I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

and as long as you say that sort of thing to people the frustrations will continue - I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

and as long as you say that sort of thing to people the frustrations will continue - I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

The people didn't vote for a PPP government either.

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

and as long as you say that sort of thing to people the frustrations will continue - I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

The people didn't vote for a PPP government either.

well... that's true too... but personally I hate it when people vote for MP's thinking they are 'allied' to one side and then the MP's jump ship - they didn't vote for that and it stinks! (although technically legal).

I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

The people didn't vote for a PPP government either.

The people didn't vote for a single Red Shirt leader either, right? Strangely ironic, for a revolutionary group furious that a coalition of elected MPs formed a government, as prescribed by the constitution. Strangely peculiar as well, considering that they were fighting and dying for something...which was rejected by their unelected leadership when they were finally offered it by a government desperate to avoid more bloodshed.

Out of interest, who would the UDD vote into leadership positions, if they were trusted with a vote by those who finance their activities? No, you cannot phone a friend.

And why doesn't their phone-a-friend trust them with that vote? Would it simply be too expensive / redundant?

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by TheyCallmeScooter

I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

The people didn't vote for a PPP government either.

The people didn't vote for a single Red Shirt leader either, right? Strangely ironic, for a revolutionary group furious that a coalition of elected MPs formed a government, as prescribed by the constitution. Strangely peculiar as well, considering that they were fighting and dying for something...which was rejected by their unelected leadership when they were finally offered it by a government desperate to avoid more bloodshed.

Out of interest, who would the UDD vote into leadership positions, if they were trusted with a vote by those who finance their activities? No, you cannot phone a friend.

And why doesn't their phone-a-friend trust them with that vote? Would it simply be too expensive / redundant?

'revolutionary group'? where did that come from? just because they are called 'red' doesn't mean they are Communist - they were called 'neo-Stalinist' in another thread and that was laughable too - they would not know who Stalin was if he was drinking in the bar next to them - they would just think 'wierd farang with too much growth on his lip'

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

and as long as you say that sort of thing to people the frustrations will continue - I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

Care to explain how all the seats in the house were filled then.

And what PM was ever elected by the people. Why are you trying to make it sound like Abhist is the only one to ever be elected by the ministers? You know better than that.

The people didn't vote for a single Red Shirt leader either, right? Strangely ironic, for a revolutionary group furious that a coalition of elected MPs formed a government, as prescribed by the constitution. Strangely peculiar as well, considering that they were fighting and dying for something...which was rejected by their unelected leadership when they were finally offered it by a government desperate to avoid more bloodshed.

Out of interest, who would the UDD vote into leadership positions, if they were trusted with a vote by those who finance their activities? No, you cannot phone a friend.

And why doesn't their phone-a-friend trust them with that vote? Would it simply be too expensive / redundant?

'revolutionary group'? where did that come from?

In the newly updated thread to this one... in which the 60,000 attendance goal has plummeted to just 10,000 (which also makes this older thread redundant, btw):

Red Shirt Leader Surachai Danwattananusorn said yesterday,

"Red Siam aims for a peaceful revolution

.

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by Buchholz

I have no Interest in Thai politics but I sense a large number of thai citizens are unhappy with the present government since they were appointed not elected which is not the democratic way. I was not happy when the supreme court appointed GW Bush to be my President so I understand there frustration. I also want to say peaceful demonstration are good but you do not get the results your after I suspect if the election was to be held the red shirts would win with 70 % of the votes which tell me that elite ruling class fear the loss of power. I also want to ad shooting & killing unarmed demonstrators is not good policy it just ad more anger & fear & when people are tired of being afraid they become a super fighting force & nothing will stop them. I suspect the red shirts are hungry & with the economics of Thailand being loss of tourism & exports due to very strong Baht it the working poor that get hurt the most. / this is only my opinion

No interest in Thai politics ... and no knowledge of Thai politics.

and as long as you say that sort of thing to people the frustrations will continue - I accept the governement is 'legal' but the people didn't vote for it

Care to explain how all the seats in the house were filled then.

And what PM was ever elected by the people. Why are you trying to make it sound like Abhist is the only one to ever be elected by the ministers? You know better than that.

well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one.

just because they are called 'red' doesn't mean they are Communist

Tell that to the aforementioned "peaceful revolutionary" Red Shirt Leader Surachai

Surachai Danwattananusorn (center) and Arisamun Pongruenrong (right) sit before surrendering to Chon Buri police to face charges of storming into ASEAN meeting venue in Pattaya earlier this month.

The Nation - April 29, 2009

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by Buchholz

The people didn't vote for a single Red Shirt leader either, right? Strangely ironic, for a revolutionary group furious that a coalition of elected MPs formed a government, as prescribed by the constitution. Strangely peculiar as well, considering that they were fighting and dying for something...which was rejected by their unelected leadership when they were finally offered it by a government desperate to avoid more bloodshed.

Out of interest, who would the UDD vote into leadership positions, if they were trusted with a vote by those who finance their activities? No, you cannot phone a friend.

And why doesn't their phone-a-friend trust them with that vote? Would it simply be too expensive / redundant?

'revolutionary group'? where did that come from? just because they are called 'red' doesn't mean they are Communist - they were called 'neo-Stalinist' in another thread and that was laughable too - they would not know who Stalin was if he was drinking in the bar next to them - they would just think 'wierd farang with too much growth on his lip'

In the newly updated thread to this one... in which the 60,000 attendance goal has plummeted to just 10,000 (which also makes this older thread redundant, btw):

Red Shirt Leader Surachai Danwattananusorn said yesterday,

"Red Siam aims for a peaceful revolution

haha yes I was hoping you didn't spot that! and he's wearing a 'red star' on his cap which is indicative of 'Communist' but he doesn't represent anyone I know who sympathises with the cause behind the red movement.

haha yes I was hoping you didn't spot that! and he's wearing a 'red star' on his cap which is indicative of 'Communist' but he doesn't represent anyone I know who sympathises with the cause behind the red movement.

Then you and the people you know need to know who are Red Shirts.

haha yes I was hoping you didn't spot that! and he's wearing a 'red star' on his cap which is indicative of 'Communist' but he doesn't represent anyone I know who sympathises with the cause behind the red movement.

No, he just speaks for them...

well... that's true too... but personally I hate it when people vote for MP's thinking they are 'allied' to one side and then the MP's jump ship - they didn't vote for that and it stinks! (although technically legal).

So some of them should have been jumping up and down when their MPs campaigned that they wouldn't join with the PPP ... and then after the election, they did.

well... that's true too... but personally I hate it when people vote for MP's thinking they are 'allied' to one side and then the MP's jump ship - they didn't vote for that and it stinks! (although technically legal).

So some of them should have been jumping up and down when their MPs campaigned that they wouldn't join with the PPP ... and then after the election, they did.

Quite agree...

haha yes I was hoping you didn't spot that! and he's wearing a 'red star' on his cap which is indicative of 'Communist' but he doesn't represent anyone I know who sympathises with the cause behind the red movement.

No, he just speaks for them...

hey people let's get perspective - this guy leads a small faction - don't get over excited that you have 'discovered the 'secret' that the reds really ARE communists'

well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one.

The newly formed PTP were in government following the disbanding of the PPP. A new PM had to be elected. They could have called an election, but chose not to. They went to a vote for PM instead (as they did when Somchai was elected PM), but they had lost the support of their coalition partners, which led to Abhisit being elected PM.

haha yes I was hoping you didn't spot that! and he's wearing a 'red star' on his cap which is indicative of 'Communist' but he doesn't represent anyone I know who sympathises with the cause behind the red movement.

No, he just speaks for them...

hey people let's get perspective - this guy leads a small faction - don't get over excited that you have 'discovered the 'secret' that the reds really ARE communists'

Nobody that's been familiar with their exploits over the years is getting excited.

This is nothing new except to those who are either unaware of it or attempt to explain it away.

The communists of Surachai, the anti-monarchists of Jakrapob, the violence of Sae Daeng, Red Shirt Bomber Squad, Arisaman, etc.... just how many extremist "factions" are allowed before a "peaceful democracy movement" gets discredited and found to be repulsive?

.

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by Buchholz

well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one.

The newly formed PTP were in government following the disbanding of the PPP. A new PM had to be elected. They could have called an election, but chose not to. They went to a vote for PM instead (as they did when Somchai was elected PM), but they had lost the support of their coalition partners, which led to Abhisit being elected PM.

yes and the people who voted for the 'coalition partners'? what about them? did they get a chance to say 'it's ok to switch'? no... anyway what's done is done - bring on the election and I will support whoever wins (fairly).

haha yes I was hoping you didn't spot that! and he's wearing a 'red star' on his cap which is indicative of 'Communist' but he doesn't represent anyone I know who sympathises with the cause behind the red movement.

No, he just speaks for them...

hey people let's get perspective - this guy leads a small faction - don't get over excited that you have 'discovered the 'secret' that the reds really ARE communists'

Nobody that's been familiar with their exploits over the years is getting excited. This is nothing new except to those who are either unaware of it or attempt to explain it away.

The communists of Surachai, the anti-monarchists of Jakrapob, the violence of Sae Daeng, Red Shirt Bomber Squad, Arisaman, etc.... just how many extremist "factions" are allowed before a "peaceful democracy movement" gets discredited and found to be repulsive?

.

'violence of sae dang?' you mean the guy who was shot in the head by the Army? oh... right... so that's NOT violence mai?

edit: spl

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by ChiangMaiFun

well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one.

The newly formed PTP were in government following the disbanding of the PPP. A new PM had to be elected. They could have called an election, but chose not to. They went to a vote for PM instead (as they did when Somchai was elected PM), but they had lost the support of their coalition partners, which led to Abhisit being elected PM.

yes and the people who voted for the 'coalition partners'? what about them? did they get a chance to say 'it's ok to switch'? no... anyway what's done is done - bring on the election and I will support whoever wins (fairly).

Did they get a chance to say it's OK to side with the PPP in the first place?

This is nothing new except to those who are either unaware of it or attempt to explain it away.

'violence of sae dang?' you mean the guy who was shot in the head by the Army? oh... right... so that's NOT violence mai?

edit: spl

As you seem unaware of the multiple bombers, snipers, and M79 Grenade shooters tied to him, can we put you down for being in the first category above, then?

.

Edited January 7, 201115 yr by Buchholz

well it's true Abhisit isn't the only one - I guess what I'm trying to convey (badly as usual) is that the elected government were 'banned' and hence the government changed hands right? so THAT was the time to hold an election and get a mandate not set-up another rag-tag one.

The newly formed PTP were in government following the disbanding of the PPP. A new PM had to be elected. They could have called an election, but chose not to. They went to a vote for PM instead (as they did when Somchai was elected PM), but they had lost the support of their coalition partners, which led to Abhisit being elected PM.

yes and the people who voted for the 'coalition partners'? what about them? did they get a chance to say 'it's ok to switch'? no... anyway what's done is done - bring on the election and I will support whoever wins (fairly).

Did they get a chance to say it's OK to side with the PPP in the first place?

Hmmmm well... I don't know for sure but i believe the allegiances were clear before the election - but in all honesty I can't say for sure

This is nothing new except to those who are either unaware of it or attempt to explain it away.

'violence of sae dang?' you mean the guy who was shot in the head by the Army? oh... right... so that's NOT violence mai?

edit: spl

As you seem unaware of the multiple bombers, snipers, and M79 Grenade shooters tied to him, can we put you down for being in the first category above, then?

.

On the balance of probabilities, I'm to some extent in agreement with you on this one, John. But do you have any concrete evidence, other that the usual TVF forum mythmaking that you and the other forum right-wing nutters like to propagate?

The people didn't vote for a single Red Shirt leader either, right? Strangely ironic, for a revolutionary group furious that a coalition of elected MPs formed a government, as prescribed by the constitution. Strangely peculiar as well, considering that they were fighting and dying for something...which was rejected by their unelected leadership when they were finally offered it by a government desperate to avoid more bloodshed.

'revolutionary group'? where did that come from?

lol.

The people didn't vote for a single Red Shirt leader either, right?

You skipped over the questions. Try answering the first one.

This is nothing new except to those who are either unaware of it or attempt to explain it away.

'violence of sae dang?' you mean the guy who was shot in the head by the Army? oh... right... so that's NOT violence mai?

edit: spl

As you seem unaware of the multiple bombers, snipers, and M79 Grenade shooters tied to him, can we put you down for being in the first category above, then?

.

That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state

That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state

lol.

Do you have any evidence he wasn't ordered shot by Thaksin or one of the many unelected Red Shirt leaders who needed him out of the way?

Without evidence, making a claim that the Army "MURDERED" him could be construed as libellous.

That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state

lol.

Do you have any evidence he wasn't ordered shot by Thaksin or one of the many unelected Red Shirt leaders who needed him out of the way?

Without evidence, making a claim that the Army "MURDERED" him could be construed as libellous.

on the balance of probability it wasn't Thaksin (who was on the same side) the bullet was Army issue and it wasn't Santa Claus right? use your brain

This is nothing new except to those who are either unaware of it or attempt to explain it away.

'violence of sae dang?' you mean the guy who was shot in the head by the Army? oh... right... so that's NOT violence mai?

edit: spl

As you seem unaware of the multiple bombers, snipers, and M79 Grenade shooters tied to him, can we put you down for being in the first category above, then?

.

That was not my point... violence is violence on any side and murdering someone being interviewed by a journalist is MURDER and extreme violence on behalf of the state

Two points.

Sae Daeng-sponsored extreme violence was going on for, literally, years before he was met with violence himself.

There's pallet loads of evidence published regarding his culpability and connection to bombers, snipers, and grenade shooters.

There's precious little on your speculation as to who his assassin was.

There was any number of people and groups that would want him taken out.

can I make it CLEAR? sae dang was a nutter - and supported violence - I am not defending nor disputing it - but nor do I enjoy one-sided posts that deplore the violence that sae dang sponsored but ignore his murder - two wrongs do not make a right! I am anti-violence FULLSTOP and have posted this regularly since the red protests down in krung thep.

can I make it CLEAR? sae dang was a nutter - and supported violence - I am not defending nor disputing it - but nor do I enjoy one-sided posts that deplore the violence that sae dang sponsored but ignore his murder - two wrongs do not make a right! I am anti-violence FULLSTOP and have posted this regularly since the red protests down in krung thep.

Now if only ALL the Red Shirts were to decry violence, denounce its members who were violent, remove them from their group, assist in the apprehension of their fugitives, remove Thaksin from their equation, find new leaders with no association to the old leaders, etc. etc., then perhaps they might have a shred of credibility.

Of course, at that point, they would no longer be the Red Shirts, but some new organization.