Reluctant Retiree New Leader Of Thailand's Red Shirts - AFP Interview

[tim armstrong]

I think many of you are missing the point. Forget all the- who is responsible for whatever stuff ? for a moment- its history. When you ask the question what does Thida fundamentally represent? - its EDUCATION. What does Abhisit represent - EDUCATION. Its the one thing across all of Thai society that is so sadly lacking and so very fundamental to Thailands'development . When Thais believe its OK to choose to think freely, because they have stopped being directed and have enough education to make informed choices - then thai society, politics, and the power bases will change.

Thida is a smart and clever choice for now. The next red shirt leader hopefully will sound more like Abhisit, who I agree is the best thing going for Thailand. I hope he and Thida both stick around.

Change is happening in this country much faster than many people realise, and is inevitable.

[swerver]

"We want to keep the democracy movement peaceful. We can't leave the people to do anything by themselves."

Hmmm starts with a blatant lie ---- since the reds, as history has shown, are anything but peaceful; and then goes on to suggest that redshirts can't be trusted!

Yeah, a great leader in the making!

She got this right:

“I will be very happy when the people, the poor ones, can understand politics, can say anything very smart about politics, about economics. I will be very proud,” she said.

Maybe while she was in the Jungle in her earlier life she may have studied Frederick Engels, Max’s “General”.

En­gels was highly skeptical of vanguard-led, top-down revolutions like those with which communist parties seized power in the twentieth cen­tury. He always believed in a workers’ party led by the working class itself (rather than by intellectuals and professional revolutionaries), and he remained adamant that the proletariat would arrive at socialism through the contradictions of the capitalist system and the development of political self-consciousness rather than by having it imposed upon them by a self-selecting communist leadership.

“The Social Democratic Federation and German-American Socialists share the distinction of being the only parties that have contrived to reduce Marx’s theory of development to a rigid orthodoxy which the working man is not expected to arrive at by virtue of his own class consciousness; rather it is to be promptly and without preparation rammed down his throat as an article of faith,” Engels complained pointedly to Adolph Sorge in May 1894. The emancipation of the masses could never be the product of an external agent, a political deus ex machina, even if it came in the form of V. I. Lenin. Moreover, En­gels was inclined toward the end of his life to advocate the peaceable, democratic road to socialism, acting through the ballot box rather than the barricades (while always retaining the moral right to insurgency).

Engels was never the narrow-minded, mechanistic architect of dialectical materialism exalted by twentieth-century Soviet ideology. A broad philosophical chasm lies between “Engelsism” and Stalinism, be­tween an open, critical, and humane vision of scientific socialism and a scientific socialism devoid of any ethical precepts. As philosopher John O’Neill argues, Engels’s socialism has no necessary connection with twentieth-century state Marxism, since the link depends on Engels’s adhering to a dogmatic conception of science committed to “method­ological certainty” and “doctrinal orthodoxy” - both of which Engels rejected when it came to scientific inquiry and historical materialism. The closed logic of Stalin’s Short Course would have been anathema to the perpetually inquisitive Engels: behind his soldierly demeanor, the General was interested in challenging ideas, following new trends, and often rethinking his own positions. “So-called ‘socialist society’ is not, in my view, to be regarded as something that remains crystallized for all time, but rather as being in process of constant change and transformation like all other social conditions,” Engels wrote in 1890. “I see absolutely no difficulty in carrying out this revolution over a period, i.e. gradually.” In many ways Engels’s thinking was far more heuristic and less rigid than Marx’s. In Anti-Duhring, he concluded that the most valuable re­sult of his scientific investigations was to “make us extremely distrustful of our present knowledge, in as much as in all probability we are just about at the beginning of human history.” And he adopted something of a proto-Popperian stance on questions of scientific fallibility:

[truethailand]

"We want to keep the democracy movement peaceful. We can't leave the people to do anything by themselves."

Hmmm starts with a blatant lie ---- since the reds, as history has shown, are anything but peaceful; and then goes on to suggest that redshirts can't be trusted!

Yeah, a great leader in the making!

The most important statement was this

But her political epiphany came three years earlier, when she watched the army shoot and kill a young male student as it crushed another uprising: "That shocked me and that changed my world," she recalled.

And they've been doing it ever since. Why does an army feel the need to keep killing its own citizens, whos giving the orders. Whats they scared off.

[housepainter]

Give me the 'elites' too.

To start with they have an education that is far superior to that any other Thai has. Added to which they are more than likely to have been educated abroad.

Furthermore, in the UK we are represented by 'eitists'. You don't get the double honours from Oxbridge unless you're preety special. I'd rather have the brains in Government than emptying the bins at the end of the street.

Unfortunately, the mafia thickos like like Chalerm, one brain cell but a large mouth, are still able to occupy positions of influence and power.

The elite, especially the most able and gifted Abhisit are Thailand's best hope ever.

[Xangsamhua]

"We want to keep the democracy movement peaceful. We can't leave the people to do anything by themselves."

Hmmm starts with a blatant lie ---- since the reds, as history has shown, are anything but peaceful; and then goes on to suggest that redshirts can't be trusted!

Yeah, a great leader in the making!

She got this right:

"I will be very happy when the people, the poor ones, can understand politics, can say anything very smart about politics, about economics. I will be very proud," she said.

Maybe while she was in the Jungle in her earlier life she may have studied Frederick Engels, Max's "General".

En­gels was highly skeptical of vanguard-led, top-down revolutions like those with which communist parties seized power in the twentieth cen­tury. He always believed in a workers' party led by the working class itself (rather than by intellectuals and professional revolutionaries), and he remained adamant that the proletariat would arrive at socialism through the contradictions of the capitalist system and the development of political self-consciousness rather than by having it imposed upon them by a self-selecting communist leadership.

"The Social Democratic Federation and German-American Socialists share the distinction of being the only parties that have contrived to reduce Marx's theory of development to a rigid orthodoxy which the working man is not expected to arrive at by virtue of his own class consciousness; rather it is to be promptly and without preparation rammed down his throat as an article of faith," Engels complained pointedly to Adolph Sorge in May 1894. The emancipation of the masses could never be the product of an external agent, a political deus ex machina, even if it came in the form of V. I. Lenin. Moreover, En­gels was inclined toward the end of his life to advocate the peaceable, democratic road to socialism, acting through the ballot box rather than the barricades (while always retaining the moral right to insurgency).

Engels was never the narrow-minded, mechanistic architect of dialectical materialism exalted by twentieth-century Soviet ideology. A broad philosophical chasm lies between "Engelsism" and Stalinism, be­tween an open, critical, and humane vision of scientific socialism and a scientific socialism devoid of any ethical precepts. As philosopher John O'Neill argues, Engels's socialism has no necessary connection with twentieth-century state Marxism, since the link depends on Engels's adhering to a dogmatic conception of science committed to "method­ological certainty" and "doctrinal orthodoxy" - both of which Engels rejected when it came to scientific inquiry and historical materialism. The closed logic of Stalin's Short Course would have been anathema to the perpetually inquisitive Engels: behind his soldierly demeanor, the General was interested in challenging ideas, following new trends, and often rethinking his own positions. "So-called 'socialist society' is not, in my view, to be regarded as something that remains crystallized for all time, but rather as being in process of constant change and transformation like all other social conditions," Engels wrote in 1890. "I see absolutely no difficulty in carrying out this revolution over a period, i.e. gradually." In many ways Engels's thinking was far more heuristic and less rigid than Marx's. In Anti-Duhring, he concluded that the most valuable re­sult of his scientific investigations was to "make us extremely distrustful of our present knowledge, in as much as in all probability we are just about at the beginning of human history." And he adopted something of a proto-Popperian stance on questions of scientific fallibility:

Source?

[hanuman1]

Well then maybe it's just me who thinks the most repeated type of post in the news forum by far is the one that attacks anything to do with red-shirts and Taksin. We hear you. Be happy.

Your prejudice presupposed that when I said:

farangs sieze the opportunity of 'schooling' the locals about the perils of tyrrany

I was talking about a particular party. On the contrary, I didn't mention any party at all throughout the entire post. Your zeal for spreading 'enlightenment' colored the way you saw my post.

Kind of my point all along.

Disingenuous of you I would say.

Congratulations on your political conversions so far. They may be significant for your own personal reasons, but as you almost-rightly say, they amount to a minor (I would say insignificant) change. I say insignificant because although these 'micro-conversions' may be happening the length and breadth of the country in families where well-educated farangs sieze the opportunity of 'schooling' the locals about the perils of tyrrany, there is also the opposite effect occurring - which I'm sure you will have identified by now - of farangs being 'converted' by their Thai spouses towards the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Of course you'd say that. Anyway, I haven't been trying to change your mind about anything. It's just that I come on to these forums looking for a range of views and always just get the same people - you among them - expounding exactly the same points time and time again with the odd snide quip thrown in for good measure. Although I wish you'd give it a rest, I fully respect your right to do it. I just find it so boringly repetitive I wonder what is giving you the drive to find each subsequent trashing of reds or Taksin as entertaining/enlightening/satisfying as the last.

Apparently you are on some sort of a mission and using TV as your platform. As I said, you have every right to do it, but it's probably against the spirit of an open forum.

[Buchholz]

We've had something like nine threads now about her on Thaivisa, none with a photo:

Interim Red Shirt President Thida Thavornseth

*edit. Change that to ten threads, another one just started.

.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

Give me the 'elites' too.

To start with they have an education that is far superior to that any other Thai has. Added to which they are more than likely to have been educated abroad.

Furthermore, in the UK we are represented by 'eitists'. You don't get the double honours from Oxbridge unless you're preety special. I'd rather have the brains in Government than emptying the bins at the end of the street.

Unfortunately, the mafia thickos like like Chalerm, one brain cell but a large mouth, are still able to occupy positions of influence and power.

The elite, especially the most able and gifted Abhisit are Thailand's best hope ever.

So what are you saying? You think that elites should be allowed to run things with no say from the people? Well, that's been what's happened in Thailand for the past seventy years more-or-less, brief periods of guided democracy excepted. The problem has been that people haven't been allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them, elites always decide to step in before people can really learn. By the way, Chalerm is also one of the elite. The elite includes new business groups, the aristocracy & top-ranking military officers. I'm not opposed to elites or elitism, as long as they become elite on merit. But most elites in Thailand come from the same hundred or so families. I don't think we're represented by elitists in the UK, I think politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, unlike in the past where politicians were more elitist, yet treated the people with more respect & intelligence. There's good elitism and bad elitism. Good elitism makes you want to aspire to be something more than yourself, to become one of this intellectual elite, bad elitism, which is far more common, is all about aloofness, privilege and mediocrity imo.

And in Thailand, far too many of the so-called elite are aloof, arrogant and half-witted. They really are ignorant about the lives of the poor, especially the rural poor. That's the main reason why they can't win seats in places like Issan. It's not the common people that've screwed Thailand up, it's the privileged elite that've been running the country like a fiefdom for so long. Also, I've met many supposedly well educated fools (including people that have PhDs from places like Cambridge) and I've met many very intelligent people with little formal education. So it doesn't really do to generalize. Most of the people at the top universities in the UK got there because they were born into privilege, not on merit.

[rubl]

The most important statement was this

But her political epiphany came three years earlier, when she watched the army shoot and kill a young male student as it crushed another uprising: "That shocked me and that changed my world," she recalled.

And they've been doing it ever since. Why does an army feel the need to keep killing its own citizens, whos giving the orders. Whats they scared off.

Is the lady referring to October 1973 or October 1976 ?

As for 'army feel a need to keep killing its own people', nice sentence, but also leading. Wouldn't be condoned in a court of law. The problem with such a 'leading question' is that it's unclear what is meant with 'the army' (general(s), officer corps, soldiers, ...), 'feels the need' (statement, unproven), 'keep killing own citizens' (when?, how many?, ..., PS the police has a higher record). Who's giving orders is a reasonable question, although it assumes someone gave the order to kill (compare with recent defamation case against k. Jatuporn). 'what's they're scared of' doesn't state who 'they' are, so difficult to say how 'they' feel (although probably 'those who ordered the killings' is meant and again it's not proven the killings as such were ordered).

I rest my case, your honor.

Edited December 15, 2010 by rubl

[Insight]

Give me the 'elites' too.

To start with they have an education that is far superior to that any other Thai has. Added to which they are more than likely to have been educated abroad.

Furthermore, in the UK we are represented by 'eitists'. You don't get the double honours from Oxbridge unless you're preety special. I'd rather have the brains in Government than emptying the bins at the end of the street.

Unfortunately, the mafia thickos like like Chalerm, one brain cell but a large mouth, are still able to occupy positions of influence and power.

The elite, especially the most able and gifted Abhisit are Thailand's best hope ever.

So what are you saying? You think that elites should be allowed to run things with no say from the people? Well, that's been what's happened in Thailand for the past seventy years more-or-less, brief periods of guided democracy excepted. The problem has been that people haven't been allowed to make their own mistakes and learn from them, elites always decide to step in before people can really learn. By the way, Chalerm is also one of the elite. The elite includes new business groups, the aristocracy & top-ranking military officers. I'm not opposed to elites or elitism, as long as they become elite on merit. But most elites in Thailand come from the same hundred or so families. I don't think we're represented by elitists in the UK, I think politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, unlike in the past where politicians were more elitist, yet treated the people with more respect & intelligence. There's good elitism and bad elitism. Good elitism makes you want to aspire to be something more than yourself, to become one of this intellectual elite, bad elitism, which is far more common, is all about aloofness, privilege and mediocrity imo.

And in Thailand, far too many of the so-called elite are aloof, arrogant and half-witted. They really are ignorant about the lives of the poor, especially the rural poor. That's the main reason why they can't win seats in places like Issan. It's not the common people that've screwed Thailand up, it's the privileged elite that've been running the country like a fiefdom for so long. Also, I've met many supposedly well educated fools (including people that have PhDs from places like Cambridge) and I've met many very intelligent people with little formal education. So it doesn't really do to generalize. Most of the people at the top universities in the UK got there because they were born into privilege, not on merit.

All what the red shirts need is a leader with an ounce of credibility and integrity - Somebody who can genuinely separate the reds from lies, doctored evidence and violence. Frankly nothing said by this Thida character so far gives me a single hope she is any different from the others. This is hardly the first time we've heard them distancing themselves from Thaksin to the press yet promising his return to the people.

Same circus, different clowns.

[rubl]

begin removed, check original post of Emptyset ...

And in Thailand, far too many of the so-called elite are aloof, arrogant and half-witted. They really are ignorant about the lives of the poor, especially the rural poor. That's the main reason why they can't win seats in places like Issan.

... end removed

With similar reasoning you may wonder why the rural elite with their network of kanman and history of 'taking care of the rural slaves / serfs / free people' still manage to get votes. Those landed elite are worse as they can't even claim to be ignorant

[jdinasia]

Of course you'd say that. Anyway, I haven't been trying to change your mind about anything. It's just that I come on to these forums looking for a range of views and always just get the same people - you among them - expounding exactly the same points time and time again with the odd snide quip thrown in for good measure. Although I wish you'd give it a rest, I fully respect your right to do it. I just find it so boringly repetitive I wonder what is giving you the drive to find each subsequent trashing of reds or Taksin as entertaining/enlightening/satisfying as the last.

Apparently you are on some sort of a mission and using TV as your platform. As I said, you have every right to do it, but it's probably against the spirit of an open forum.

And more of you being disingenuous .... I see it as responding to the same "red tripe", and you see it as an agenda. I have stated my agenda. Participate in the debate and counter the lies told by the pro-Thaksin, pro-PTP, pro-red-leadership. I don't expect to change any minds of those enthralled (meant in its original meaning) by the idea of a red paradigm shift in Thailand. I give the point of view that tends to negate the effectiveness of their propaganda while staying current with what is happening.

I don't resort to implying that a poster is anyone other than the poster ... John? Samitra? etc ... (I would assume that participating in the discussion is EXACTLY the spirit of an open forum (where I would assume that name-calling, questioning people's intelligence, family background etc is against the spirit of an open forum)

By the way --- THIS thread is about Weng's wife Thida --- the lack of a clearly stated redshirt policy, the lack of elected leaders amongst the reds, the claims of being non-violent with their violent history, and questoins about Thida's background with the more Maoist elements of the CPT. (

Does it strike anyone as strange and oddly coincidental that Sae daeng bragged about the CPT folks he killed .. and now the redshirts are being led by someone that was in the CPT?

Edited December 15, 2010 by jdinasia

[Buchholz]

All what the red shirts need is a leader with an ounce of credibility and integrity - Somebody who can genuinely separate the reds from lies, doctored evidence and violence. Frankly nothing said by this Thida character so far gives me a single hope she is any different from the others. This is hardly the first time we've heard them distancing themselves from Thaksin to the press yet promising his return to the people.

Same circus, different clowns.

And when Red Shirt Leader Somyot (of the infamous Red Suicide Bomber threat) is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy yesterday, where was the Interim Red Shirt President Thida?

Is she really running this circus?

[jdinasia]

But of course, if the next election should see an new majority Government that is clearly anti Democrat party/anti Yellow, then the Military can casually forget the Constitution and their Service Oaths and simply take the same steps it took in 2006 to "Save the country" .

Ummmm the last elections didn't see anything of the kind and the by-elections certainly don't show much hope of the PTP gaining more than 30-35% of the vote.

[Emptyset]

All what the red shirts need is a leader with an ounce of credibility and integrity - Somebody who can genuinely separate the reds from lies, doctored evidence and violence. Frankly nothing said by this Thida character so far gives me a single hope she is any different from the others. This is hardly the first time we've heard them distancing themselves from Thaksin to the press yet promising his return to the people.

Same circus, different clowns.

And when Red Shirt Leader Somyot (of the infamous Red Suicide Bomber threat) is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy yesterday, where was the Interim Red Shirt President Thida?

Is she really running this circus?

Somyot isn't part of the DAAD, which is what Thida is president of. Also, I think you're misrepresenting what he said about suicide bombers, it clearly wasn't meant as a threat. I took it to be an honest assessment of reality, which is that some red shirts are taking it upon themselves to begin some sort of armed resistance. Either taking it on themselves or in conjunction with key figures in the movement, I have no idea, but the idea that Somyot is one of them is very far-fetched. It's funny because a lot of red shirts were pretty angry with what Somyot said, thinking it irresponsible as they interpreted it as you did. But I thought: "finally, some honesty", instead of blaming all the bombs on CRES, he admitted that some reds (likely a very small minority) have decided to embark on violent struggle. He didn't say it was a good thing, he just said it was a possibility.

I agree with what Insight says, but on the other hand, it's not like they could suddenly drop Thaksin like a stone. People like Thida want to use him to achieve change, rather than him using them for his own ends. But what the final implications will be, well, obviously no one knows, but I'm sure they go way beyond Thaksin alone...

[Buchholz]

"We want to keep the democracy movement peaceful."

Should we take this to mean that she is cooperating fully with the authorities in apprehending those Red fugitives who were not peaceful? Is she seeing to it that the likes of Arisaman, Issan Rambo, Chulalongkorn Hospital Raider Payat, the Love Chiang Mai 51 group leader, et al who are all on the run from law, are not receiving any aid or assistance from her peaceful democracy movement?

Is she turning over any and all information that the Reds know about in regards to their locations and avenues of support?

Sorry, but so far... it's flag hoisting time:

.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

begin removed, check original post of Emptyset ...

And in Thailand, far too many of the so-called elite are aloof, arrogant and half-witted. They really are ignorant about the lives of the poor, especially the rural poor. That's the main reason why they can't win seats in places like Issan.

... end removed

With similar reasoning you may wonder why the rural elite with their network of kanman and history of 'taking care of the rural slaves / serfs / free people' still manage to get votes. Those landed elite are worse as they can't even claim to be ignorant

You could, but you can see why people trust their local poo yai, it's because they deliver concrete things to them. I don't think the type of elites we're speaking of above have done that, they're mostly just parasites, whilst at least your local MP makes sure roads are built and stuff, while he's skimming off 20% for himself I think people's eyes will eventually open to their local representatives too. In the end, it's getting people to think about politics in a critical, ideological fashion then they might realize real change is possible at a local and a national level. Getting people to see the logic of the patronage systems than entrap them & through the hero-worship that perpetuates the system... pretty tough. I think things are gradually going in the right direction though.

[whybother]

Somyot isn't part of the DAAD, which is what Thida is president of.

<snip>

From OP

The new head of the "Red Shirts", Thida Thavornseth

I get confused by who the red shirts are exactly.

[Buchholz]

All what the red shirts need is a leader with an ounce of credibility and integrity - Somebody who can genuinely separate the reds from lies, doctored evidence and violence. Frankly nothing said by this Thida character so far gives me a single hope she is any different from the others. This is hardly the first time we've heard them distancing themselves from Thaksin to the press yet promising his return to the people.

Same circus, different clowns.

And when Red Shirt Leader Somyot (of the infamous Red Suicide Bomber threat) is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy yesterday, where was the Interim Red Shirt President Thida?

Is she really running this circus?

Somyot isn't part of the DAAD, which is what Thida is president of.

So UDD/DAAD are not Red Shirts and have no connection to the June 24 Democracy Group and played no role in the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy?

Perhaps Interim Red President needs to convey those changes to the media who reported on it:

The anti-government United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), alias "red-shirt" movement

Xinhua News

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7229709.html

===========================================

About 100 red-shirted protestors presented documents

The United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)

DPA News

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/357870,evidence-japanese-cameramans-death.html

[jdinasia]

The claim that it was "fake red shirts" is harder to swallow when they are all one group.

[Emptyset]

All what the red shirts need is a leader with an ounce of credibility and integrity - Somebody who can genuinely separate the reds from lies, doctored evidence and violence. Frankly nothing said by this Thida character so far gives me a single hope she is any different from the others. This is hardly the first time we've heard them distancing themselves from Thaksin to the press yet promising his return to the people.

Same circus, different clowns.

And when Red Shirt Leader Somyot (of the infamous Red Suicide Bomber threat) is leading the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy yesterday, where was the Interim Red Shirt President Thida?

Is she really running this circus?

Somyot isn't part of the DAAD, which is what Thida is president of.

So UDD/DAAD are not Red Shirts and have no connection to the June 24 Democracy Group and played no role in the Red Shirt rally at the Japanese Embassy?

Perhaps Interim Red President needs to convey those changes to the media who reported on it:

Of course, UDD/DAAD are red shirts, and so are June 24 Democracy Group (which was actually founded before DAAD IIRC), but Thida is only president of the DAAD part of the red shirts, June 24 is a splinter group, much like Sombat's group and Thida has no say over what they do, obviously they coordinate though. Basically they're all red shirts, but not all DAAD. DAAD is the main organization which Thida is president of. Daeng Siam are also red shirts, but not part of DAAD/UDD. Obviously the media might simplify things and say Thida is president of all red shirts etc, but that's not her fault.

[Throatwobbler]

I'm sure if she were even aware of the opinions of some frequently posting TV members, she'd be relieved that there is absolutely zero mileage to be gained from persuading any of them of her aims and sincerity.

Come to think of it, the same goes for political figures of all types in this country.

None of them give a tinker's cuss about any of us, so have no reason to try and impress us for one second. They will all do what they can to get the most out of their own constituencies. We are not a part of that enclosed system, but I guess for some it's still fun to throw stones in from the outside anyway, using foreign legal and moral frameworks and traditions as a base for their attacks.

Happy tossing, guys.

Hanuman1. I want to ask you some questions. Do you remember the violent rhetoric from the red shirt leasers and the violent responses from their followers. Do you remember a group of redshirts pulling an elderly man from his car and beating him to death because he was a yellow shirt? Do you remember their intimidation of a gay rights parade in your Chiang Mai. Do you remember the violent storming of a resort in Phuket where foreign dignitaries were staying to have a regional conference. Do you remember The hijacking of a gas tanker near a block of flats and threatening to blow it up with who knows how many people inside.

Ok those were over a year ago. How about some more recent ones. Do you remember the calls from red leaders for a million of their followers to bring a litre of petrol to Bangkok and if they didn't get their way then to burn the city down. Do you remember the calls from one of their leaders to burn down all the mosques in Thailand, certain hospitals and all the government buildings if they did not get what they want. Do you remember the action of their supporters when they did not get what they want.

Do you remember all these. If you do an still support this movement then I can only say that you are a supporter of violence then shame on you.

Or maybe you need to start thinking for yourself and not believe all the red propaganda that has been fed you and you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker.

I ,like I believe many others, on this forum realize that the rural poor have very valid points. However they need to reorganize themselves and move away from the current leadership who preach violence, and in my opinion are only using the poor for their own means. Can you tell me 3 red shirt policies.

Your continued support of this movement in it's current form is shameful. Even the new leader is calling for the release of it's leaders. The ones who called for the burning etc.

By the way before you respond with yellow shirt etc etc I happen to believe they are a bunch of idiots who should be in jail too. I am able to see that things here are in more than just 2 colours which is more than a lot of people on this forum seem able to do.

I look forward to your reply.

[hanuman1]

I'm sure if she were even aware of the opinions of some frequently posting TV members, she'd be relieved that there is absolutely zero mileage to be gained from persuading any of them of her aims and sincerity.

Come to think of it, the same goes for political figures of all types in this country.

None of them give a tinker's cuss about any of us, so have no reason to try and impress us for one second. They will all do what they can to get the most out of their own constituencies. We are not a part of that enclosed system, but I guess for some it's still fun to throw stones in from the outside anyway, using foreign legal and moral frameworks and traditions as a base for their attacks.

Happy tossing, guys.

Hanuman1. I want to ask you some questions. Do you remember the violent rhetoric from the red shirt leasers and the violent responses from their followers. Do you remember a group of redshirts pulling an elderly man from his car and beating him to death because he was a yellow shirt? Do you remember their intimidation of a gay rights parade in your Chiang Mai. Do you remember the violent storming of a resort in Phuket where foreign dignitaries were staying to have a regional conference. Do you remember The hijacking of a gas tanker near a block of flats and threatening to blow it up with who knows how many people inside.

Ok those were over a year ago. How about some more recent ones. Do you remember the calls from red leaders for a million of their followers to bring a litre of petrol to Bangkok and if they didn't get their way then to burn the city down. Do you remember the calls from one of their leaders to burn down all the mosques in Thailand, certain hospitals and all the government buildings if they did not get what they want. Do you remember the action of their supporters when they did not get what they want.

Do you remember all these. If you do an still support this movement then I can only say that you are a supporter of violence then shame on you.

Or maybe you need to start thinking for yourself and not believe all the red propaganda that has been fed you and you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker.

I ,like I believe many others, on this forum realize that the rural poor have very valid points. However they need to reorganize themselves and move away from the current leadership who preach violence, and in my opinion are only using the poor for their own means. Can you tell me 3 red shirt policies.

Your continued support of this movement in it's current form is shameful. Even the new leader is calling for the release of it's leaders. The ones who called for the burning etc.

By the way before you respond with yellow shirt etc etc I happen to believe they are a bunch of idiots who should be in jail too. I am able to see that things here are in more than just 2 colours which is more than a lot of people on this forum seem able to do.

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that.

Yes, I remember everything you mention but I don't know why you consider me an out-and-out supporter of the red shirt movement, much less some kind of spokesperson for them.

It's hard enough to define - for people on both sides - what exactly the red shirts consist of, so all I'll say is that what I support is that element of the red shirt movement that seeks to peacefully improve the lives of the poor rural population. In as much as the red shirt movement is sincere about doing this, I would expect all those others on this forum who profess their concern for the poor and disaffected of the country to do likewise.

I'd like to know why you think I advocate violence. As for suggesting I'm a dedicated red-shirt supporter I can only think you believe this because I criticize posters who habitually do nothing but poor scorn on the red shirt movement. If those people ever had any leverage in the real situation, there would never be engagement or reconciliation - just more accusations, distrust and enmity.

So to recap, I criticize the criticizers so I am labeled as a supporter of that which they criticize. This is simplistic. Why not find a post where I've criticized Abhisit? You won't find one. Why not find a post where I laud the abilities of Thaksin? You won't find one. Yet you think I'm a red shirt sympathizer - and more insultingly, a supporter of violence.

You're just perpetuating the good old mantra George Bush Jr used - If you're not my friend, you're my enemy. Do we need to go into why that is no longer appropriate in the modern age?

Edited December 15, 2010 by hanuman1

[Throatwobbler]

I'm sure if she were even aware of the opinions of some frequently posting TV members, she'd be relieved that there is absolutely zero mileage to be gained from persuading any of them of her aims and sincerity.

Come to think of it, the same goes for political figures of all types in this country.

None of them give a tinker's cuss about any of us, so have no reason to try and impress us for one second. They will all do what they can to get the most out of their own constituencies. We are not a part of that enclosed system, but I guess for some it's still fun to throw stones in from the outside anyway, using foreign legal and moral frameworks and traditions as a base for their attacks.

Happy tossing, guys.

Hanuman1. I want to ask you some questions. Do you remember the violent rhetoric from the red shirt leasers and the violent responses from their followers. Do you remember a group of redshirts pulling an elderly man from his car and beating him to death because he was a yellow shirt? Do you remember their intimidation of a gay rights parade in your Chiang Mai. Do you remember the violent storming of a resort in Phuket where foreign dignitaries were staying to have a regional conference. Do you remember The hijacking of a gas tanker near a block of flats and threatening to blow it up with who knows how many people inside.

Ok those were over a year ago. How about some more recent ones. Do you remember the calls from red leaders for a million of their followers to bring a litre of petrol to Bangkok and if they didn't get their way then to burn the city down. Do you remember the calls from one of their leaders to burn down all the mosques in Thailand, certain hospitals and all the government buildings if they did not get what they want. Do you remember the action of their supporters when they did not get what they want.

Do you remember all these. If you do an still support this movement then I can only say that you are a supporter of violence then shame on you.

Or maybe you need to start thinking for yourself and not believe all the red propaganda that has been fed you and you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker.

I ,like I believe many others, on this forum realize that the rural poor have very valid points. However they need to reorganize themselves and move away from the current leadership who preach violence, and in my opinion are only using the poor for their own means. Can you tell me 3 red shirt policies.

Your continued support of this movement in it's current form is shameful. Even the new leader is calling for the release of it's leaders. The ones who called for the burning etc.

By the way before you respond with yellow shirt etc etc I happen to believe they are a bunch of idiots who should be in jail too. I am able to see that things here are in more than just 2 colours which is more than a lot of people on this forum seem able to do.

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that.

Yes, I remember everything you mention but I don't know why you consider me an out-and-out supporter of the red shirt movement, much less some kind of spokesperson for them.

It's hard enough to define - for people on both sides - what exactly the red shirts consist of, so all I'll say is that what I support is that element of the red shirt movement that seeks to peacefully improve the lives of the poor rural population. In as much as the red shirt movement is sincere about doing this, I would expect all those others on this forum who profess their concern for the poor and disaffected of the country to do likewise.

I'd like to know why you think I advocate violence. As for suggesting I'm a dedicated red-shirt supporter I can only think you believe this because I criticize posters who habitually do nothing but poor scorn on the red shirt movement. If those people ever had any leverage in the real situation, there would never be engagement or reconciliation - just more accusations, distrust and enmity.

So to recap, I criticize the criticizers so I am labeled as a supporter of that which they criticize. This is simplistic. Why not find a post where I've criticized Abhisit? You won't find one. Why not find a post where I laud the abilities of Thaksin? You won't find one. Yet you think I'm a red shirt sympathizer - and more insultingly, a supporter of violence.

You're just perpetuating the good old mantra George Bush Jr used - If you're not my friend, you're my enemy. Do we need to go into why that is no longer appropriate in the modern age?

The problem is that the element that want to achieve improved conditions for the rural poor, which i'm 100 % for are being led by a group of leaders who preach violence from the stage. i don't here any protests from them about the stuff being said on the stage, which makes me think they don't mind any means to get their ends.

I'm sorry for accusing you for being a supporter of violence. I'm sure you're not. But you continue to support the so called peaceful groups who have yet to admit that there was violence on both ends of the spectrum. It makes me think the same of you. Any means to the end. That is, I'm sure, doing you a massive injustice and for that I'm sorry, but you do continue to support these groups.

For myself I'm waiting for a group to rise who denounces the violence on all sides and genuinely speak the problems of the poor and talk about it. If this group does ever arise i will support them all the way. i do fear that this will never happen though because certain elements have too much to lose if another group arises and they won't let this happen.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Throatwobbler

[SamritT]

With no Thaksin money, she has no hope.

[Siam Simon]

With no Thaksin money, she has no hope.

I beg to differ. With no Thaksin money, she has genuine hope.

[hanuman1]

I'm sure if she were even aware of the opinions of some frequently posting TV members, she'd be relieved that there is absolutely zero mileage to be gained from persuading any of them of her aims and sincerity.

Come to think of it, the same goes for political figures of all types in this country.

None of them give a tinker's cuss about any of us, so have no reason to try and impress us for one second. They will all do what they can to get the most out of their own constituencies. We are not a part of that enclosed system, but I guess for some it's still fun to throw stones in from the outside anyway, using foreign legal and moral frameworks and traditions as a base for their attacks.

Happy tossing, guys.

Hanuman1. I want to ask you some questions. Do you remember the violent rhetoric from the red shirt leasers and the violent responses from their followers. Do you remember a group of redshirts pulling an elderly man from his car and beating him to death because he was a yellow shirt? Do you remember their intimidation of a gay rights parade in your Chiang Mai. Do you remember the violent storming of a resort in Phuket where foreign dignitaries were staying to have a regional conference. Do you remember The hijacking of a gas tanker near a block of flats and threatening to blow it up with who knows how many people inside.

Ok those were over a year ago. How about some more recent ones. Do you remember the calls from red leaders for a million of their followers to bring a litre of petrol to Bangkok and if they didn't get their way then to burn the city down. Do you remember the calls from one of their leaders to burn down all the mosques in Thailand, certain hospitals and all the government buildings if they did not get what they want. Do you remember the action of their supporters when they did not get what they want.

Do you remember all these. If you do an still support this movement then I can only say that you are a supporter of violence then shame on you.

Or maybe you need to start thinking for yourself and not believe all the red propaganda that has been fed you and you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker.

I ,like I believe many others, on this forum realize that the rural poor have very valid points. However they need to reorganize themselves and move away from the current leadership who preach violence, and in my opinion are only using the poor for their own means. Can you tell me 3 red shirt policies.

Your continued support of this movement in it's current form is shameful. Even the new leader is calling for the release of it's leaders. The ones who called for the burning etc.

By the way before you respond with yellow shirt etc etc I happen to believe they are a bunch of idiots who should be in jail too. I am able to see that things here are in more than just 2 colours which is more than a lot of people on this forum seem able to do.

I look forward to your reply.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that.

Yes, I remember everything you mention but I don't know why you consider me an out-and-out supporter of the red shirt movement, much less some kind of spokesperson for them.

It's hard enough to define - for people on both sides - what exactly the red shirts consist of, so all I'll say is that what I support is that element of the red shirt movement that seeks to peacefully improve the lives of the poor rural population. In as much as the red shirt movement is sincere about doing this, I would expect all those others on this forum who profess their concern for the poor and disaffected of the country to do likewise.

I'd like to know why you think I advocate violence. As for suggesting I'm a dedicated red-shirt supporter I can only think you believe this because I criticize posters who habitually do nothing but poor scorn on the red shirt movement. If those people ever had any leverage in the real situation, there would never be engagement or reconciliation - just more accusations, distrust and enmity.

So to recap, I criticize the criticizers so I am labeled as a supporter of that which they criticize. This is simplistic. Why not find a post where I've criticized Abhisit? You won't find one. Why not find a post where I laud the abilities of Thaksin? You won't find one. Yet you think I'm a red shirt sympathizer - and more insultingly, a supporter of violence.

You're just perpetuating the good old mantra George Bush Jr used - If you're not my friend, you're my enemy. Do we need to go into why that is no longer appropriate in the modern age?

The problem is that the element that want to achieve improved conditions for the rural poor, which i'm 100 % for are being led by a group of leaders who preach violence from the stage. i don't here any protests from them about the stuff being said on the stage, which makes me think they don't mind any means to get their ends.

I'm sorry for accusing you for being a supporter of violence. I'm sure you're not. But you continue to support the so called peaceful groups who have yet to admit that there was violence on both ends of the spectrum. It makes me think the same of you. Any means to the end. That is, I'm sure, doing you a massive injustice and for that I'm sorry, but you do continue to support these groups.

For myself I'm waiting for a group to rise who denounces the violence on all sides and genuinely speak the problems of the poor and talk about it. If this group does ever arise i will support them all the way. i do fear that this will never happen though because certain elements have too much to lose if another group arises and they won't let this happen.

Okay, so the bone of contention here is that part of the red shirt crowd that does not condemn the violence, right? Let's look at that in a bit more detail.

Let's imagine you're a poor farmer from a rural area who has felt disenfranchised and marginalized from the political process for many years. You don't advocate violence, but you want change. You put on a red shirt and go to rallies. At those rallies (the ones from 6 months ago) other people are also in your group who don't mind committing acts of violence. They do this not in your name, but in the name of your cause (important difference). You are therefore left in a situation where people are prepared to do things that you don't agree with (violence), but they'll do it ostensibly for reasons you can easily empathize with.

What do you do? Your self appointed leaders (UDD) - self appointed because your organization isn't yet politically sophisticated enough to organize itself along the same democratic lines as established political parties - get carried away and try to persuade you to stay at the rally using inflammatory speeches involving rhetoric including the highly unlikely burning of the entire city. Such talk may rouse your spirits but would still not induce you to kill another person or set fire to a building like a small percentage of others in your group might.

Then the shit hits the fan. Your movement is crushed. What's left? Disorganization and uncertainty. You still believe in your cause. Then a farang comes up to you and says he won't believe anything you say until you condemn the violence. Well you may condemn it on a personal level, but that isn't enough. Those same leaders who got carried away on stage in order to keep you there for the sixth week are the ones on whose word your credibility depends. where does that leave you?

I would suggest that in this situation, you would be left pretty well marginalized. Still believing in your cause, only now you would be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist. And you would be far from alone.

Edited December 15, 2010 by hanuman1

[Insight]

Of course, UDD/DAAD are red shirts, and so are June 24 Democracy Group (which was actually founded before DAAD IIRC), but Thida is only president of the DAAD part of the red shirts, June 24 is a splinter group, much like Sombat's group and Thida has no say over what they do, obviously they coordinate though. Basically they're all red shirts, but not all DAAD. DAAD is the main organization which Thida is president of. Daeng Siam are also red shirts, but not part of DAAD/UDD. Obviously the media might simplify things and say Thida is president of all red shirts etc, but that's not her fault.

Let's say Thaksin returned tomorrow through whatever mechanism and was placed in power for the foreseeable future, no ifs or buts. What would happen to all these "democratic" splinter groups?

Call me a cynic...

[hanuman1]

Of course, UDD/DAAD are red shirts, and so are June 24 Democracy Group (which was actually founded before DAAD IIRC), but Thida is only president of the DAAD part of the red shirts, June 24 is a splinter group, much like Sombat's group and Thida has no say over what they do, obviously they coordinate though. Basically they're all red shirts, but not all DAAD. DAAD is the main organization which Thida is president of. Daeng Siam are also red shirts, but not part of DAAD/UDD. Obviously the media might simplify things and say Thida is president of all red shirts etc, but that's not her fault.

Let's say Thaksin returned tomorrow through whatever mechanism and was placed in power for the foreseeable future, no ifs or buts. What would happen to all these "democratic" splinter groups?

Call me a cynic...

I think it would be reasonable to speculate that Thaksin will remain in the political wilderness for at least another couple of years. Sleep easy.

[Insight]

I think it would be reasonable to speculate that Thaksin will remain in the political wilderness for at least another couple of years. Sleep easy.

And I'm sure until then he'll remain on the tip of everyone's tongue, with all these phone-ins (and kids with bloated bank accounts) and what not...

/edit to add lobbyists. How could we forget?

Edited December 15, 2010 by Insight