Thai Red Shirts Head North For Coup, Crackdown Rallies

[webfact]

Thai 'Reds' head north for coup, crackdown rallies

BANGKOK (AFP) -- A convoy of Thai "Red Shirts" headed to their northern heartland Saturday for rallies marking four years since the coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra and four months since deadly protests ended.

The procession of 80 cars, vans and pickup trucks snaked out of the Thai capital as 200 members of the anti-government movement made their way to Chiang Mai, protest leaders said.

Demonstrators are converging on Chiang Mai, the former stronghold of the fugitive former prime minister Thaksin, for a rally Sunday marking the 2006 coup that swept him from power.

Reds are also Sunday set to gather at Bangkok's Ratchaprasong intersection that was the focus of their April-May protest, during which 91 people were killed and nearly 1,900 were injured, to release 10,000 red balloons.

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, leader of one Red faction, said the rallies would call for authorities to free all political prisoners, reform the courts with the introduction of a jury system, as well as other land and economic measures.

"Our first demand is to release all political prisoners," he said.

Somyot said he expects 10,000 protesters to join the demonstration in Chiang Mai -- compared to an official estimate of 1,000.

He said some prominent Red leaders, still at large and wanted by police over the April and May demonstrations, would find a way to address protesters from hiding.

On Friday 1,000 people gathered outside Bangkok's remand prison to show solidarity with 19 senior Reds jailed for having key roles in the two-month protest that ended in a bloody army crackdown on May 19.

None has been convicted of any crime related to that rally.

Bangkok, which is still under a state of emergency along with six other provinces, will have an army-run command centre monitoring activities and there will be another in Chiang Mai, although the decree has been lifted there.

Authorities are also planning to be out in force, with about 900 police in charge of Chiang Mai and around 3,000 plain clothes and uniformed officers mobilised in Bangkok.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-09-18

[otherstuff1957]

So they headed out of town toward Chiang Mai... GOOD! Maybe the can go cause trouble up there instead of in Bangkok again.

[hanuman1]

And the winner of the 'Most Mystifying Headline of the Day' award goes to.....

[rubl]

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, leader of one Red faction, said the rallies would call for authorities to free all political prisoners, reform the courts with the introduction of a jury system, as well as other land and economic measures.

"Our first demand is to release all political prisoners," he said.

Have asked this before I think, or is it just 'deja vu': which political prisoners ?

[Lifer]

So they headed out of town toward Chiang Mai... GOOD! Maybe the can go cause trouble up there instead of in Bangkok again.

What a stupid comment to make. Why would you wish that on anybody living anywhere?

[otherstuff1957]

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, leader of one Red faction, said the rallies would call for authorities to free all political prisoners, reform the courts with the introduction of a jury system, as well as other land and economic measures.

"Our first demand is to release all political prisoners," he said.

Have asked this before I think, or is it just 'deja vu': which political prisoners ?

The ones who burned down the Provincial Halls upcountry, Central World and tried to burn the SET Bldg and various Subway Stations as well as the BJT bombers. You know.... political prisoners

[mca]

And the winner of the 'Most Mystifying Headline of the Day' award goes to.....

Yeah. I thought " Shit it's all going to go off a la 2006 " with the flip flop on the other foot so to speak.

[hanuman1]

So they headed out of town toward Chiang Mai... GOOD! Maybe the can go cause trouble up there instead of in Bangkok again.

What a stupid comment to make. Why would you wish that on anybody living anywhere?

It seems the so-called red-bashers are far more venomous in their language than the so-called 'red-lovers'. One minute they're denouncing violent action, the next wishing it upon others. That moral high ground sure is slippery under foot....

Edited September 18, 2010 by hanuman1

[Jingthing]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

[craigt3365]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

For sure...but I was amazed to see them burn down their own provincial halls. That was just plain crazy...pure violence.

[Jingthing]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

For sure...but I was amazed to see them burn down their own provincial halls. That was just plain crazy...pure violence.

They likely symbolized control from Bangkok to them.

[hanuman1]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

That reminds me of what happened in Chiang Mai during the troubles in BKK. Of course the violence was nothing like in BKK but one of the things that happened was that a fire truck was torched. It seemed foolish for people to torch something that could be beneficial to themselves, but the way it was explained to me was that they were going after any symbols of governance (in this case, local authority) to display their displeasure at the wider issues involved.

If burning their own houses could easily be correlated to a central message, they might have done that too. But what political statement does burning your own house make?

PS - I feel I have to clarify for the benefit of the slower so-called 'red-bashers' among the readership that I in no way condone violence of any type.

[rubl]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

That reminds me of what happened in Chiang Mai during the troubles in BKK. Of course the violence was nothing like in BKK but one of the things that happened was that a fire truck was torched. It seemed foolish for people to torch something that could be beneficial to themselves, but the way it was explained to me was that they were going after any symbols of governance (in this case, local authority) to display their displeasure at the wider issues involved.

If burning their own houses could easily be correlated to a central message, they might have done that too. But what political statement does burning your own house make?

PS - I feel I have to clarify for the benefit of the slower so-called 'red-bashers' among the readership that I in no way condone violence of any type.

Symbols of authority, makes sense. Mind you 'authority of the others' is probably more correct. In Bangkok the torching of buildings was a bit selective.

[hanuman1]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

That reminds me of what happened in Chiang Mai during the troubles in BKK. Of course the violence was nothing like in BKK but one of the things that happened was that a fire truck was torched. It seemed foolish for people to torch something that could be beneficial to themselves, but the way it was explained to me was that they were going after any symbols of governance (in this case, local authority) to display their displeasure at the wider issues involved.

If burning their own houses could easily be correlated to a central message, they might have done that too. But what political statement does burning your own house make?

PS - I feel I have to clarify for the benefit of the slower so-called 'red-bashers' among the readership that I in no way condone violence of any type.

Symbols of authority, makes sense. Mind you 'authority of the others' is probably more correct. In Bangkok the torching of buildings was a bit selective.

So following your logic, if we look more closely at the owners, patrons and general enablers of these places that were targetted, we might get a better understanding of the 'others' that were the subject of the arsonists' ire. And maybe, just maybe, this criminality is just an unwelcome side effect of a more general discontent among so called 'red-leaning' people nationwide.

Could it be? Surely not...

[rubl]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

That reminds me of what happened in Chiang Mai during the troubles in BKK. Of course the violence was nothing like in BKK but one of the things that happened was that a fire truck was torched. It seemed foolish for people to torch something that could be beneficial to themselves, but the way it was explained to me was that they were going after any symbols of governance (in this case, local authority) to display their displeasure at the wider issues involved.

If burning their own houses could easily be correlated to a central message, they might have done that too. But what political statement does burning your own house make?

PS - I feel I have to clarify for the benefit of the slower so-called 'red-bashers' among the readership that I in no way condone violence of any type.

Symbols of authority, makes sense. Mind you 'authority of the others' is probably more correct. In Bangkok the torching of buildings was a bit selective.

So following your logic, if we look more closely at the owners, patrons and general enablers of these places that were targetted, we might get a better understanding of the 'others' that were the subject of the arsonists' ire. And maybe, just maybe, this criminality is just an unwelcome side effect of a more general discontent among so called 'red-leaning' people nationwide.

Could it be? Surely not...

In Bangkok on the 19th - 20th arson was selective. nothing to do with poor red-shirt grievances. UDD leaders and backers hitting at opponents, surely yes! "Burn it my way"

"Bangkok governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra told reporters on June 1 that he believed many of the arson attacks were "premeditated". Sukhumbhand noted that the CentralWorld department store across from the UDD's Rajaprasong protest stage was torched while several other high-end hotels in the area, including the Hyatt Erawan and InterContinental, were left untouched because their owners had political connections to the UDD.

UDD leaders had earlier hinted they would resort to arson attacks in response to any government crackdown. In a widely viewed YouTube clip, UDD hardline leader Arisman Pongruangrong urged a group of provincial "red shirt" protesters preparing to travel to Bangkok to carry a liter of petrol each to ignite possible arson attacks. Other UDD leaders issued similarly incendiary threats.

"We, the UDD, are poor and rural people. We can easily get panicked, especially when the soldiers charge in. When we are panicked, we will smash glass windows of these luxurious shopping malls and run amok inside ... and when we are inside we can freely pick up brand-name bags or other expensive goods," UDD co-leader Nattawut Saikua said at the Rajaprasong protest stage on April 8. "You should actually start thinking what do you want for yourself or your friends if you get panicked and go inside those shopping malls.""

[hanuman1]

That reminds me of what happened in Chiang Mai during the troubles in BKK. Of course the violence was nothing like in BKK but one of the things that happened was that a fire truck was torched. It seemed foolish for people to torch something that could be beneficial to themselves, but the way it was explained to me was that they were going after any symbols of governance (in this case, local authority) to display their displeasure at the wider issues involved.

If burning their own houses could easily be correlated to a central message, they might have done that too. But what political statement does burning your own house make?

PS - I feel I have to clarify for the benefit of the slower so-called 'red-bashers' among the readership that I in no way condone violence of any type.

Symbols of authority, makes sense. Mind you 'authority of the others' is probably more correct. In Bangkok the torching of buildings was a bit selective.

So following your logic, if we look more closely at the owners, patrons and general enablers of these places that were targetted, we might get a better understanding of the 'others' that were the subject of the arsonists' ire. And maybe, just maybe, this criminality is just an unwelcome side effect of a more general discontent among so called 'red-leaning' people nationwide.

Could it be? Surely not...

In Bangkok on the 19th - 20th arson was selective. nothing to do with poor red-shirt grievances. UDD leaders and backers hitting at opponents, surely yes! "Burn it my way"

"Bangkok governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra told reporters on June 1 that he believed many of the arson attacks were "premeditated". Sukhumbhand noted that the CentralWorld department store across from the UDD's Rajaprasong protest stage was torched while several other high-end hotels in the area, including the Hyatt Erawan and InterContinental, were left untouched because their owners had political connections to the UDD.

UDD leaders had earlier hinted they would resort to arson attacks in response to any government crackdown. In a widely viewed YouTube clip, UDD hardline leader Arisman Pongruangrong urged a group of provincial "red shirt" protesters preparing to travel to Bangkok to carry a liter of petrol each to ignite possible arson attacks. Other UDD leaders issued similarly incendiary threats.

"We, the UDD, are poor and rural people. We can easily get panicked, especially when the soldiers charge in. When we are panicked, we will smash glass windows of these luxurious shopping malls and run amok inside ... and when we are inside we can freely pick up brand-name bags or other expensive goods," UDD co-leader Nattawut Saikua said at the Rajaprasong protest stage on April 8. "You should actually start thinking what do you want for yourself or your friends if you get panicked and go inside those shopping malls.""

Okay, so we know why certain places were NOT torched. But do we know who were the major stakeholders in the places that DID get torched? Surely they are more significant because a lot of places didn't get torched and they weren't all owned by UDD-associated people.

[rubl]

Symbols of authority, makes sense. Mind you 'authority of the others' is probably more correct. In Bangkok the torching of buildings was a bit selective.

So following your logic, if we look more closely at the owners, patrons and general enablers of these places that were targetted, we might get a better understanding of the 'others' that were the subject of the arsonists' ire. And maybe, just maybe, this criminality is just an unwelcome side effect of a more general discontent among so called 'red-leaning' people nationwide.

Could it be? Surely not...

In Bangkok on the 19th - 20th arson was selective. nothing to do with poor red-shirt grievances. UDD leaders and backers hitting at opponents, surely yes! "Burn it my way"

"Bangkok governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra told reporters on June 1 that he believed many of the arson attacks were "premeditated". Sukhumbhand noted that the CentralWorld department store across from the UDD's Rajaprasong protest stage was torched while several other high-end hotels in the area, including the Hyatt Erawan and InterContinental, were left untouched because their owners had political connections to the UDD.

UDD leaders had earlier hinted they would resort to arson attacks in response to any government crackdown. In a widely viewed YouTube clip, UDD hardline leader Arisman Pongruangrong urged a group of provincial "red shirt" protesters preparing to travel to Bangkok to carry a liter of petrol each to ignite possible arson attacks. Other UDD leaders issued similarly incendiary threats.

"We, the UDD, are poor and rural people. We can easily get panicked, especially when the soldiers charge in. When we are panicked, we will smash glass windows of these luxurious shopping malls and run amok inside ... and when we are inside we can freely pick up brand-name bags or other expensive goods," UDD co-leader Nattawut Saikua said at the Rajaprasong protest stage on April 8. "You should actually start thinking what do you want for yourself or your friends if you get panicked and go inside those shopping malls.""

Okay, so we know why certain places were NOT torched. But do we know who were the major stakeholders in the places that DID get torched? Surely they are more significant because a lot of places didn't get torched and they weren't all owned by UDD-associated people.

Excellent, you're comments improve.

CentralWorld is owned by the Central Group (Chirathivat family). BigC is partially owned by the same family. Main rival is The Mall Group which owns Paragon and Emporium a.o. (name of family ....?). Bangkok Bank Ltd seen as having financial links with K. Prem. 7/11's Charoen Pokphand Group. ATM's burned/looted: many banks. public telephones: TOT, TRUE, etc. MRT Khlong Toei: standing in the way only. etc., etc.

You go figure, I had enough of this nonsense.

[bdenner]

The point is it was cowardly of the red shirters to attack Bangkok. They were mostly not from Bangkok. Do you see them burning down their OWN houses?

For sure...but I was amazed to see them burn down their own provincial halls. That was just plain crazy...pure violence.

That's exactly what happened here in Udon Thani and while Udon Burned the Army just played their fiddle and the police too shlt scared or red shirted to do anything. I certainly hope the new hirarchy bought in to replace the people who were dismissed have more balls.

Pictures of pickups full of red shirts heading for the Admin complex appeared on the Udon Map forum many hours before the fires started so they had plenty of warning as is the case with Chiang Mai now.

[rixalex]

If burning their own houses could easily be correlated to a central message, they might have done that too. But what political statement does burning your own house make?

If you plastered the outside of your home with big messages before burning it, it would make the statement that you are so genuine, sincere, passionate and believing in your cause that you would bring hardship upon yourself and your family so as to raise public awareness to the issue, much like going on a hunger strike.

[asiawatcher]

Can we put the razor wire up now and keep them out?

[jan1van1hooten]

the problem with inaugurating the "jury system" is that officials in countries that have it have learned how to rig that, too.

one trick they use is to select jury candidates only from districts who are likely to vote one way or another.

for example -- with a radical political defendant (like a red shirt), officials can select jurors only from districts that usually vote conservatively. This is a trick played by the "registrar of voters" in the USA because jurors are selected from the list of voters.

second, if you look at juries in America, you notice that they are not really a cross section of society, but only a very narrow sample of middle and lower-middle class people. In america for example-- there are no bikers (I mean real bikers not Sunday bikers), rastas, goths, rockers, heavy metallers, hippies, etc on juries. A lot of the red shirts would be Thai equivalent of bikers or rastas or hippies in the USA. So such a jury would never bring in a fair verdict against them.

Another trick the American courts use is that, when the state's attorney does not want a particular defendant to be convicted, the states attorney will deliberate present a bad case. The jury will then think that the state's attorney did not prove their case and they will vote to acquit. This is why police and government officials in American almost never get convicted. But a red shirt who is not a government official or policeperson would be convicted for the same crime, because then the state's attorney would mount a good case.

Democratic countries in the so-called developed world have worked out a whole bunch of tricks to fool the populace and keep they same system in power.

Edited September 18, 2010 by jan1van1hooten

[Robby nz]

Saw them leaving BKK on tele.

Seemed to be a good number of Merc's and BMW"s in the convoy.

Perhaps the "Elite" they rant against have taken pity on them and lent them the cars.

[OzMick]

OK, they burn the town halls and fire trucks because they are symbols of authority. Please explain how burning your children's school helps them break out of poverty?

[OzMick]

the problem with inaugurating the "jury system" is that officials in countries that have it have learned how to rig that, too.

one trick they use is to select jury candidates only from districts who are likely to vote one way or another.

for example -- with a radical political defendant (like a red shirt), officials can select jurors only from districts that usually vote conservatively. This is a trick played by the "registrar of voters" in the USA because jurors are selected from the list of voters.

second, if you look at juries in America, you notice that they are not really a cross section of society, but only a very narrow sample of middle and lower-middle class people. In america for example-- there are no bikers (I mean real bikers not Sunday bikers), rastas, goths, rockers, heavy metallers, hippies, etc on juries. A lot of the red shirts would be Thai equivalent of bikers or rastas or hippies in the USA. So such a jury would never bring in a fair verdict against them.

Another trick the American courts use is that, when the state's attorney does not want a particular defendant to be convicted, the states attorney will deliberate present a bad case. The jury will then think that the state's attorney did not prove their case and they will vote to acquit. This is why police and government officials in American almost never get convicted. But a red shirt who is not a government official or policeperson would be convicted for the same crime, because then the state's attorney would mount a good case.

Democratic countries in the so-called developed world have worked out a whole bunch of tricks to fool the populace and keep they same system in power.

Your insights into the working of the US justice system are truly incredible!

[RKASA]

the problem with inaugurating the "jury system" is that officials in countries that have it have learned how to rig that, too.

one trick they use is to select jury candidates only from districts who are likely to vote one way or another.

for example -- with a radical political defendant (like a red shirt), officials can select jurors only from districts that usually vote conservatively. This is a trick played by the "registrar of voters" in the USA because jurors are selected from the list of voters.

second, if you look at juries in America, you notice that they are not really a cross section of society, but only a very narrow sample of middle and lower-middle class people. In america for example-- there are no bikers (I mean real bikers not Sunday bikers), rastas, goths, rockers, heavy metallers, hippies, etc on juries. A lot of the red shirts would be Thai equivalent of bikers or rastas or hippies in the USA. So such a jury would never bring in a fair verdict against them.

Another trick the American courts use is that, when the state's attorney does not want a particular defendant to be convicted, the states attorney will deliberate present a bad case. The jury will then think that the state's attorney did not prove their case and they will vote to acquit. This is why police and government officials in American almost never get convicted. But a red shirt who is not a government official or policeperson would be convicted for the same crime, because then the state's attorney would mount a good case.

Democratic countries in the so-called developed world have worked out a whole bunch of tricks to fool the populace and keep they same system in power.

I v been called to jury duty three times in two states, both states used drivers license and draw numbers at random. Where you are and who you are has nothing to do with it. When you report- you may or may not even get to the jury selection process but it is completely random to form the pool from which people get selected. Many make excuses not to serve and are dismissed. My last notice I asked to be dismissed by mail as I was over here and its a hel_l of a commute. The selection process in the states is not bad and if it looks conservative it is because just like Thailand the whole country is far more conservative then the reflection you get from media.

Most prosecutors won't take a case to trail if they don't think they will win in the first place, they have that choice, so why lose one. Many prosecutors have to run for office and doing things like that will not get you re-elected. The conviction rate of public officials that are charged and go to a trail is something like 99.5 percent overall.

If you want a rigged system just let the judges be appointed by the current or acting government and let them also be the jury.

[slapout]

The US jury system has been breeched a few times but the vast majority of the time the jurors are as rkasa noted a cross section of the population, and give a fair verdict. It may not be a perfect system but if I were Innocent of any charge I would rather take my chance with the jury system than any political appointed judge. If guilty I would probably try to get the best Defense lawyer money could buy and hope he can outshine the Prosecution.

[ianf]

So they headed out of town toward Chiang Mai... GOOD! Maybe the can go cause trouble up there instead of in Bangkok again.

Hey! Leave us kids alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jackr]

So they headed out of town toward Chiang Mai... GOOD! Maybe the can go cause trouble up there instead of in Bangkok again.

What a stupid comment to make. Why would you wish that on anybody living anywhere?

A twatish comment indeed. I'd prefer them to be at the bottom of the ocean (the Marianas Trench would do), but would take second best and have them mess up an already tainted backwater (ala, the 'kok) than have them do their pathetic, puerile, short-sighted shit up here. I hope they all breakdown on the way up.

[hyperdimension]

In Bangkok on the 19th - 20th arson was selective. nothing to do with poor red-shirt grievances. UDD leaders and backers hitting at opponents, surely yes! "Burn it my way"

"Bangkok governor Sukhumbhand Paribatra told reporters on June 1 that he believed many of the arson attacks were "premeditated". Sukhumbhand noted that the CentralWorld department store across from the UDD's Rajaprasong protest stage was torched while several other high-end hotels in the area, including the Hyatt Erawan and InterContinental, were left untouched because their owners had political connections to the UDD.

UDD leaders had earlier hinted they would resort to arson attacks in response to any government crackdown. In a widely viewed YouTube clip, UDD hardline leader Arisman Pongruangrong urged a group of provincial "red shirt" protesters preparing to travel to Bangkok to carry a liter of petrol each to ignite possible arson attacks. Other UDD leaders issued similarly incendiary threats.

"We, the UDD, are poor and rural people. We can easily get panicked, especially when the soldiers charge in. When we are panicked, we will smash glass windows of these luxurious shopping malls and run amok inside ... and when we are inside we can freely pick up brand-name bags or other expensive goods," UDD co-leader Nattawut Saikua said at the Rajaprasong protest stage on April 8. "You should actually start thinking what do you want for yourself or your friends if you get panicked and go inside those shopping malls.""

The video of that exact speech is in this collection of UDD terrorism speech excerpts:

In that YouTube video clip you can also see Thaksin and other UDD leaders instructing the protesters to "gather at the provincial halls in full force" if anything happens to protesters. "Wait for the time. When the operation begins, make your own decision immediately."; "When our TV channel is taken off air, make you own decision and get the job done." Also, just after Arisman tells protesters to bring a bottle to Bangkok to fill with gasoline, he says "If there is anything in Bangkok, converge at provincial halls and raze them to the ground." I think that explains why the provincial halls were burned - the the terrorist cult leaders told them to.

[Odysseus221]

the problem with inaugurating the "jury system" is that officials in countries that have it have learned how to rig that, too.

one trick they use is to select jury candidates only from districts who are likely to vote one way or another.

for example -- with a radical political defendant (like a red shirt), officials can select jurors only from districts that usually vote conservatively. This is a trick played by the "registrar of voters" in the USA because jurors are selected from the list of voters.

second, if you look at juries in America, you notice that they are not really a cross section of society, but only a very narrow sample of middle and lower-middle class people. In america for example-- there are no bikers (I mean real bikers not Sunday bikers), rastas, goths, rockers, heavy metallers, hippies, etc on juries. A lot of the red shirts would be Thai equivalent of bikers or rastas or hippies in the USA. So such a jury would never bring in a fair verdict against them.

Another trick the American courts use is that, when the state's attorney does not want a particular defendant to be convicted, the states attorney will deliberate present a bad case. The jury will then think that the state's attorney did not prove their case and they will vote to acquit. This is why police and government officials in American almost never get convicted. But a red shirt who is not a government official or policeperson would be convicted for the same crime, because then the state's attorney would mount a good case.

Democratic countries in the so-called developed world have worked out a whole bunch of tricks to fool the populace and keep they same system in power.

Your insights into the working of the US justice system are truly incredible!