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

[hanuman1]

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?

and we'll lap it up....

[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?

and we'll lap it up....

As do those in the flesh trade areas. It's just a job...

[hanuman1]

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?

and we'll lap it up....

As do those in the flesh trade areas. It's just a job...

<deleted>? Are you saying you're getting paid for posting here?

[Buchholz]

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?

I walk away from the group when they riot in Bangkok 3 and half years ago... I walk away from the group when they threaten to blow up a neighborhood with a gas truck during the violence of Black Songkran 2009... I walk away from the group 10 months ago when I hear of plans to burn down Siriraj Hospital and all Muslim mosques in my beloved country... I certainly don't stay with a group that has committed violent acts for many years all over the country.

I walk away because I "don't advocate violence" and I know that's not the way to go because I "want change."

I walk away long before May 2010 if I am sincere in my desires and truthful about not advocating violence.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Buchholz

[hanuman1]

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?

I walk away from the group when they riot in Bangkok 3 and half years ago... I walk away from the group when they threaten to blow up a neighborhood with a gas truck during the violence of Black Songkran 2009... I walk away from the group 10 months ago when I hear of plans to burn down Siriraj Hospital and all Muslim mosques in my beloved country... I certainly don't stay with a group that has committed violent acts for many years all over the country.

I walk away because I "don't advocate violence" and I know that's not the way to go because I "want change."

I walk away long before May 2010 if I am sincere in my desires and truthful about not advocating violence.

I don't carry a gun or shoot at anyone. I don't throw anything at anyone. I don't enter malls with the intention of burning them down. I don't injure a single person. And you accuse me of being a manipulated, violent anarchist.

Edited December 15, 2010 by hanuman1

[Insight]

and we'll lap it up....

As do those in the flesh trade areas. It's just a job...

<deleted>? Are you saying you're getting paid for posting here?

Er.. you're "lapping it up". Don't go all Simon on me.

[hanuman1]

and we'll lap it up....

As do those in the flesh trade areas. It's just a job...

<deleted>? Are you saying you're getting paid for posting here?

Er.. you're "lapping it up". Don't go all Simon on me.

Sorry, I thought you were the one going 'Simon'. My mistake. (by 'we' I meant you, me and the other posters - no 'us and them' attitude intended)

Edited December 15, 2010 by hanuman1

[Buchholz]

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?

I walk away from the group when they riot in Bangkok 3 and half years ago... I walk away from the group when they threaten to blow up a neighborhood with a gas truck during the violence of Black Songkran 2009... I walk away from the group 10 months ago when I hear of plans to burn down Siriraj Hospital and all Muslim mosques in my beloved country... I certainly don't stay with a group that has committed violent acts for many years all over the country.

I walk away because I "don't advocate violence" and I know that's not the way to go because I "want change."

I walk away long before May 2010 if I am sincere in my desires and truthful about not advocating violence.

I don't carry a gun or shoot at anyone. I don't throw anything at anyone. I don't enter malls with the intention of burning them down. I don't injure a single person. And you think I am a manipulated, violent anarchist.

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

[hanuman1]

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?

I walk away from the group when they riot in Bangkok 3 and half years ago... I walk away from the group when they threaten to blow up a neighborhood with a gas truck during the violence of Black Songkran 2009... I walk away from the group 10 months ago when I hear of plans to burn down Siriraj Hospital and all Muslim mosques in my beloved country... I certainly don't stay with a group that has committed violent acts for many years all over the country.

I walk away because I "don't advocate violence" and I know that's not the way to go because I "want change."

I walk away long before May 2010 if I am sincere in my desires and truthful about not advocating violence.

I don't carry a gun or shoot at anyone. I don't throw anything at anyone. I don't enter malls with the intention of burning them down. I don't injure a single person. And you think I am a manipulated, violent anarchist.

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

How responsible are you for the actions of other people within a 500 meter radius? And by the way, how do you manage to post without showing up as one of the members present in the thread at the foot of the page? Just curious.

[Siam Simon]

and we'll lap it up....

As do those in the flesh trade areas. It's just a job...

<deleted>? Are you saying you're getting paid for posting here?

Er.. you're "lapping it up". Don't go all Simon on me.

Yes, be careful about that. "Insight" will be 'offering you out' via pm before you know it.

[hanuman1]

As do those in the flesh trade areas. It's just a job...

<deleted>? Are you saying you're getting paid for posting here?

Er.. you're "lapping it up". Don't go all Simon on me.

Yes, be careful about that. "Insight" will be 'offering you out' via pm before you know it.

Really? Where I come from 'offering you out' is a threat of violence. And this from a critic of red-shirted violence? Scandalous!

[jayjay0]

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.

Throatwobbler

I agree with all you say but what is your point.

hanuman1

was only saying that none of the leaders really care what farangs think. It will not buy them even one vote. I agree.

He is dead on when he talks about us throwing rocks we are defiantly on the out side. He could also have mentioned some posters support Some of the leaders and there policies and some just give there honest opinion. All though a lot of the honest opinion's tend to put Thai's down.

[Siam Simon]

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

cut// And by the way, how do you manage to post without showing up as one of the members present in the thread at the foot of the page? Just curious.

It's probably an option somewhere in personal settings. Creepy is as creepy does.

[Siam Simon]

Yes, be careful about that. "Insight" will be 'offering you out' via pm before you know it.

Really? Where I come from 'offering you out' is a threat of violence. And this from a critic of red-shirted violence? Scandalous!

Yes, really.

[Insight]

Yes, be careful about that. "Insight" will be 'offering you out' via pm before you know it.

You keep to calling people liars behind your keyboard, Simon. It seems to be a familiar hymn of yours, along with the paid-to-post BS.

[hanuman1]

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

cut// And by the way, how do you manage to post without showing up as one of the members present in the thread at the foot of the page? Just curious.

It's probably an option somewhere in personal settings. Creepy is as creepy does.

To be fair, I can't see you in that list of members present either, so either you an Buchholz are part of a secret cabal sponsored by Society for the Promotion of Paranoid Fantasies (they're pretty busy these days), or it's just a foible of the TV application code.

Anyway, back to the topic. I'm enjoying this.

Edited December 15, 2010 by hanuman1

[Buchholz]

I walk away from the group when they riot in Bangkok 3 and half years ago... I walk away from the group when they threaten to blow up a neighborhood with a gas truck during the violence of Black Songkran 2009... I walk away from the group 10 months ago when I hear of plans to burn down Siriraj Hospital and all Muslim mosques in my beloved country... I certainly don't stay with a group that has committed violent acts for many years all over the country.

I walk away because I "don't advocate violence" and I know that's not the way to go because I "want change."

I walk away long before May 2010 if I am sincere in my desires and truthful about not advocating violence.

I don't carry a gun or shoot at anyone. I don't throw anything at anyone. I don't enter malls with the intention of burning them down. I don't injure a single person. And you think I am a manipulated, violent anarchist.

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

How responsible are you for the actions of other people within a 500 meter radius? And by the way, how do you manage to post without showing up as one of the members present in the thread at the foot of the page? Just curious.

You are responsible for putting yourself (and your human shield toddler son, if you brought him there, too) at a rally of a group with a prior history of violence and who are making violent-tainted speeches in front of you.

Strained protests of "but, but, I didn't do anything myself" are extremely hollow if negative consequences occur to the violent group that you independently choose to be a part of. Equally hollow are inane protestations of, "I didn't know my group was going to be violent" as the repeated clashes are well known by all participants.

If you want change and sincere in your claims to be non-violent, choose another group or start one yourself. If anyone at Arisaman's speeches were sincere in their claim to be non-violent, they would have stood up right then and there and loudly denounced his plans to burn every Muslim mosque in this country down to the ground. They would have walked out and encouraged everyone around them to walk out as well.

Any of those that didn't, don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to proclaiming they are non-violent.

[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...

And I'd still appreciate an answer to this from EmptySet...

Edited December 15, 2010 by Insight

[Siam Simon]

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

cut// And by the way, how do you manage to post without showing up as one of the members present in the thread at the foot of the page? Just curious.

It's probably an option somewhere in personal settings. Creepy is as creepy does.

To be fair, I can't see you in that list of members present either, so either you an Buchholz are part of a secret cabal sponsored by Society for the Promotion of Paranoid Fantasies (they're pretty busy these days), or it's just a foible of the TV application code.

Anyway, back to the topic. I'm enjoying this.

My list has Siam Simon, "Insight", hanuman1 and Emptyset, but no John Buchholz.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Siam Simon

[jayjay0]

hanuman1

One of your posts included the following paragraph

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.aph.

Well there certainly is a element that wants to peacefully improve Thailand. Problem being they are in a party who could care less. If you followed them in there Bangkok camp out at other peoples expene you will know that peace will only be attained when they get there way and no one disagree's with them.

If memory serves me rite they were threatening suicide bombers a month ago.

Do you not understand these people you are supporting who just want a better Thailand are in fact supporting a leadership that does not even have that idea on the horizon.

[hanuman1]

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?

I walk away from the group when they riot in Bangkok 3 and half years ago... I walk away from the group when they threaten to blow up a neighborhood with a gas truck during the violence of Black Songkran 2009... I walk away from the group 10 months ago when I hear of plans to burn down Siriraj Hospital and all Muslim mosques in my beloved country... I certainly don't stay with a group that has committed violent acts for many years all over the country.

I walk away because I "don't advocate violence" and I know that's not the way to go because I "want change."

I walk away long before May 2010 if I am sincere in my desires and truthful about not advocating violence.

I don't carry a gun or shoot at anyone. I don't throw anything at anyone. I don't enter malls with the intention of burning them down. I don't injure a single person. And you think I am a manipulated, violent anarchist.

If you choose to associate with violent people, then I think you are insincere in your claims to be non-violent.

If you choose to sit and listen to the violent rhetoric of an Arisaman speech and don't immediately stand up and walk away, you are condoning his threats to create mayhem. If, instead, you take him up on his offer and go to the destination (Bangkok) where Siriraj Hospital is located, you are condoning his promises to burn it down.

If you don't wish to be labeled a manipulated, violent anarchist... don't hang out with violent anarchists.

You're using general terms to accuse people of very specific things. Naughty.

For example. What do you mean by 'associate'? Does this mean to lay plans together? Does it mean to be situated within 'x' number of meters of each other? You say people should walk away when they hear things they don't necessarily agree with. Would a reporter do that? I'm not saying there were x,000 reporters on the scene, but it just shows there can be exceptions - including the force of peer pressure or 'herd instinct' - to your rather idealistic solution to the problem.

And what do you mean by 'hang out'? Please don't think I'm splitting hairs. The perceived integrity of thousands of people is at stake. I'm sure you wouldn't take that lightly.

[hyperdimension]

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 think the realistically closest thing we have is the Abhisit government. The poor need to realize this and vote accordingly.

[hanuman1]

hanuman1

One of your posts included the following paragraph

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.aph.

Well there certainly is a element that wants to peacefully improve Thailand. Problem being they are in a party who could care less. If you followed them in there Bangkok camp out at other peoples expene you will know that peace will only be attained when they get there way and no one disagree's with them.

If memory serves me rite they were threatening suicide bombers a month ago.

Do you not understand these people you are supporting who just want a better Thailand are in fact supporting a leadership that does not even have that idea on the horizon.

Mate, I've never defended those red leaders who advocated violence. I just don't like it when thousands of non-violent people who were there because they felt they had no other way to express their displeasure with the way their country treats them are labeled effectively as mindless animals by high-minded farangs who can't be bothered to differentiate between the various types of people who were there.

Cheering for the demise of your perceived enemy is not illegal - burning buildings is. Thousands did the former, maybe a couple hundred (max) did the latter. But they're all considered the same. Galling.

Edited December 15, 2010 by hanuman1

[hyperdimension]

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.

Why not the Abhisit government? Do you think UDD (& splinter groups) and Pheu Thai are far more likely to help the poor? Edited December 15, 2010 by hyperdimension

[hanuman1]

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 think the realistically closest thing we have is the Abhisit government. The poor need to realize this and vote accordingly.

I've always thought if the government could have a decent PR campaign in rural areas to highlight what they're doing for the poor folks out there, they'd have no trouble (in terms of political power - not violence) whatsoever from PTP or UDD. Why aren't they doing it?

[hanuman1]

You are responsible for putting yourself (and your human shield toddler son, if you brought him there, too) at a rally of a group with a prior history of violence and who are making violent-tainted speeches in front of you.

Why are you doing this? Deliberately choosing a particularly emotive event (the guy with the kid at the tyre wall) just because you saw one or two - hell, maybe even three - photos of it being done, and applying it in a fashion that suggests any red-shirt could be capable of doing that.

You accuse me and others of 'ad hominem' attacks but the way you characterize thousands of people is beneath contempt. And you know exactly what you are doing. Shameful and calculatedly devisive.

[whybother]

Yes, be careful about that. "Insight" will be 'offering you out' via pm before you know it.

You keep to calling people liars behind your keyboard, Simon. It seems to be a familiar hymn of yours, along with the paid-to-post BS.

And being accused of being Thai.

[jayjay0]

hanuman1

One of your posts included the following paragraph

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.aph.

Well there certainly is a element that wants to peacefully improve Thailand. Problem being they are in a party who could care less. If you followed them in there Bangkok camp out at other peoples expene you will know that peace will only be attained when they get there way and no one disagree's with them.

If memory serves me rite they were threatening suicide bombers a month ago.

Do you not understand these people you are supporting who just want a better Thailand are in fact supporting a leadership that does not even have that idea on the horizon.

Mate, I've never defended those red leaders who advocated violence. I just don't like it when thousands of non-violent people who were there because they felt they had no other way to express their displeasure with the way their country treats them are labeled effectively as mindless animals by high-minded farangs who can't be bothered to differentiate between the various types of people who were there.

Cheering for the demise of your perceived enemy is not illegal - burning buildings is. Thousands did the former, maybe a couple hundred (max) did the latter. But they're all considered the same. Galling.

If I read you right you are saying they are not mindless animals they knew full well what was happening and condoned it with there physical presence.

All wars have that element and with out it all wars would not have lasted as long as they did. No army stands on its own merit. They need the civilians be they intelligent or mindless animals they can not exist with out them.

[jayjay0]

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 think the realistically closest thing we have is the Abhisit government. The poor need to realize this and vote accordingly.

I've always thought if the government could have a decent PR campaign in rural areas to highlight what they're doing for the poor folks out there, they'd have no trouble (in terms of political power - not violence) whatsoever from PTP or UDD. Why aren't they doing it?

Bingo You win the prize why aren't they doing it.

The reality is they are helping far more than Thaksin ever did why aren't they getting the word out.

[Pi Sek]

I've always thought if the government could have a decent PR campaign in rural areas to highlight what they're doing for the poor folks out there, they'd have no trouble (in terms of political power - not violence) whatsoever from PTP or UDD. Why aren't they doing it?

Bingo You win the prize why aren't they doing it.

The reality is they are helping far more than Thaksin ever did why aren't they getting the word out.

Yes, the govt is making moves to create better equity. Many pro-red Thais I know just refuse to acknowledge this. When pressed further, they say that Abhisit is good at talking but that's it. When pressed further still, they acknowledge that Abhisit actually is trying to help them, but that Abhisit is not in charge of government affairs - even though he is!

There is a very good reason that they are unable to campaign properly in many rural areas (read "north and north-east") - intimidation. Although Mr. Andrew Walker, associate of Thaivisa member and "New Mandala" blogger Nick Nostitz and Thai fugitive "UDD spokesman" (according to the BBC when he was interviewed in May) Ji Ungpakorn, states otherwise...

Second, the election seemed to be conducted in an atmosphere free of intimidation and threat. Opposition electoral material was widely displayed and distributed. Local people, including many in key government and private enterprise positions, spoke freely about their dislike of the Thaksin government.

Which goes against everything else I've ever read, heard or seen about the 2005 elections! (Actually, if I remember right, pre-2006, pre-UDD and pre-DAAD the Red Shirts were Thaksin's electoral intimidation militia who were responsible for making sure that the locals were aware that the evil Dems from BKK or the elite PAD will get a good kicking whenever they come up to Isaan.) Maybe I remembered it all wrong and some nice TV poster can correct me