30,000 Thai Red Shirts Rally In Bangkok: Police

[MikeyIdea]

There seem to be people posting here who either hasn't been in Thailand long enough to know or hasn't bothered reading up on the history

I read things like The Nation always supporting the government.

What nonsense is that? The Nation has historically been the newspaper that has dared to push the limits AGAINST freedom of speach and government if so be it

[Emptyset]

That's actually the first I've heard of a second fire. Most of the talk at the time was around a conspiracy that the army turned off the water in the whole area a couple of days before (as part of their efforts to make it difficult for the red shirts) just so they could burn it down.

The first fire started by the mob that we saw in the widely circulated pictures was put out by 3pm. Then the second fire, the one that did the serious damage, started around 4pm, I think. People nearby heard loud explosions around that time and then saw the fire come back much stronger than originally. That's what I can work out from speaking to eyewitnesses. I saw a time line on a red shirt site that stated the army was in control by 3pm. But witnesses I've spoken to say that's not true. They arrived sometime around 4:30, or definitely after the second fire started - can't remember the exact times given. But water was definitely not turned off.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Emptyset

[Emptyset]

If you were following the events closely (or even casually), you would have known that he offered November elections.

Yes, he did. But I'm saying he could've offered elections even earlier or even immediate house dissolution to avoid further chaos. A man of principle sacrificing himself for the country. After all, that's exactly what HE himself suggested Samak/Somchai do. He actually said Somchai isn't a normal human because he stayed on after the crackdown on the PAD. Normally, when there are deaths at a Thai political protest, the leader has to go. I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but it's kind of traditional up to the deaths of the PAD. Anyway, I don't think Abhisit staying in power longer was worth the deaths and destruction, but neither do I think the UDD cause was worth anyone dying for. They should've gone home after April 10th, or especially when Abhisit made his offer. So... looking at both sides of the coin, neither side comes out of it well, from a leadership perspective.

It's a trick one, obviously governments shouldn't just give in to every mob that attempts a prolonged protest, but sometimes it might be the only option to avoid serious trouble, either in that moment, or down the line. However, it has been suggested to me that Abhisit did accept the idea of immediate house dissolution, only to be vetoed by "above". If that's true, I certainly sympathize with him, although he could've resigned I suppose. I wonder how all this will be looked back upon in history? I suppose it's contingent on what happens next...

Edited January 12, 2011 by Emptyset

[MikeyIdea]

Some of you are either self-censoring what you read or simply have little knowledge on the subject

What happened during the fire and why wasn't it put out?

I work at the Offices at Central World - The guards there says that lot's of cooking gas tanks were stock piled in strategic positions in advance. They were brought in before the army sealed off the area several days before they were used to burn Central World. The burning of Central World was a planned action. Gas tanks were stock piled - not used for cooking, stock piled in advance

We occasionally had staff going to The Office at Central World except for the last few days, last time I was there was early May, the electricity and the water in The Offices At Central World was NOT turned off. Now that's not the actual department store but it's the adjacent building. To turn off water to the department store but not the office building, you have to be in occupied territory, not much point since the occupiers can turn it on again when you leave...

The guards at The Offices At Central World says that the windows of the department store were broken, the valves to the cooking gas tanks were opened and then the tanks were thrown into the department store, then came grenades

Why wasn't it put out? I cannot 100% say if the sprinklers worked or not but sprinklers are not dimensioned to be able to handle a fire supported by that amount of accellerants anyway

The fire brigade did not have access to the area. We should not forget that when staff at the Police Hospital wanted to evacuate wounded, they were first denied by the occupiers showing who was in control at the time. The fire brigade was denied access

Edited January 12, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I'm not suggesting anything outlandish. I say there's a conspiracy, meaning people conspired to burn it, probably well before the rally ended. Which is something I thought everyone accepted.

Indeed, old chap, planned and conspired. As you could have read in the link to another older topic I provided, as some already replied here and as you said 'oh, I'd forgotten'. UDD leaders involved with k. Veera, k. 'I'll take the blame' Natthawut, fugitive 'I burned it my way' karaoke singer k. Arisman, a.o. coming to mind

Still I wonder why this violent and fiery past fascinates you so much in a topic about 30,000 really peaceful protesters. Maybe as self professed anti-Thaksin figure you are an 'agent provocateur' ?

Shame on you, that's not done, old chap. May you go to the lowest level of Hell, be bound to a stake next to Tantalus and forced to listen to PTV broadcasts 24 x 7 at full blast sound level with the volume knob just out of reach.

Nothing personal of course, just IMHO

[hyperdimension]

But I'm saying he could've offered elections even earlier

How could he have known that there would be an attempt at violent insurrection so early?

A man of principle sacrificing himself for the country.

Or a coward surrendering to terrorist insurrectionists.

Normally, when there are deaths at a Thai political protest, the leader has to go. I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but it's kind of traditional up to the deaths of the PAD.

So is that the formula to bring a Thai government down? Start a big protest and somehow get some deaths to occur? Anyone with enough funds can get all that arranged, and it looks like that's just what was attempted in 2010, except the end result did not go by the formula, so they failed. Now the insurrectionists are crying continuously about the deaths, using them in a desperate attempt to make the formula work, that deaths = fall of government.

Anyway, I don't think Abhisit staying in power longer was worth the deaths and destruction

You can't expect him to have known in advance so that he can step down before bad things might happen. We could be going through one or more PMs or governments every year if every PM or government steps down to prevent trouble.

[Ricardo]

I'm sure Myanmar spends a lot more as a percentage of GDP on its military. But a military junta isn't a great example! Actually in GDP terms Thai military spending isn't particularly unusual. But how do we know they're spending the money on new equipment? They seem to be buying things like blimps that won't fly and APCs without engines. I also think they should scrap conscription and become an entirely professional army.

I believe that the surveillance-blimp did/does fly, just not reaching the required-altitude, with all the extra 'kit' being loaded-on ?

Certainly military-spending ought to be less-corrupt, PTP might help by shining the cruel-light of publicity on all these cases, if they dare. But it might come back to bite them, if/when they're in power again, and wanting their own turn at the trough. A professional army would be great, but surely it might require proper modern equipment, and even more money than now, to run it ?

There seem to be people posting here who either hasn't been in Thailand long enough to know or hasn't bothered reading up on the history

I read things like The Nation always supporting the government.

What nonsense is that? The Nation has historically been the newspaper that has dared to push the limits AGAINST freedom of speach and government if so be it

Well Said ! I very-much doubt that former-PM Thaksin would have agreed, that 'The Nation' was supporting him in 2005/2006, it seemed to print too many critical/embarrassing articles for that to be true.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Ricardo

[Emptyset]

You can't expect him to have known in advance so that he can step down before bad things might happen. We could be going through one or more PMs or governments every year if every PM or government steps down to prevent trouble.

I'd say it was obvious from... say... April 2009. I take your point though. That's the argument he has in his favour, even though he previously recommended another government to step down in more or less the same circumstances as when he was making the "can't give in to mobs" argument. But I'd have like to have seen an election and if anyone contests the result, well, screw them. They'd have no legitimate reason to protest after the election. Sure, they could protest as everyone has the right to. But it wouldn't have legitimacy in the eyes of the world and there'd be far fewer participants, I'd say. I think most reds (least that I've spoken to) are principled and will accept the election results.

[webfact]

Please stay on the original topic subject. The burning of CentralWorld is not the topic on hand

Thanks

[MikeyIdea]

If you were following the events closely (or even casually), you would have known that he offered November elections.

Anyway, I don't think Abhisit staying in power longer was worth the deaths and destruction, but neither do I think the UDD cause was worth anyone dying for. They should've gone home after April 10th, or especially when Abhisit made his offer. So... looking at both sides of the coin, neither side comes out of it well, from a leadership perspective.

It's a trick one, obviously governments shouldn't just give in to every mob that attempts a prolonged protest, but sometimes it might be the only option to avoid serious trouble, either in that moment, or down the line. However, it has been suggested to me that Abhisit did accept the idea of immediate house dissolution, only to be vetoed by "above". If that's true, I certainly sympathize with him, although he could've resigned I suppose. I wonder how all this will be looked back upon in history? I suppose it's contingent on what happens next...

I am glad that Abhisit took his responsibility as prime minister and stayed on in power, not accepting to be intimidated into calling early elections by a violent movement. It would have been a sad day for democracy in Thailand if he had

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Yes, he did. But I'm saying he could've offered elections even earlier or even immediate house dissolution to avoid further chaos. A man of principle sacrificing himself for the country. After all, that's exactly what HE himself suggested Samak/Somchai do. He actually said Somchai isn't a normal human because he stayed on after the crackdown on the PAD. Normally, when there are deaths at a Thai political protest, the leader has to go. I'm not saying that's necessarily right, but it's kind of traditional up to the deaths of the PAD. Anyway, I don't think Abhisit staying in power longer was worth the deaths and destruction, but neither do I think the UDD cause was worth anyone dying for. They should've gone home after April 10th, or especially when Abhisit made his offer. So... looking at both sides of the coin, neither side comes out of it well, from a leadership perspective.

... end removed

To compare the crackdown of the yellow shirts occupying government house with the crackdown on red-shirts April 10th or later seems a bit devious. Both protests yes, but who was violent, type of violence and type of casualties makes it difficult to compare.

A principled man can sacrifice himself in two ways, stay for the good of the country, or go for the good of the country. K. Somchai's government only had one goal 'bring back Thaksin', so step down. K. Abhisit's government has a program for the country, so stay on.

Anyway I don't think all the deaths March - May 2010 can be justified by a group which want / still want / maybe want k. Thaksin back, and oh yeah, also 'free our leaders', 'justice', and of course 'democracy'.

From a leadership perspective the UDD is gone on record 'to burn it all'. That's when I stop comparing them with the leadership of PM Abhisit, who stayed remarkably cool even with all the taunts thrown at him.

(edit: add: OP: 30,000 really peaceful protesters this time)

Edited January 12, 2011 by rubl

[Emptyset]

To compare the crackdown of the yellow shirts occupying government house with the crackdown on red-shirts April 10th or later seems a bit devious. Both protests yes, but who was violent, type of violence and type of casualties makes it difficult to compare.

I'm actually not comparing the two protests. I'm comparing Abhisit's different stances. I'm saying that Abhisit thought that immediate house dissolution was justifiable in the face of the mob back then. He actually went so far as to demand it:

‘I have never thought that we would have a state which has the people killed and seriously injured, and then accuses the people of the crimes. This is unacceptable.

‘Today, [the government] has lost legitimacy. We are demanding that the PM take responsibility. [The PM] can resign, or if he is afraid that by his resignation, the Democrat Party will take power, he can dissolve the House. He cannot just do nothing, because if he does nothing, it would be tantamount to damaging the country and the political system.

‘There is nowhere else on earth, in democratic systems, where the people are abused by the state, but the government which comes from the people does not take responsibility.

‘For what we have said today, the government must not make the accusation that it is because we agree with all points of the PAD. Even if the PAD has done wrong, the government has no right to hurt the people.’

But you are right, you can't compare the two protests and the types of violence. It's obvious that Somchai had nothing to do with PAD people being killed, that it was an accident (so why should he step down?), unless you believe the PAD conspiracy theory that Somchai & Chavalit planned the violence the day before. Whereas Abhisit ordered soldiers to break up the protest, which was likely to result in a higher degree of violence. I'm not saying he shouldn't have done it. He had a right to clear the area. But it's not obvious that asking for the police to break up the protest is worse than asking the army to do it. Which is what you are intimating. In fact if you believe the recent Wikileaks cables, Somchai and Chavalit were believed to be pretty reasonable compared to the PAD, at least one of whose leaders was bent on death & violence. Those are just rumours, so I take it with a pinch of salt. But it's a more reliable rumour than the one that says Somchai planned for the violence, imo. Chavalit also resigned to take responsibility, btw.

[rubl]

To compare the crackdown of the yellow shirts occupying government house with the crackdown on red-shirts April 10th or later seems a bit devious. Both protests yes, but who was violent, type of violence and type of casualties makes it difficult to compare.

I'm actually not comparing the two protests. I'm comparing Abhisit's different stances. I'm saying that Abhisit thought that immediate house dissolution was justifiable in the face of the mob back then. He actually went so far as to demand it:

... end removed

Why refer to that part of my reply? This would have made more sense:

A principled man can sacrifice himself in two ways, stay for the good of the country, or go for the good of the country. K. Somchai's government only had one goal 'bring back Thaksin', so step down. K. Abhisit's government has a program for the country, so stay on.

[rubl]

Just to remind all. This OP is about the protest / commemoration at Ratchaprasong on the 9th this month.

- at least 30,000 people gathered, mostly red-shirts, but also onlookers, police.

- a 10-minute phone-in by 'not about me' k. Thaksin.

- k. Jatuporn saying to do his best to get people jailed released and remember those who died.

- some background info.

[Buchholz]

The words signs read: We will fight to bring Thaksin home.

Red Shirt leader Thida, standing in the center, holds a sign that reads: We will fight to bring Weng home [referring to Thida Thavornseth's husband Dr. Weng Tojirakarn, a detained Red Shirt leader]

Thida says: What!!!?...Am I doing the wrong thing?

[This points up the unclear and conflicting nature of the Red Shirt movement at present. What does the appointment of Thida really mean for the movement? Is it a hint of moderation? Does the appointment move the group closer to Thaksin's goals or does it concentrate it on more pragmatic goals like the release of Red Shirt leaders who are otherwise pawns in the election campaigns of Thaksin and his Peau Thai?]

- 2Bangkok.com

[jdinasia]

You can't expect him to have known in advance so that he can step down before bad things might happen. We could be going through one or more PMs or governments every year if every PM or government steps down to prevent trouble.

I'd say it was obvious from... say... April 2009. I take your point though. That's the argument he has in his favour, even though he previously recommended another government to step down in more or less the same circumstances as when he was making the "can't give in to mobs" argument. But I'd have like to have seen an election and if anyone contests the result, well, screw them. They'd have no legitimate reason to protest after the election. Sure, they could protest as everyone has the right to. But it wouldn't have legitimacy in the eyes of the world and there'd be far fewer participants, I'd say. I think most reds (least that I've spoken to) are principled and will accept the election results.

You seem in several instances to be suggesting giving in to mob rule.

In actuality you really DO need to compare the protests of the PAD and the protests of the UDD. The PAD sat in at Gov't house, they moved to prevent the PPP from taking actions that would have whitewashed Thaksin. They were attacked on Sept 1/2 (prompting Samak's SoE). They were grenaded regularly with no protection from the police. They were hit dead on with antiquated Chinese military RDX laced teargas. Yet (overall) they remained peaceful. They moved to intercept Somchai's return flight and force a verbal confrontation (Samak and Somchai arduously avoided ever dealing with the face to face.) The AOT chief at Swampy overreacted and closed the airport rather than even talk to the PAD (according to the AOT board of directors.) The PAD did commit acts of violence. They were not extreme or overreactive. The violence they committed was almost always in direct response to being attacked. Abhisit at the time was head of the opposition party. Of course he called for the government to step down, it was a talking point. I am sure that waiting out the dissolution of PPP was far better for him at the time, but he couldn't say "nothing".

The UDD, on the other hand, has been violent since their beginnings. They have numerous deaths directly caused to them and even more that have been attributed to them. They are not a legitimate force socially or politically. We need only look at 2009's Black Songkran, or 2010's occupation of major areas of BKK's CBD to see that mayhem (again I suggest you look to Mao's little red book) was their goal. PPP had its chance to call elections and didn't. They were banned, but the acting/caretaker PM could have still called elections, but he didn't. PPP's dissolution allowed MP's from Newin's faction amongst others to cleanly switch alliances (resulting in grenade attacks against Newin's business interests.) In 2010, it was the UDD that escalated violence. They were calmly and repeatedly warned to disperse. They were offered fresh elections 13 months early. (Veera appeared to consider it before that televised SMS), Seh Daeng continued his threats and the grenades kept flying. Even after the crackdown and mass arson attacks there were bombs that killed people in Nonthaburi etc. A very simple "we don't negotiate with terrorists, insurrectionists" should have been the approach from the beginning, but Abhisit did negotiate! He did it publicly!

People accuse Abhisit of trying to hold on to power, but he has, from the very beginning said that early elections were likely. He offered them. Coming after October 1st was not acceptable to the guy that sent the SMS during the negotiations (assuming it was Thaksin.)

In several ways you are correct emptyset, it is difficult to compare the PAD demonstrations with those of the UDD. The fact remains though, that the PPP had every chance to call new elections but didn't. Thaksin's brother-in-law as PM struck many people as the breaking point, showing that Thaksin would do anything to control the political stage in Thailand, that is until PPP was dissolved and we saw what lengths he would really go to! (Which calls to mind that crass statement by Robert Amsterdam .. that he had never heard the accusations that it was a rent-a-mob, or that Thaksin was funding the reds..... oi vey!)

[Buchholz]

From news at the time of Sompong's alleged "grenad-ing" near Banharn's home that injured seven....

BANGKOK: -- Two bomb attacks were carried out late last night against two symbolic targets - the Chiang Mai police headquarters and the Bangkok home of veteran politician Banharn Silapa-archa, which was targeted twice before and this time saw seven people wounded.

Later, a fake bomb was also found near Chulalongkorn Hospital on Rajdamri Road - located not far from where red-shirt demonstrators are camped or from the Sala Daeng BTS station, where an M79 attack killed one and wounded scores of others on April 22.

A live grenade was also found in front of a luxury-car showroom off Rama IX Road. Police ordnance officers said later that the K75 grenade's safety pin had not been removed.

At Banharn's home on Charan Sanitwong Road, policemen guarding the house said two men on a Honda Sonic motorcycle dropped a grenade on the pavement before fleeing. The M67 grenade bounced off the curb and rolled toward the middle of the street where it exploded, injuring seven victims including three policemen.

One of the victims, 33-year-old Namon Sorrawong, was badly injured because the grenade rolled under her car before exploding. She said this was the second time she had been caught in a political clash. Previously she had a miscarriage from the impact of an explosion during the violent clashes around Soi Phetburi 7 last Songkran.

Namon, with a severe wound to her right torso and five pieces of shrapnel embedded in her body, sustained the worst injuries among the seven victims. Banharn's daughter Kanchana, and his wife Khunying Jaemsai, visited Namon at hospital to offer their sympathy. In an interview, Namon called for an end to the continuous violence.

-- The Nation 2010-04-27

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

Here's a better shot of his arrest today:

DSI seeks detention of Red Shirt guard, opposes bail

BANGKOK, 12 January 2011 (NNT) – The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has brought a Red Shirt security guard to the Criminal Court for detention on a terrorism charge that stemmed from his intrusion of Chulalongkorn Hospital in April last year.

According to the DSI, the Criminal Court has approved the 12-day custody of Mr. Sompong Bangchom, head of the Red Shirt guards and terrorism suspect.

Further investigations are underway to verify his fingerprint and criminal record while 10 witnesses will be interrogated. The DSI also opposed granting a bail for Mr. Sompong, citing his extremist personality and possible escape.

Mr. Sompong and Red Shirt leader Payap Panket, who is still at large, allegedly led 200 Red Shirt members in the takeover of Chulalongkorn Hospital amid political tension last April. The move disrupted medical treatments for many patients, several of whom were in intensive care, and eventually led to their evacuation from the hospital.

The anti-government protesters claimed to have followed soldiers into the hospital while the authority said the siege was only to pressure the Democrat-led government to dissolve the House.

-- NNT 2011-01-12

[jdinasia]

This article from Asia Times Online may help emptyset understand better.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html

It was published on the day that Seh Daeng was killed (before he was killed.)

[rubl]

This article from Asia Times Online may help emptyset understand better.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html

It was published on the day that Seh Daeng was killed (before he was killed.)

And this from Thomas Fuller who was interviewing the renegade general at the time he was shot.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126805541

[jdinasia]

This article from Asia Times Online may help emptyset understand better.

http://www.atimes.co...a/LE13Ae01.html

It was published on the day that Seh Daeng was killed (before he was killed.)

And this from Thomas Fuller who was interviewing the renegade general at the time he was shot.

http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=126805541

Rubl ---

My post was meant to enlighten some of the UDD/Redshirt leaning folks about the reasoning/tactics etc behind why the reds are so violent. It is an integral part of their strategy. It also pretty well explains why they refused the offer of elections in Nov and how and why things have shifted a bit.

[Buchholz]

Court Approves Red-shirt Suspect's Detention

The Criminal Court today approved the first period of detention for a red-shirt guard arrested yesterday for his alleged role in the raid of a hospital during the group's rally in April last year.

Investigators of the Department of Special Investigation, or DSI, today presented the head of the red-shirt security guard team Sompong Bangchom to the Criminal Court for permission to detain him in prison for 12 days between January 12 and 23.

Investigators said the inquiry into his alleged crime has not been completed given the inconclusive interrogation of eyewitnesses.

They are still waiting for fingerprint results and his criminal profile from the National Police Office.

The department also opposed bail, saying he could flee or incite chaos once again.

The court has endorsed the petition as the suspect had not disputed the charges or requested bail.

The DSI investigators said in their petition that Sompong, in association with red-shirt core leader Payap Panket and 200 other red-shirt guards, raided Chulalongkorn Hospital demanding to search the premises.

They believed military personnel were hiding inside the hospital to spy on their movement.

The investigators said their raid was an organized act of terror as it sparked fear among patients and hospital staff and disrupted the hospital's services.

-- Tan Network 2011-01-12

[Buchholz]

The investigators said their raid was an organized act of terror as it sparked fear among patients and hospital staff and disrupted the hospital's services.

It also was related to:

4 patients died from Chulalongkorn Hospital evacuation

BANGKOK (NNT) -- A total of 4 patients of King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital have been pronounced dead after being relocated due to the anti-government protesters’ intrusion of the compound last week.

as for

The move disrupted medical treatments for many patients, several of whom were in intensive care, and eventually led to their evacuation from the hospital.

One of those evacuations from ICU was:

Raiding the Chulalongkorn Hospital was one of the biggest debacles in Red history and cost them tons of support amongst the Reds themselves. To see it attempted to be justified nearly six months later is an affront to sensibility that only the most strident of Reds would attempt.

One of the reasons for the across the board condemnation of it was dislodging His Holiness Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, the Supreme Patriarch of the whole Buddhist faith in Thailand. To the millions of Buddhists in this country, the wanton disregard that could easily jeopardize the health of 96 year-old His Holiness in such a reckless manner was just too dam_n much:

He was transferred to Siriraj Hospital, which was, un-reassuringly, a listed target in an Arisaman speech for burning to the ground.

.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

This article from Asia Times Online may help emptyset understand better.

http://www.atimes.co...a/LE13Ae01.html

It was published on the day that Seh Daeng was killed (before he was killed.)

I read that at the time and I thought that's why you were going on about Mao. "All is confusion. The situation is excellent" - Little Red Book. However, I find that article pretty far fetched. I still very much doubt Weng and Jaran to name two, would sanction the use of violence even if they still subscribe to some Maoist strategies. Therdpoum is a PAD core leader, I think, so he'd have good reason to discredit them.

[jdinasia]

This article from Asia Times Online may help emptyset understand better.

http://www.atimes.co...a/LE13Ae01.html

It was published on the day that Seh Daeng was killed (before he was killed.)

I read that at the time and I thought that's why you were going on about Mao. "All is confusion. The situation is excellent" - Little Red Book. However, I find that article pretty far fetched. I still very much doubt Weng and Jaran to name two, would sanction the use of violence even if they still subscribe to some Maoist strategies. Therdpoum is a PAD core leader, I think, so he'd have good reason to discredit them.

But Weng DID espouse violence from the red stages, just as Veera did. Yet you excuse them for it. Why? I was going on about Mao because Weng and Thida were actively Maoist. The redshirt / ronin/ ptp set-up is right from the book I am not saying that everyone involved with the reds are maoist, I am saying that the leadership is clearly using Maoist tactics. If anything the very top leader of the reds is likely as far from Maoist as you can get. When the red leadership inclusing their most moderate member, Veera, all call for violence from the stage you just don't get to call them a peacefull bunch. Weng threatened civil war and geurilla war if the rally was dispersed by the army. You may have doubts about Weng, but I certainly don't. He was trained in this. He knows what the armed group of reds will/should do with any given set of results.

I am still wondering how much Veera caved and gave the CRES when he was arrested! There were significant arrests and more still happening from right after they got him. I also am wondering if Arisaman is still amongst the living. Look at how they tried to pull things off nd what is still happening today and ask yourself "does this come ou of the little red book?" Even the Ronin hitting some of the reds deliberately in April would fit with it. Even taking down a few red leaders/persobalities like has happened in Chiang Mai would fit. After all one of the basic doctrines espoused is keep your own people just off balance enough to be sure that they distrust and fear even a compassionate enemy.

[Emptyset]

You seem in several instances to be suggesting giving in to mob rule.

Sometimes it's no bad thing to give in to the demands of protesters. Abhisit obviously agrees. See his comments above. Governments have stepped down and held immediate elections for far less reason than the red shirts gave them. Abhisit claimed to be acting for the majority? OK, resign then call an election. If the majority supports you, only one way to prove it, and you shouldn't be afraid to put it to the test.

In actuality you really DO need to compare the protests of the PAD and the protests of the UDD. The PAD sat in at Gov't house, they moved to prevent the PPP from taking actions that would have whitewashed Thaksin. They were attacked on Sept 1/2 (prompting Samak's SoE). They were grenaded regularly with no protection from the police. They were hit dead on with antiquated Chinese military RDX laced teargas. Yet (overall) they remained peaceful. They moved to intercept Somchai's return flight and force a verbal confrontation (Samak and Somchai arduously avoided ever dealing with the face to face.) The AOT chief at Swampy overreacted and closed the airport rather than even talk to the PAD (according to the AOT board of directors.) The PAD did commit acts of violence. They were not extreme or overreactive. The violence they committed was almost always in direct response to being attacked. Abhisit at the time was head of the opposition party. Of course he called for the government to step down, it was a talking point. I am sure that waiting out the dissolution of PPP was far better for him at the time, but he couldn't say "nothing".

What were the actions the government were taking that would've whitewashed Thaksin? He was convicted in October 2008. Now you've criticized Dr Weng for speaking "of" violence. Yet you seem to be saying the PAD were completely reasonable. You're defending someone that said this: "We will not open our doors to police. If they storm in to shoot at us, we'll shoot back. We'll be ready to die,"? You're defending people that were explicitly willing to use children and women as human shields whilst in the airport? And presumably tourists with absolutely nothing to do with any of this, too? '"We will use human shields against the police if they try to disperse us," PAD leader Suriyasai Katasila told Reuters'.

Now I could dig up more quotes to show your defense of PAD to be as equally ridiculous as those who defend the red shirts unequivocally. Or I could start giving links to the NBT raid, the attacks on journalists, the attacks on police (some say with guns) who were legally entitled to clear the area, the video of the guy with the gun - shooting whilst holding a picture of the King - the dead body at the airport, the destruction of public property, the threats to shut down electricity and water supplies... I mean how many airports were shut down due to "overreaction"? I could go on. It's hard to take your criticisms of the UDD seriously, if you're going to claim that the PAD were not "extreme".

All that said, I've never demonized the PAD, especially the ordinary protesters. I can see their frustration with money politics and their legitimate anger towards Thaksin. I believe most of them are good people who want the best for Thailand, but they've strayed away from the democratic path. They and their backers went too far when they tried to bring down a *properly* elected government at all costs. And their attitude towards the rural poor is unacceptable to me. That's partly what fueled the red shirt anger (they can watch ASTV too, you know). People here want to see the red shirts as an isolated phenomenon, but they must be seen in the context of the coup, and the actions, political stance & rhetoric of the PAD. Action and reaction.

I

In several ways you are correct emptyset, it is difficult to compare the PAD demonstrations with those of the UDD. The fact remains though, that the PPP had every chance to call new elections but didn't. Thaksin's brother-in-law as PM struck many people as the breaking point, showing that Thaksin would do anything to control the political stage in Thailand, that is until PPP was dissolved and we saw what lengths he would really go to! (Which calls to mind that crass statement by Robert Amsterdam .. that he had never heard the accusations that it was a rent-a-mob, or that Thaksin was funding the reds..... oi vey!)

PPP couldn't call new elections whilst the threat of party dissolution was hanging over them. Somchai was the breaking point? The protests were in full swing before he came to power. Plus I think Somchai was far more reasonable than Samak and a better choice for PM. Had PPP called elections and won, what would've changed? Nothing. Because PAD and their backers were unwilling to accept a PPP government. Red shirts will accept an Abhisit government, if properly elected. At least that's what every one of them that I've spoken to has said. There's your crucial difference.

You and Rubl say that PPP had no program other than bringing back Thaksin. That is a subjective opinion, which I don't agree with, but even if true it doesn't mean that people have a right to bring them down just because they don't like Thaksin. They were elected legitimately. The protests went too far. Now obviously you both think Thaksin must be destroyed at all costs. Burning the village to save it? I disagree. There must be a compromise. And part of that compromise means accepting the results of elections.

I've also heard that the PAD were a brainwashed mob manipulated by vested interests and motivated mostly by money (my friend insists that there was 300 baht stuck to the bottom of the rice containers when the protesters went to get their free food). I don't believe it though. I don't believe either the UDD or PAD were motivated mostly by money or could be described as "rent-a-mobs".

Edited January 12, 2011 by Emptyset

[whybother]

^ "PPP couldn't call new elections whilst the threat of party dissolution was hanging over them."

The PTP (left over PPP MPs) could have called an election after the PPP were dissolved. But they decided to elect a new PM in parliament instead ... and lost.

[Pi Sek]

You seem in several instances to be suggesting giving in to mob rule.

Sometimes it's no bad thing to give in to the demands of protesters. Abhisit obviously agrees. See his comments above. Governments have stepped down and held immediate elections for far less reason than the red shirts gave them. Abhisit claimed to be acting for the majority? OK, resign then call an election. If the majority supports you, only one way to prove it, and you shouldn't be afraid to put it to the test.

Sorry, don't agree. Putting it to the test is one thing, dissolving the house, calling elections, campaigning etc will cost the country 3-6 months of non-progress and billions of Baht. I wouldn't support this expense for the benefit of - let's give the UDD credit - a million Thais.

In actuality you really DO need to compare the protests of the PAD and the protests of the UDD. The PAD sat in at Gov't house, they moved to prevent the PPP from taking actions that would have whitewashed Thaksin. They were attacked on Sept 1/2 (prompting Samak's SoE). They were grenaded regularly with no protection from the police. They were hit dead on with antiquated Chinese military RDX laced teargas. Yet (overall) they remained peaceful. They moved to intercept Somchai's return flight and force a verbal confrontation (Samak and Somchai arduously avoided ever dealing with the face to face.) The AOT chief at Swampy overreacted and closed the airport rather than even talk to the PAD (according to the AOT board of directors.) The PAD did commit acts of violence. They were not extreme or overreactive. The violence they committed was almost always in direct response to being attacked. Abhisit at the time was head of the opposition party. Of course he called for the government to step down, it was a talking point. I am sure that waiting out the dissolution of PPP was far better for him at the time, but he couldn't say "nothing".

What were the actions the government were taking that would've whitewashed Thaksin? He was convicted in October 2008. Now you've criticized Dr Weng for speaking "of" violence. Yet you seem to be saying the PAD were completely reasonable. You're defending someone that said this: "We will not open our doors to police. If they storm in to shoot at us, we'll shoot back. We'll be ready to die,"? You're defending people that were explicitly willing to use children and women as human shields whilst in the airport? And presumably tourists with absolutely nothing to do with any of this, too? '"We will use human shields against the police if they try to disperse us," PAD leader Suriyasai Katasila told Reuters'.

Now I could dig up more quotes to show your defense of PAD to be as equally ridiculous as those who defend the red shirts unequivocally. Or I could start giving links to the NBT raid, the attacks on journalists, the attacks on police (some say with guns) who were legally entitled to clear the area, the video of the guy with the gun - shooting whilst holding a picture of the King - the dead body at the airport, the destruction of public property, the threats to shut down electricity and water supplies... I mean how many airports were shut down due to "overreaction"? I could go on. It's hard to take your criticisms of the UDD seriously, if you're going to claim that the PAD were not "extreme".

You're absolutely correct here of course... but I will add that the PAD were nowhere as extreme as the UDD, not even on the same page - I expect you understand and agree with that.

In answer to the first bit - the actions that would have whitewashed Thaksin was the reversion to the 1997 Constitution with convictions since the army's Constitution overturned - so, either Thaksin would no longer be prosecutable for his crimes, or his crimes would not be considered as crimes.

[Pi Sek]

(Had to do this in 2 parts... too long!)

All that said, I've never demonized the PAD, especially the ordinary protesters. I can see their frustration with money politics and their legitimate anger towards Thaksin. I believe most of them are good people who want the best for Thailand, but they've strayed away from the democratic path. They and their backers went too far when they tried to bring down a *properly* elected government at all costs. And their attitude towards the rural poor is unacceptable to me. That's partly what fueled the red shirt anger (they can watch ASTV too, you know). People here want to see the red shirts as an isolated phenomenon, but they must be seen in the context of the coup, and the actions, political stance & rhetoric of the PAD. Action and reaction.

You are an intelligent person and here you are again showing it. Those that suggest the Red Shirt movement is part of a 50-year shift in society would do well to copy your last two sentences and save it as a draft email. But it is essentially wrong - the PAD, the UDD, all of this is because of Thaksin (although that's not to say that, if it wasn't Thaksin, it wouldn't be someone else down the line, but you can make the same argument with Hitler; action and reaction).

You and Rubl say that PPP had no program other than bringing back Thaksin. That is a subjective opinion, which I don't agree with, but even if true it doesn't mean that people have a right to bring them down just because they don't like Thaksin. They were elected legitimately. The protests went too far. Now obviously you both think Thaksin must be destroyed at all costs. Burning the village to save it? I disagree. There must be a compromise. And part of that compromise means accepting the results of elections.

I've also heard that the PAD were a brainwashed mob manipulated by vested interests and motivated mostly by money (my friend insists that there was 300 baht stuck to the bottom of the rice containers when the protesters went to get their free food). I don't believe it though. I don't believe either the UDD or PAD were motivated mostly by money or could be described as "rent-a-mobs".

I've given this a lot of thought actually. jdinasia and rubl are right, Samak appeared publicly many times in defiance of the coup-appointed Surayud government, saying "our policies are whatever Thaksin wants us to do". This was unacceptable to me, and I imagine it was unacceptable to the people that came onto the streets in September 2006 to offer the advancing army food, refreshments and flowers – to those about to “take democracy away from them”. I will admit to hoping that the election committee would immediately disband the PPP before the election on the grounds that they were a political nominee of someone banned from politics. This would also mean that Newin would lose his voice, too.

Therefore, the 2008 protests, during which I ended my personal support for the PAD, did not go too far (in my eyes) - at least not in their principles of removing an elected government on the grounds that a developed democracy could not permit such an obstruction to democracy as Thaksin to hold absolute political power. But they did go too far in terms of their actions, as you correctly point out.

As for the "rent-a-mob" comment - I disagree that the majority were not motivated mostly by money, for either protest, at some stages. I believe that if no money was offered, these protests would not have been half as large as they were, but I believe you are right in thinking that most of the protesters were there because they believed in something, along with the daily protester fee. However, there were definitely violent "rent-a-mob" types at both protests.

[jdinasia]

^ "PPP couldn't call new elections whilst the threat of party dissolution was hanging over them."

The PTP (left over PPP MPs) could have called an election after the PPP were dissolved. But they decided to elect a new PM in parliament instead ... and lost.

PPP could have easily called elections. They didn't. TRT called elections with charges against them.

PPP also could have simply activated their standby party PTP and used them. They obviously were ready with the party for the dissolution. (That dissolution was a foregone conclusion since they had video evidence of a PPP executive making a payoff and under the rules any executive's acts affects the party as a whole.)

[Emptyset]

^ "PPP couldn't call new elections whilst the threat of party dissolution was hanging over them."

The PTP (left over PPP MPs) could have called an election after the PPP were dissolved. But they decided to elect a new PM in parliament instead ... and lost.

As far as I remember Somchai was disqualified and Chavarat who became acting PM refused to dissolve the house, as he was close to Newin. He's now BJT leader, of course.