancipated stage ? Do we dwell on Thailand's "corruption" while forgeting the daily headlines in our home countries' newspapers that expose "bad things in high places" with the high frequency of infidelities on teevee soap operas ?

You got answers ? We got only: questions.

And, here's what some of America's so-called "founding fathers" had to say about "democracy' :

Thomas Jefferson : "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Paine : "The first duty of a patriot is to defend the citizens of a country from its government."

John Quincy Adams : "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

Benjamin Franklin : "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

What most concerns us is the educational system in Thailand: the Nation had an eloquent editorial on that on August 23: Save Our Failed School System

We can only sincerely hope that Thai people find their own unique system of government that helps each individual citizen achieve their human potential with dignity. The "Thai solution" may not make "perfect sense" to those who like to reduce history to simple dynamics, like "class struggle," and that may not make sense to a lot of westerners in terms of where they came from.

Why should it make sense to farang ?

And, we can only hope, that the vast sea of blood spilled in America's violent struggles, including a nation-sundering civil war, is not paralled here.

best, ~o:37;

Edited August 26, 2010 by orang37

[ogb]

If Anupong mounted a coup tomorrow and threw Abhisit out the reds to a man would be out on the streets celebrating, and don't tell me they wouldn't.

What are you smoking?

If Anupong mounted a coup against Abhisit he wouldn't be installing a red sympathizer as PM - my guess is it would be perennial apologist Anand, as some of the Khao Yai encroachment mud has stuck to Surayud (as well as his Royal Hotel antics in 1992, and generally lack lustre performance as installed PM last time)

In the unlikely event that a military coup ever was mounted in favour of the reds, it would have to be a fait accompli, otherwise I predict Juan Carlos would be chanelled

Edited August 26, 2010 by ogb

[rixalex]

If Anupong mounted a coup tomorrow and threw Abhisit out the reds to a man would be out on the streets celebrating, and don't tell me they wouldn't.

What are you smoking?

If Anupong mounted a coup against Abhisit he wouldn't be installing a red sympathizer as PM - my guess is it would be perennial apologist Anand, as some of the Khao Yai encroachment mud has stuck to Surayud (as well as his Royal Hotel antics in 1992, and generally lack lustre performance as installed PM last time)

In the unlikely event that a military coup ever was mounted in favour of the reds, it would have to be a fait accompli, otherwise I predict Juan Carlos would be chanelled

If means suppose that, it does not mean this is what i am predicting will happen. Is the concept of hypothesizing new to you?

[ogb]

If means suppose that, it does not mean this is what i am predicting will happen. Is the concept of hypothesizing new to you?

No point hypothesizing about something that would never happen the way you inferred, and to even imagine it would means you know very little about what's really been going on in Thailand

[Ulysses G.]

Bangkok Post reports on breaking news that only 100 showed up at Chiang Mia City Hall for protest.

I did not see anyone wearing black today in CM. Weren't Thais who were sympathetic to the cause supposed to do so?

[rixalex]

If means suppose that, it does not mean this is what i am predicting will happen. Is the concept of hypothesizing new to you?

No point hypothesizing about something that would never happen the way you inferred, and to even imagine it would means you know very little about what's really been going on in Thailand

What a smart argument. Here's another that i'm sure makes complete sense to you:

Man: I'm completely opposed to any type of abortion. I abhore it.

Woman: OK, but how would you feel if you were a woman and you were raped and then became pregnant? Would you not consider abortion then?

Man: I'm a man! How could i get pregnant?! Plus i'm butt ugly - who would want to rape me?! Don't be daft woman! There's no point hypothesing about something that would never happen now, is there?!

Your refusal to hypothesize how the reds would react if there was a coup tomorrow and Abhisit was kicked out has nothing to do with the likelihood (or the unlikelihood) of it happening, but everything to do with the fact that you know the answer and you don't like it or what it implies.

I might disagree with hanuman1 but at least he has the grace to answer honestly.

Edited August 26, 2010 by rixalex

[ogb]

If means suppose that, it does not mean this is what i am predicting will happen. Is the concept of hypothesizing new to you?

No point hypothesizing about something that would never happen the way you inferred, and to even imagine it would means you know very little about what's really been going on in Thailand

What a smart argument. Here's another that i'm sure makes complete sense to you:

Man: I'm completely opposed to any type of abortion. I abhore it.

Woman: OK, but how would you feel if you were a woman and you were raped and then became pregnant? Would you not consider abortion then?

Man: I'm a man! How could i get pregnant?! Plus i'm butt ugly - who would want to rape me?! Don't be daft woman! There's no point hypothesing about something that would never happen now, is there?!

Your refusal to hypothesize how the reds would react if there was a coup tomorrow and Abhisit was kicked out has nothing to do with the likelihood (or the unlikelihood) of it happening, but everything to do with the fact that you know the answer and you don't like it or what it implies.

I'm sure reds includes some fools who would welcome the impossible (a sympathetic coup), but I expect the vast majority would reject a coup knowing it to be a very slippery slope that they don't want to slide down.

btw, there's a lady sitting in a Thai jail for 18 years for explaining how bad coups are for democracy, and how they could have been eliminated from the Thai political landscape.

[Ulysses G.]

I'm sure reds includes some fools who would welcome the impossible (a sympathetic coup), but I expect the vast majority would reject a coup...

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Thaksin would be all for it.

[rixalex]

I'm sure reds includes some fools who would welcome the impossible (a sympathetic coup), but I expect the vast majority would reject a coup knowing it to be a very slippery slope that they don't want to slide down.

Well the vast majority of reds have not rejected buses being burnt, bombs being thrown, a tanker being threatened to be blown up... Bangkok being held to ransom and parts of it burnt to the ground... and yet you expect me to believe that these same people would take a stand on principal and would reject a coup that helped place them in power?!!!

Who exactly is it you think you are kidding?

[hanuman1]

I'm sure reds includes some fools who would welcome the impossible (a sympathetic coup), but I expect the vast majority would reject a coup knowing it to be a very slippery slope that they don't want to slide down.

Well the vast majority of reds have not rejected buses being burnt, bombs being thrown, a tanker being threatened to be blown up... Bangkok being held to ransom and parts of it burnt to the ground...

How do you know? Did you ask them? Or do they need to walk around with 'I Reject Violence' placards before your paranoia and contempt for them can abate.

[realthaideal]

As it says in The Old Testament : Nothing new under the sun.

As my old friends Led Zepplin remind me: Communication Breakdown - it's always the same !......I'm having a nervous breakdown - drive me insane!

And here, Farang on Farang, we find our way to the same old jam........

Oy vey !

[Throatwobbler]

@ cmfun

in britian it's illegal to incite violence and hatred; most "civillised countries",as you condesendingly put it, have such laws curtaling absolute free speech in recognition of the need to protect society and people from those who would do a great deal of harm.

Corruption does need to be dealt with but you can't seriously b looking to the reds to root it out with their track record. I know dems are prity shadey Aswell but at least it looks like pm is trying to limits or stop what he can, for example this dodgey deal of ngv buses the former Tside coalition partners are pushing for. It won't b easy with such endemic corruption but with time and patience oldskool will be replaced with new and I'd trust abhisit to choose better than one of these red mafia esq bully boys.

The millitary being a part of politics is no bad thing; if no king and millitary Thailand would have been collonised, subjected to communism and be in a simillarly sorry state like Cambodia or Burma.

There is no law in England curtailing protesting or commenting on ANY institution - this is not absolute free speech but a basic human right in any civilised country - this is so basic a human right I am amazed you challenge it

Hate speech is not allowed. Do you think the BNP would be allowed to get away with broadcasting their hateful speech over the British airwaves. Look what happened to the Islam preacher who was preaching hate at the mosques.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Throatwobbler

[Throatwobbler]

There is a HUGE difference between a bus boycott in Alabama and an armed insurrection in Bangkok 50 years later. Trying to compare a non-violent movement with an ultra-violent movement isn't sensible.

After April and May in BKK, and with the Red's history of violence in Chiang Mai they scare people; and rightfully so!

Small correction but I thought the ultra violence came from the army.

The movement and it's leadership is/was ultra-violent. The threats were constant and made before they even went to BKK. The response was slow and measured. I think the army and the government showed great restraint. You are free NOT to agree, but the deaths, whoever they are eventually attributed to, lay at the feet of the red leadership that promised the violence from the red stages.

Walk in ... unarmed ... promising non-violence ... and have a 'sit-in'? A whole different kettle of fish than going in armed after promising to burn down BKK.

Wasn't the protest peaceful when it started back in March, when the numbers were high?

The burn Bkk threats seemed to mainly come as a deterrent to violent dispersal, which looked an increasing probability as, like in April 2009, the Democrat led government was again most fortunate in having a certain powerfully aligned military regiment on its side, and the redshirts in their desperation were foolish to accept help from certain rogue military elements that were opposed to the aforementioned powerfully aligned regiment)

At the same time PM Abhisit had acted completely contradictory to the way he advised the PPP government should have acted when faced with the PAD protests, occupation of government house & airports (see previous quote for an example)

The other thing to remember that the redshirt protests are a response to a military coup, backed up by judicial intervention (which has over-ridden the winners of the previous 4 national elections), so their anger is certainly justified. It is well documented that injustice leads to violence, so personally I am quite surprised that they have remained relatively peaceful for so long.

I know all hel_l would break loose in most wetern democracies if similar events had happened in those countries.

The burn Bangkok threats started before the protest in Bangkok began.

[Throatwobbler]

Unless you grasp the basics of why the reds are angry then you just don't 'get it'

I think that we all know why Thaksin is angry and that is what really counts.

The reds are not all about Thaksin - and you should know better than that - there are deeper cultural issues, issues about poverty, issues about health and education - it's also not about 'reds' actually - it's about can this country 'develop' without corruption and violence and manipulation.

This is about cultural shift, paradigm shift, about people wanting a better life. A lot of the other stuff around it is just 'noise' around this shift. It cannot be stopped, although the 'ones in power' will do their damndest to try to halt it. The outward shows of violence are to be deplored and are the result of the uneducated and angry giving vent to their frustration and this has to be curtailed.

But the onward march of change cannot be likewise abandoned nor stilted for very long.

You realy do believe the red propaganda machine don't you. Unfortunately I belive the reds on the ground want this. However this is not what the red shirt leaders want. Never was and never will be. They have to tell their lies to the poor to get the numbers on the street. Now if a true movement appeared who were truthful in their goals for getting social equality then they would have my whole support.

[mccw]

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

the south is exactly the kind of emotional nonsensical violence that reds coulddescend into if not stopped.

Burma is a reasonable annalogy of what Thailand could b like right now if thaksin was not stopped when he was and allowed to take controll the army.

Red menace needs dealing with!

[ogb]

Red menace needs dealing with!

I thought Rambo was already with the reds

[ThaiPauly]

This thread is starting to spiral downwards.

Having followed it closely I think that all members that have posted have had a chance to air thier views on this subject so i am closing it.

///Closed//