Red Protest Absences Threaten Thida's Credibility

[webfact]

Red protest absences threaten Thida's credibility

By The Nation

Not every faction of the red-shirt movement will take part in Sunday's mass rally, Red Siam leader Surachai Danwattananusorn said yesterday, casting doubt on the credibility of movement leader Thida Thawornseth.

"Red Siam will be absent on Sunday, although it is going to join the next rally on January 19 to mark the Ratchaprasong protests," Surachai said.

He said his faction opted for the January 19 rally because of its respect for key organiser Sombat Boon-ngarm-anong, who has spearheaded the regrouping of the red shirts after the crackdown last May.

Surachai said he would support the Sombat-led rally as part of the crowd, denying he would try to upstage the leadership.

Commenting on Thida's plan to revamp the leadership structure, he said his faction would not be involved because it had different ideas on how to bring about change.

"Red Siam aims for a peaceful revolution, while the proposed revamp is designed for changes through reforms," he said.

He voiced scepticism about the direction of Thida's leadership, saying she faced a difficult balancing act - leading the movement while seeking the temporary release of her husband weng Tojirakarn and six other red leaders held in remand.

In comparison with the Thida-led faction, Surachai said his was more focused on bringing about liberal democracy. He added that he was seeking change through non-violent means.

Rak Chiang Mai leader Krisana Prompruengpram said his faction would not descend on the capital because of its planned activities for Children's Day tomorrow.

Highlights of the day's activities will include several activities for children, the awarding of scholarships and a phone-in by fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Krisana said.

Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police Bureau is ready to ensure peace and order at Sunday's rally, spokesman Maj-General Piya Uthayo said.

Three red factions are expected to lead the rally, he said. The first faction under Pithan Songampol, aka Pae Bangsanan, will kick off the gathering at Ratchaprasong around noon. It plans a march at 5pm to the statue of King Rama VI in Lumpini Park.

The second faction calls itself the "Facebook group" and comprises supporters of the Khattiyatham Party formed by late pro-red army officer Maj-General Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawasdipol. It will join the rally at Ratchaprasong around 3pm before forming a procession to Democracy Monument on Rajdamnoen Avenue.

The third faction, representing the mainstream movement led by Thida, will rally at the Democracy Monument before marching to Ratchaprasong.

About 10,000 people are expected to show up.

-- The Nation 2011-01-07

[Xangsamhua]

Surachai: "Red Siam aims for a peaceful revolution, while the proposed revamp is designed for changes through reforms."

Can he be specific? What is a "peaceful revolution" and in what way is it different from "changes through reforms"?

Has Red Siam written down its manifesto and strategies anywhere in any detail? Is Red Siam a significant player or some farcical anarchist council like the one portrayed in Chesterton's "The Man Who Was Thursday"? Perhaps Sombat Boon-ngarm-anong is Sunday?!

(See Wikipedia: The Man Who Was Thursday for an explanation.)

[whybother]

So, how many red factions are there? It's hard to keep up. There appears to be a new faction every day.

1) The "Mainstream" faction, led by *acting* leader, K Thida.

2) "Red Siam" led by Surachai.

3) "Rak Chiang Mai" led by Krisana Prompruengpram.

4) A faction led by Pithan Songampol.

5) The "Facebook" group ... not sure who it's led by, but maybe Seh Daeng's daughter.

6) Another faction led by Sombat.

Are these factions all working towards the same goal?

One doesn't want anything to do with Thaksin but is more worried about the leaders than the run-of-the-mill red shirts, one is getting a Thaksin phone-in, one is a supporter of a dead rogue general, one is for bringing about "liberal democracy" through a "peaceful revolution" (whatever they are). Do any of them have anything in common with what they want to do or how they want to do it?

And, now there is only 10,000 expected. What happened to the 60,000 they predicted?

[Buchholz]

^ At various times, there's been over 30 different Red Shirt Leaders identified.

Surachai is the die-hard revolutionary Communist awaiting trial for LM. He's aligned with the likes of fugitives Jakrapob and Arisaman:

Surachai to stand trial for lese majeste

The public prosecutors on Thursday filed a writ charging anti-coup activist Surachai Danwattananusorn, aka Surachai Sae Dan, for making libelous remarks against the monarchy.

The Criminal Court accepts the case for judicial review although it has yet to schedule a trial date.

The prosecution contends that Surachai, 68, defamed the monarchy during a Sanam Luang rally in December 2008.

Surachai is an ex-Communist-turned-activist. He joined the anti-coup movement following the 2006 power seizure. His activism subsequently became part of the red-shirt movement before splitting to form the Red Siam movement following the April 2009 mayhem.

His splinter group includes fugitive red leader Jakrapop Penkair.

The Nation

2010-10-21

additional background on Surachai:

[Buchholz]

Highlights of the day's activities will include several activities for children, the awarding of scholarships and a phone-in by fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Krisana said.

The equation:

PTP = Red Shirts = Thaksin

rolls on

[pipo1000]

So, how many red factions are there? It's hard to keep up. There appears to be a new faction every day.

1) The "Mainstream" faction, led by *acting* leader, K Thida.

2) "Red Siam" led by Surachai.

3) "Rak Chiang Mai" led by Krisana Prompruengpram.

4) A faction led by Pithan Songampol.

5) The "Facebook" group ... not sure who it's led by, but maybe Seh Daeng's daughter.

6) Another faction led by Sombat.

Are these factions all working towards the same goal?

One doesn't want anything to do with Thaksin but is more worried about the leaders than the run-of-the-mill red shirts, one is getting a Thaksin phone-in, one is a supporter of a dead rogue general, one is for bringing about "liberal democracy" through a "peaceful revolution" (whatever they are). Do any of them have anything in common with what they want to do or how they want to do it?

And, now there is only 10,000 expected. What happened to the 60,000 they predicted?

Of course they are,and the goal is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Insight]

6) Another faction led by Sombat.

I understand this faction is attempting to reach out to the educated Bangkokians who are tired with the abuses of power of the "elite"? I guess the thousands of people upset with the young girl who caused the fateful accident on the Vipawadi tollway could fall into this category, specifically with the girls "elite" status and her family's attempts to initially cover up the accident. These people clearly recognise they do have some rights and justice must be applied to all people, regardless of socio-economic status. Surely this evidently large group of people can then also relate to Sombat's aims and join forces against, fighting against such injustices committed by the "elite" ?

Frankly, however, I think the vast majority of these people wouldn't wear a red shirt even if they were paid to (which I do understand is a viable option).

One doesn't want anything to do with Thaksin but is more worried about the leaders than the run-of-the-mill red shirts...

Could this be Thida you are referring to WB? The attached image was spotted by a Twitter user yesterday. If it is who it appears to be on her shirt while she apparently "doesn't care much for Thaksin", well I guess this would be like me wearing a Liverpool shirt with "Bill & Hicks" on it.

The big Thaksin-sponsored bullsh!t circus rolls on...

[jayjay0]

Thida's credibility should have been discarded the minute she said she could not find a peace activist that fell in line with her goals.

Wasen't she a communist at one time? She sounds like a rebel with out a cause other than money.

[Buchholz]

Thida's credibility should have been discarded the minute she said she could not find a peace activist that fell in line with her goals.

Wasen't she a communist at one time? She sounds like a rebel with out a cause other than money.

Thida's credibility seems to be taking a daily hit lately. This was yesterday's shortcoming:

Thida Thawornseth, chairwoman of the red shirt movement, said Wednesdays that she had sent a letter to the International Court of Justice in The Hague of the Netherlands asking for observation of the court trial in Thailand.

Apparently Thida is unaware that what she wants is not a function of the ICJ in The Hague, but, still, it might be good for a chuckle for whoever reviews their incoming correspondence. I'm sure they receive all sorts of lunatic letters.

Perhaps one of the younger Red Shirts could show the retired academician how to use the Internet in order to review their website and learn just what they do:

http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?p1=0〈=en

It might save her and her organization from yet another embarrassment in a long line of embarrassments.

[hanuman1]

So, how many red factions are there? It's hard to keep up. There appears to be a new faction every day.

1) The "Mainstream" faction, led by *acting* leader, K Thida.

2) "Red Siam" led by Surachai.

3) "Rak Chiang Mai" led by Krisana Prompruengpram.

4) A faction led by Pithan Songampol.

5) The "Facebook" group ... not sure who it's led by, but maybe Seh Daeng's daughter.

6) Another faction led by Sombat.

Are these factions all working towards the same goal?

One doesn't want anything to do with Thaksin but is more worried about the leaders than the run-of-the-mill red shirts, one is getting a Thaksin phone-in, one is a supporter of a dead rogue general, one is for bringing about "liberal democracy" through a "peaceful revolution" (whatever they are). Do any of them have anything in common with what they want to do or how they want to do it?

And, now there is only 10,000 expected. What happened to the 60,000 they predicted?

At last you're coming to a clearer understanding of what the redshirt movement has always been, which may therefore give you an idea of why it is so misleading to refer to ALL redshirts as sharing one characteristic or another.

Whilst it may be inconvenient to have to moderate understandable outbursts against those responsible for the violence at redshirt rallies of 10 months ago so that they actually address the responsible faction rather than the whole crowd, it serves the debate better.

Your own analysis shows that given the diversity of this movement, there is plenty of scope for peaceful demonstrators.

Their shared goals are probably to do with dissatisfaction with the government. But people keep treating them like some kind of 'Keystone Cops' political party, expecting clear lines of organization and direction. It's never gonna happen, because the movement's very nature precludes this.

Political parties want power. Social movements want change.

[hyperdimension]

Are these factions all working towards the same goal?

Yes: To bring down the government however way it can, and to keep trying to do so.

Whether bringing down the government is going to make things better for the general population is an irrelevant matter to most (or all?) of these factions.

Edited January 7, 2011 by hyperdimension

[Buchholz]

Political parties want power. Social movements want change.

And Red Shirts want change to restore Thaksin back to power.

They have, as yet, not shown any substantial movement different to that with which they began with in earnest by attacking police in July 2007 in their pursuit of that goal.

The further the credibility of Thida falls (in this and other threads) with her, "we're UDD, we're not Red Shirts", the more that reality is becoming more evident.

.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Buchholz

[ballpoint]

I understand this faction is attempting to reach out to the educated Bangkokians who are tired with the abuses of power of the "elite"? I guess the thousands of people upset with the young girl who caused the fateful accident on the Vipawadi tollway could fall into this category, specifically with the girls "elite" status and her family's attempts to initially cover up the accident. These people clearly recognise they do have some rights and justice must be applied to all people, regardless of socio-economic status. Surely this evidently large group of people can then also relate to Sombat's aims and join forces against, fighting against such injustices committed by the "elite" ?

Frankly, however, I think the vast majority of these people wouldn't wear a red shirt even if they were paid to (which I do understand is a viable option).

Why would anyone protesting about the ability of the "elites" to escape or pervert justice wear a shirt showing support for an organisation that:

Has a man who fled overseas rather than face up to justice as its main financer, and whose own son was caught cheating at university exams, but still managed to pass anyway?

Is closely associated with a political party that has, as one of its senior members, a man who has repeatedly covered up the crimes of his sons, including aiding the fleeing of one following his "alleged" murdering of a police officer?

Has as one of its main leaders a man who repeatedly called for the burning of Bangkok, who repeatedly promised to hand himself in to the police during the months of protests, yet still fled the country rather than face up to justice?

Quite frankly, the cheers and backslappings coming from the red portion of the forum following each peaceful protest are similar to the apologists of a serial killer applauding his not having murdered any one for a few months, and trying to convince everyone that this proves he has changed his ways. They fall right into the same catagory of using ones influence to literally get away with murder. A reasonable minded person would not join a group because he agreed with its goals, but not necessarily with its reasons, if said group repeatedly used violence, fear and intimidation to try and achieve those goals, and refused to say what it would do once those goals were achieved.. Anyone serious about making social and political change would start his own grouping with like minded people, make it clear what the purpose of that grouping was, and how it aimed to achieve it, by presenting a policy statement or manifesto. Saying "we want to force the government to quit" without saying why, and what they would replace it with, is hardly either of these, and the fact that the reds are divided into factions who each say that very same thing, but give different reasons for it, may give the pedants on TV an argument in their favour ("see, it's not about Thaksin because look, that faction there said so"), but is hardly a sign of a unified grouping with a clear policy towards changing the country's social hierarchy in favour of the poor.

[asiawatcher]

I understand this faction is attempting to reach out to the educated Bangkokians who are tired with the abuses of power of the "elite"? I guess the thousands of people upset with the young girl who caused the fateful accident on the Vipawadi tollway could fall into this category, specifically with the girls "elite" status and her family's attempts to initially cover up the accident. These people clearly recognise they do have some rights and justice must be applied to all people, regardless of socio-economic status. Surely this evidently large group of people can then also relate to Sombat's aims and join forces against, fighting against such injustices committed by the "elite" ?

Frankly, however, I think the vast majority of these people wouldn't wear a red shirt even if they were paid to (which I do understand is a viable option).

Why would anyone protesting about the ability of the "elites" to escape or pervert justice wear a shirt showing support for an organisation that:

Has a man who fled overseas rather than face up to justice as its main financer, and whose own son was caught cheating at university exams, but still managed to pass anyway?

Is closely associated with a political party that has, as one of its senior members, a man who has repeatedly covered up the crimes of his sons, including aiding the fleeing of one following his "alleged" murdering of a police officer?

Has as one of its main leaders a man who repeatedly called for the burning of Bangkok, who repeatedly promised to hand himself in to the police during the months of protests, yet still fled the country rather than face up to justice?

Quite frankly, the cheers and backslappings coming from the red portion of the forum following each peaceful protest are similar to the apologists of a serial killer applauding his not having murdered any one for a few months, and trying to convince everyone that this proves he has changed his ways. They fall right into the same catagory of using ones influence to literally get away with murder. A reasonable minded person would not join a group because he agreed with its goals, but not necessarily with its reasons, if said group repeatedly used violence, fear and intimidation to try and achieve those goals, and refused to say what it would do once those goals were achieved.. Anyone serious about making social and political change would start his own grouping with like minded people, make it clear what the purpose of that grouping was, and how it aimed to achieve it, by presenting a policy statement or manifesto. Saying "we want to force the government to quit" without saying why, and what they would replace it with, is hardly either of these, and the fact that the reds are divided into factions who each say that very same thing, but give different reasons for it, may give the pedants on TV an argument in their favour ("see, it's not about Thaksin because look, that faction there said so"), but is hardly a sign of a unified grouping with a clear policy towards changing the country's social hierarchy in favour of the poor.

Good post - also "Red Siam aims for a peaceful revolution,.."

[SomTumTiger]

Any discussion of the Red Shirt leadership that doesn't start and finish with Thaksin Shiniwatra is a fantastic JOKE

[Emptyset]

^ At various times, there's been over 30 different Red Shirt Leaders identified.

Surachai is the die-hard revolutionary Communist awaiting trial for LM. He's aligned with the likes of fugitives Jakrapob and Arisaman:

First I've heard that he's "aligned" with Arisman and I know someone who's part of his DS group. Jakrapob was with them since they gave him space to phone-in to their stage, in the period where he dismissed the UDD as a "monkey show"* (referring to Jatuporn, Nattawud and Veera), but he isn't anymore. Don't know why, but that's what I've been told.

Daeng Siam want a revolution, whereas UDD just aim for reform, I think it's obvious what a "revolution" means. It means cutting off heads and stuff. Just joking, but obviously he can't say exactly what it means without breaking the law, though he has said he's committed to a monarch as symbolic head of state. Incidentally, Surachai opposed the extended Rajaprasong sit-in, saying he knew it'd end in chaos and wouldn't bring democracy to the people... well, that's just obvious but... I'm never sure why DS are thought of as "radical" (i.e. violent - as radical often indicates a propensity to violence in the Thai media, rather than meaning ideologically radical), they've never been linked to any violence and Surachai has always spoken against it in the past few years. Yet even mainstream red shirt supporters have tried to pin bombing campaigns and such on them, pretty ironic as far as I'm concerned, people that support Jatuporn blaming Surachai for the bombs. Oh well. Even heard some blame him for the arson. But these are mainstream types, not leftists, some are still suspicious of ex-communists, I suppose.

*http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/08/28/politics/politics_30110914.php

[Emptyset]

So, how many red factions are there? It's hard to keep up. There appears to be a new faction every day.

1) The "Mainstream" faction, led by *acting* leader, K Thida.

2) "Red Siam" led by Surachai.

3) "Rak Chiang Mai" led by Krisana Prompruengpram.

4) A faction led by Pithan Songampol.

5) The "Facebook" group ... not sure who it's led by, but maybe Seh Daeng's daughter.

6) Another faction led by Sombat.

Are these factions all working towards the same goal?

One doesn't want anything to do with Thaksin but is more worried about the leaders than the run-of-the-mill red shirts, one is getting a Thaksin phone-in, one is a supporter of a dead rogue general, one is for bringing about "liberal democracy" through a "peaceful revolution" (whatever they are). Do any of them have anything in common with what they want to do or how they want to do it?

And, now there is only 10,000 expected. What happened to the 60,000 they predicted?

At last you're coming to a clearer understanding of what the redshirt movement has always been, which may therefore give you an idea of why it is so misleading to refer to ALL redshirts as sharing one characteristic or another.

Whilst it may be inconvenient to have to moderate understandable outbursts against those responsible for the violence at redshirt rallies of 10 months ago so that they actually address the responsible faction rather than the whole crowd, it serves the debate better.

Your own analysis shows that given the diversity of this movement, there is plenty of scope for peaceful demonstrators.

Their shared goals are probably to do with dissatisfaction with the government. But people keep treating them like some kind of 'Keystone Cops' political party, expecting clear lines of organization and direction. It's never gonna happen, because the movement's very nature precludes this.

Political parties want power. Social movements want change.

Good points. Red shirts are a disparate group with no formal command structure. It's difficult enough for Thida to keep the UDD unified, never mind about all the other factions. There's considerable divergence within the group, both ideologically and strategically. A minority are violent and are willing to use violence, but vast majority are not. You can't even compare them to PAD, who were a disparate group in the early days, but now seem wholly under the thumb of Sondhi and Chamlong. PAD are unified ideologically in the way the red shirts are not, that's why they could put out their ideas for New Politics etc. Whereas red shirts are united only in what they're against, namely the amaat, not what they're for (well actually, not quite true, all were for immediate house dissolution, of course). Some red shirts are free-market capitalists, some socialist, some liberals and so on. Most love or at least like Thaksin, but they can't simply be reduced to that. Anyway, whilst it's true that the UDD hasn't said much about economic reform or made concrete proposals regards anything other than demanding an election, the more intellectual left-wing factions like Sombat's group and Somyot's etc have set up a reform panel to mirror the one set up by the government. So it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. I suppose a starting point would be the five things listed here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2010-10-14/content_1005355.html

[rubl]

So, how many red factions are there? It's hard to keep up. There appears to be a new faction every day.

1) The "Mainstream" faction, led by *acting* leader, K Thida.

2) "Red Siam" led by Surachai.

3) "Rak Chiang Mai" led by Krisana Prompruengpram.

4) A faction led by Pithan Songampol.

5) The "Facebook" group ... not sure who it's led by, but maybe Seh Daeng's daughter.

6) Another faction led by Sombat.

Are these factions all working towards the same goal?

One doesn't want anything to do with Thaksin but is more worried about the leaders than the run-of-the-mill red shirts, one is getting a Thaksin phone-in, one is a supporter of a dead rogue general, one is for bringing about "liberal democracy" through a "peaceful revolution" (whatever they are). Do any of them have anything in common with what they want to do or how they want to do it?

And, now there is only 10,000 expected. What happened to the 60,000 they predicted?

At last you're coming to a clearer understanding of what the redshirt movement has always been, which may therefore give you an idea of why it is so misleading to refer to ALL redshirts as sharing one characteristic or another.

Whilst it may be inconvenient to have to moderate understandable outbursts against those responsible for the violence at redshirt rallies of 10 months ago so that they actually address the responsible faction rather than the whole crowd, it serves the debate better.

Your own analysis shows that given the diversity of this movement, there is plenty of scope for peaceful demonstrators.

Their shared goals are probably to do with dissatisfaction with the government. But people keep treating them like some kind of 'Keystone Cops' political party, expecting clear lines of organization and direction. It's never gonna happen, because the movement's very nature precludes this.

Political parties want power. Social movements want change.

With these many red-shirt factions it's no surprise one was forgotten; the June 24 Democracy Group led by k. Somyos.

It shows the label 'red-shirts' is easy, just like 'yellow shirts', 'elite', 'the oppressed', 'democracy', 'justice', 'free our leaders', etc and etc.

[hanuman1]

Political parties want power. Social movements want change.

And Red Shirts want change to restore Thaksin back to power.

They have, as yet, not shown any substantial movement different to that with which they began with in earnest by attacking police in July 2007 in their pursuit of that goal.

The further the credibility of Thida falls (in this and other threads) with her, "we're UDD, we're not Red Shirts", the more that reality is becoming more evident.

.

Darling, I thought we weren't talking to each other.

Just to answer your post though, I would refer you to whybother's post #3 in this thread, where he/she sheds light on why the label 'redshirts' should be used with a degree of caution when commenting on the entire movement's motivations and goals.

Please put me on your 'ignore' list.

xxx.

[hyperdimension]

Just to answer your post though, I would refer you to whybother's post #3 in this thread, where he/she sheds light on why the label 'redshirts' should be used with a degree of caution when commenting on the entire movement's motivations and goals.

You say "the entire movement's motivations and goals" as if it's plural.

The formal name "United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship" is largely a misnomer. They are (or were) only "united" for one single purpose: to bring the current government down. Apart from this goal, they are in disunity.

Each faction have their own specific "motivations and goals", but they have far less power individually due to smaller size (as opposed to being a large united group) and therefore attract less attention.

Edited January 7, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hanuman1]

Just to answer your post though, I would refer you to whybother's post #3 in this thread, where he/she sheds light on why the label 'redshirts' should be used with a degree of caution when commenting on the entire movement's motivations and goals.

You say "the entire movement's motivations and goals" as if it's plural.

The formal name "United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship" is largely a misnomer. They are (or were) only "united" for one single purpose: to bring the current government down. Apart from this goal, they are in disunity.

Each faction have their own specific "motivations and goals", but they have far less power individually due to smaller size (as opposed to being a large united group) and therefore attract less attention.

Hooray! I agree with you!

Just to clarify, each faction has it's own motivations and goals, hence:

the entire movement's motivations and goals

Maybe I should have made it:

"the entire movement's (various) motivations and goals"

Apart from that, we have a highly improbable meeting of minds. Yay!!!

[hyperdimension]

Maybe I should have made it:

"the entire movement's (various) motivations and goals"

That still wouldn't make full sense, as it assumes that the "motivations and goals" of each faction can be simply summed or grouped together into one big list. The problem is that there are conflicting goals, and the achievement of some goals may prevent other goals of other factions to be reached. Some factions may not agree with the goals of other factions.

So I think whilst united, they only have one goal; As individual factions, they have their own various goals.

Edited January 7, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hanuman1]

Maybe I should have made it:

"the entire movement's (various) motivations and goals"

That still wouldn't make full sense, as it assumes that the "motivations and goals" of each faction can be simply summed or grouped together into one big list. The problem is that there are conflicting goals, and the achievement of some goals may prevent other goals of other factions to be reached. Some factions may not agree with the goals of other factions.

So I think whilst united, they only have one goal; As individual factions, they have their own various goals.

Yes, I quite agree (again!), the motivations and goals of the factions may ultimately be contradictory, but the uniting factor, as the intelligent Mr/Ms Emptyset pointed out, is that they all want rid of this government. If the government was to fall, or one redshirt faction leader tried to define a single motivation and goal for the redshirt movement, the factions would split apart faster than a Silom hooker's legs at $50 per hour.

And by the way, this would not be considered a failure of the redshirt movement, it would be a natural evolution.

[hyperdimension]

So during the protests when all factions were united into one big group (UDD), they were tolerant of each other despite the differing and conflicting goals, as the common goal of bringing down the government is a prerequisite step before being able to progress towards their own goals. Even though only some were violent, they all tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered the violence as it helped in getting past that prerequisite step. There was never any denouncement of the violence from any faction; rather, we now see a lot of accusation of brutality to portray the government in a bad light as part of the ongoing attempt to bring the government down.

Edited January 7, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hanuman1]

So during the protests when all factions were united into one big group (UDD), they were tolerant of each other despite the differing and conflicting goals, as the common goal of bringing down the government is a prerequisite step before being able to progress towards their own goals. Even though only some were violent, they all tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered the violence as it helped in getting past that prerequisite step. There was never any denouncement of the violence from any faction; rather, we now see a lot of accusation of brutality to portray the government in a bad light as part of the ongoing attempt to bring the government down.

they all tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered the violence as it helped in getting past that prerequisite step

Woah there my good fellow. This is a tad presumptuous. You use the word 'all' with a rather gay abandon. I would suggest that prior to the first shots being fired, there may have been members of several factions present who wouldn't have wanted the whole mess to end in bloodshed.

This may be evidenced in the fact that not many people who hid among them carried guns. If they were able to let's say arm 20 people, why didn't they arm more? Because Thaksin ran out of money? Or because not everyone was into prosecuting their grievances in violent ways. Just a thought.

Edited January 7, 2011 by hanuman1

[Emptyset]

So during the protests when all factions were united into one big group (UDD), they were tolerant of each other despite the differing and conflicting goals, as the common goal of bringing down the government is a prerequisite step before being able to progress towards their own goals. Even though only some were violent, they all tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered the violence as it helped in getting past that prerequisite step. There was never any denouncement of the violence from any faction; rather, we now see a lot of accusation of brutality to portray the government in a bad light as part of the ongoing attempt to bring the government down.

Well, one faction, Daeng Siam wasn't even there when the violence started. They left when Veera asked them to leave at the same time he denounced Seh Daeng and told him to leave (http://www.nationmul...u-30124930.html) - why couldn't they get rid of him, even though some of them clearly wanted him to go? Because of his ties to Thaksin, simple as that. However, I don't know why people have conflated Seh Daeng with Daeng Siam, he was never part of the group and DS have never called for violence. It's just because he showed up at a few DS rallies and talked to Surachai, but they were never "friends" as some of the media have said. Veera only denouced DS because Surachai said that asking for house dissolution wouldn't work, not because he called for violence... and of course he was right in the end. It's strange the media wants to paint DS as violent radicals when it's surely those closest to Thaksin (Veera himself *was* very close to Thaksin, of course, not sure about now) who should be trusted least.

I think some of the moderate UDD leaders were in a bind in the last few days of the rally, they were clueless and had no idea what the best thing to do was. Veera disappeared. They could've just left like him and ceded control to those who were explicitly more violent, of course. I doubt it would've made much difference in the end, anyway. What they should've done is call it off after the 10th. Anyway, you can't lump Sombat and so on in with them, they had no power back then, we don't even know if Sombat was there in the final few days or not.* Only thing I remember hearing of him during the rally is that naked protest thing and some criticism of the leaders as reported in The Nation: http://www.nationmul...r-30129106.html

*Quick google - apparently he lead the stage at Din Daeng: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/05/22/politics/Some-red-shirts-advocate-peaceful-struggle-30129971.html

Edited January 7, 2011 by Emptyset

[whybother]

They were "peaceful protesters" so they couldn't (and didn't) really go around openly carrying guns, could they?

During the protests they were a united group. None of the "factions" denounced the violence during the protests.

Veera left before the final days, but not before the violence on April 10, or the red shirts attacking and provoking troops from behind their tyre barricades. (I hate it how the Nation doesn't date their articles.)

Their united goal was to bring down the government and to get Thaksin back. Their might be some red shirts that don't like Thaksin, but they supported the united group with the united goal.

[hyperdimension]

So during the protests when all factions were united into one big group (UDD), they were tolerant of each other despite the differing and conflicting goals, as the common goal of bringing down the government is a prerequisite step before being able to progress towards their own goals. Even though only some were violent, they all tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered the violence as it helped in getting past that prerequisite step. There was never any denouncement of the violence from any faction; rather, we now see a lot of accusation of brutality to portray the government in a bad light as part of the ongoing attempt to bring the government down.

they all tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered the violence as it helped in getting past that prerequisite step

Woah there my good fellow. This is a tad presumptuous. You use the word 'all' with a rather gay abandon. I would suggest that prior to the first shots being fired, there may have been members of several factions present who wouldn't have wanted the whole mess to end in bloodshed.

You use the word "wanted", whereas I used "tolerated and maybe even condoned and cheered". You need to distinguish between these words. The fact that there was no public denunciation of the violence by any faction nor Pheu Thai indicates tolerance, with the reason being that if the violence brought the government down (as has worked in the past), then they would all be closer to their own various goals. When I said "maybe even condoned and cheered", it could have been silently, or publicly as we can see when the crowd in general cheered the leaders' speeches, particularly Arisman's, that called for violence:

If any faction or people in the crowd or Pheu Thai party member were strongly against the calling or the enacting of violence, they would have protested against Arisman and others who had called for or enacted violence. They didn't (even though there may have been some who were silently against it), and instead went along with it, to the ultimate conclusion, because they knew that if the end result was dissolution then they would be able to progress in their own goals.

Edited January 8, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

Well, one faction, Daeng Siam wasn't even there when the violence started. They left when Veera asked them to leave at the same time he denounced Seh Daeng and told him to leave (http://www.nationmul...u-30124930.html)

That's a tiny "breaking news" article written in broken English without any date. Maybe it should be called "Broken English News".

I think some of the moderate UDD leaders were in a bind in the last few days of the rally, they were clueless and had no idea what the best thing to do was. Veera disappeared. They could've just left like him and ceded control to those who were explicitly more violent, of course. I doubt it would've made much difference in the end, anyway. What they should've done is call it off after the 10th.

Even if some of the moderates didn't like the violent way it was going, if it resulted in house dissolution then they got what they wanted. i.e. they tolerated and maybe even condoned whatever means dominated the push to topple the government, even if it threatened lives. Those leaders and protesters who walked away were probably more concerned about their own safety.

Anyway, you can't lump Sombat and so on in with them, they had no power back then, we don't even know if Sombat was there in the final few days or not.* Only thing I remember hearing of him during the rally is that naked protest thing and some criticism of the leaders as reported in The Nation: http://www.nationmul...r-30129106.html

There are some good points in that article:

Another weak point is most discussions on stage focus on attacking the aristocratic elite, while very little is said about the problems of ordinary protesters.

"They don't address the economic plight of people. We know there are many motorcycle taxi drivers, but nothing is ever said about their problems," Sombat said.

Noi, another well-educated red-shirt protester, said she had tried desperately hard to make her suggestions heard and establish contact with some leaders. However, despite some relative success, she feels some leaders are not trustworthy and may not even stand for democracy.

Recall that one of the Abhisit government's policies is to help motorcycle taxi drivers (e.g. provide social security).

Edited January 8, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

*Quick google - apparently he lead the stage at Din Daeng: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/05/22/politics/Some-red-shirts-advocate-peaceful-struggle-30129971.html

From that article, here is what Sombat thought of Abhisit and the government:

Sombat said that what took place during the crackdown on Wednesday, which led to 15 deaths on that day alone and combined to a total of more than 70 deaths over the past month or so, signalled a "political defeat" for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. "He has unveiled his real face behind that good-looking face of his. The continued killings showed us Abhisit's and the ammart's [aristocrats'] behaviour. Thai society is blind and we do not see the real truth. This government is an ammart government, which is brutal, a tyrannical regime that sucks people's blood."

I wonder if he still thinks the same way after the government's recent announcement of their policies. Would he support Pheu Thai instead?

Edited January 8, 2011 by hyperdimension