30,000 Thai Red Shirts Rally In Bangkok: Police

[Emptyset]

Why would Thailand need new mechanized cavalry? Border issues with Cambodia? Border issues with Myanmar. Internal strife both in the South and with redshirts? The fact that Thailand spent too little on the military for some years and things need to be updated? To employ some of the people you so desperately want to help?

Money IS being spent on helping the poor in Thailand, far more money than was spent under Thaksin and more effectively. Special interest groups are being hit with some restrictions etc (unused land taxes etc) that will make the wealthy of Thailand pick up some of the bills for the new social welfare programs. Instead of just "let's have a 30 baht health scheme that was proposed by the ministry of health .... but fail to fund it properly! That way we can appear to help people while actually giving poorer service and buying up surplus!

I can't take your first paragraph seriously. Of course Thailand doesn't "need" a new mechanized calvary. It is another pet project that's a total waste of public money. Are you seriously saying that Thailand doesn't already have the military resources to deal with the red shirts and Cambodia? The military needs cutting in size and modernizing. Most of the red shirt problem can actually be blamed on the military, rogue generals, cliques competing for power getting involved and so on. You go on about Thaksin's corruption and accuse him of "raping the country" (is there actually any proof that there was more corruption under Thaksin than now?) yet think the military deserves more money despite having an unparalleled ability to waste it on unnecessary equipment bought for the purposes of skimming money from the deal. Underfunded? http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Military-GDP-VTIP1.jpg

As for your second paragraph, I don't know whether more money is being spent or not. As a percentage of GDP, you mean? Have you got any concrete figures for that? I don't doubt you, just I haven't seen any. And if you don't, how do you know? How do you know that the money is being spent more effectively? Even the new schemes that the Dems have been shouting about are mostly rehashes of Thaksin/Samak policies, and they've had two years to think about it (see an article in the other paper today that says as much). Haven't you read about the underfunded hospitals in the past couple of days? http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/12/21/national/Cash-strapped-hospitals-say-theyre-on-the-critical-30144830.html

To me it just seems like you and some others hate Thaksin so much you're willing to defend almost anything the "other side" does. I don't blame you for hating Thaksin, I do too, but I can't agree that everything his administration did was wrong and I don't think everything this one does is all that great either. People need some critical distance, or they lose sight of right and wrong.

[jdinasia]

Hanuman --- under the State of Emergency decree at the time, simply being at the rally was a direct violation of the law. Definitive statement indeed. How did I arrive at that? It was the law. The arguments against that wouldn't hold any water and you know it. (strangely you then state that the gathering was illegal --- meaning you know how I arrived at that definitive statement.) You could argue many things legally about the presence or absence of someone from that scene and what it means but the law was clear. The people were told. They chose to continue to stay in defiance of that. The speeches from the stage included calls for arson (even Veera called for arson which shocked me as he seemed the more rational of the leaders at the time.) I do not know the exact definition of conspiracy to commit arson in Thailand but I am guessing they COULD (but will not) make the argument that the people that were cheering this on were an element of the crime itself. They won't simply because it is a bad move politically even if they could win which is doubtful.

Regrading payment... there is enough factual evidence to prove that soma (many) people were being paid to be there. Deny it all you want but the evidence is there. Proving that any given individual was paid would probably be a daunting task (other than those individuals that made official complaints to the police about not getting the promised $$.)

The DSI will likely only try and stick inciement to riot, terrorism, incitement/conspiracy to commit arsson, arson, and possibly a case or two of armed insurrection and treason for any members of the government/parliament/military that were there. Then probably accept a plea bargain.

Inquiring minds want to know what they got from the first few people they caught and what they got from Veera. Veera has been jailed in the past and may have been quite unwilling to spend more time locked away.

[jdinasia]

emptyset ---

We are talking about a new mechanized Cav division and the budget over 10 years. Does the Army need downsizing? Not from the lower ranks! From the upper ranks (General staff) absolutely! Does Thailand need any more 32,000.00 USD bomb detectors? No. Better helicopters? Yes. Better individual weapons systems for border units? Yes. (I am sure my government will be happy to sell them all that they want, since the ban on weapon sales to Thailand from the USA ended the day they had elections in 2007.

Thaksin cut the military budget significanty. (Probably making it that much easier for the brass to go along with the coup)

You are welcome to look at the social welfare funding and compare the figures under Thaksin to those now on the table. I honestly can't be bothered to look up statistics at 23:10!

[hanuman1]

To me it just seems like you and some others hate Thaksin so much you're willing to defend almost anything the "other side" does. I don't blame you for hating Thaksin, I do too, but I can't agree that everything his administration did was wrong and I don't think everything this one does is all that great either. People need some critical distance, or they lose sight of right and wrong.

Thanks for this.

[jdinasia]

Emptyset -- there is no doubt that some hospitals are in financial trouble. Much of the reason for that is fiscal mismanagement. A big hospital for a small population doesn't make much sense but there are many of them. Lots of doctors for few patients doesn't make much sense either. When you allocate funds based upon patients served it creates a whole new set of issues as described by that article. Some hospitals may simply be reduced to outpatient services status instead of being full hospitals.

Please note that your graph for military budgets deliberately leaves out neighboring countries. Note the long downward trend for Thailand at its lowest under Thaksin (and a sharp increase when the military took over for a year). Replacing outdated or useless equipment is not cheap. I concur that there needs to be 100% transparency in military purchases. Then again in my own country we don't even have that yet!

The Chinese do one thing right ... firing squad for officials caught in graft (and charging the family for the bullet!) or is that just urban legend?

[Emptyset]

The speeches from the stage included calls for arson (even Veera called for arson which shocked me as he seemed the more rational of the leaders at the time.) I do not know the exact definition of conspiracy to commit arson in Thailand but I am guessing they COULD (but will not) make the argument that the people that were cheering this on were an element of the crime itself. They won't simply because it is a bad move politically even if they could win which is doubtful.

When did Veera call for arson? Incidentally I was just reading this:

Pavin Chachavalpongpun - "While countless allegations against the red shirts have been made, little evidence has surfaced and none seems to affirm that they were actually the threat to Thailand's national security that the government alleged. A large number of scholars who followed closely the violent crackdown at Bangkok's Rachaprasong intersection on 19 May 2011 doubt whether the red-shirts were the real culprits behind the arson attack against the Central World.

One academic recently asked whether tired, hungry and chased red-shirted demonstrators had the capacity, time, technical and floor plan know-how to bring such calculated and well targeted destruction, especially against a building of some 10 storeys at the Central World complex. But presenting the argument in this way could be a dangerous exercise. Nobody in Bangkok is ready to accept it, and certainly not the government. This is because it would delegitimize the state's subsequent hard-nosed policy towards the demonstrators, including the declaration of an emergency decree."

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2912&Itemid=164

Now I think there was a plan to commit arson by some red shirts - I'm still not clear who planned it etc but I find it difficult to believe Veera, Weng and so on would agree to it - but CTW was definitely burned by armed men, the fire by the mob that was there originally was put out by the sprinklers. I've got my own ideas who the men were working for (no, it wasn't CRES/govt), I wonder who Pavin and a "large number of scholars" think it was.

[Buchholz]

As for your second paragraph, I don't know whether more money is being spent or not. As a percentage of GDP, you mean? Have you got any concrete figures for that? I don't doubt you, just I haven't seen any.

This year's budget was identified as 1.6 yesterday

which is still below the average for ASEAN

previously it was 1.5

ASEAN countries military expenditure as a percent of GDP

?.? (unreported) Myanmar

4.1 Singapore

3.9 Brunei

2.4 Vietnam

2.0 Malaysia

1.5 Thailand

1.1 Cambodia

1.0 Indonesia

0.8 Philippines

0.4 Laos

ASEAN average (not counting unreported Myanmar) = 1.9

On a world scale of military expenditure as a percent of GDP, Thailand ranks # 89.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Buchholz

[Emptyset]

Please note that your graph for military budgets deliberately leaves out neighboring countries. Note the long downward trend for Thailand at its lowest under Thaksin (and a sharp increase when the military took over for a year). Replacing outdated or useless equipment is not cheap.

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.

[yoshiwara]

To me it just seems like you and some others hate Thaksin so much you're willing to defend almost anything the "other side" does. I don't blame you for hating Thaksin, I do too, but I can't agree that everything his administration did was wrong and I don't think everything this one does is all that great either. People need some critical distance, or they lose sight of right and wrong.

Thanks for this.

I am always amused by the 'faction' who say they are against Thaksin, but when push comes to shove they are firmly lined up behind his skirts. 'Critical distance'? just a hackneyed meally-mouthed phrase and as for those who claim that their analysis is 'social' rather then political, I have visions of old sociology textbooks and tattered Che T-shirts.

Edited January 11, 2011 by yoshiwara

[Emptyset]

This year's budget was identified as 1.6 yesterday

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4141229

which is still below the average for ASEAN

previously it was 1.5

On a world scale of military expenditure as a percent of GDP, Thailand ranks # 89.

True, I just checked that myself. I was actually talking about more money being spent to help the poor, though.

[rubl]

Now I think there was a plan to commit arson by some red shirts - I'm still not clear who planned it etc but I find it difficult to believe Veera, Weng and so on would agree to it - but CTW was definitely burned by armed men, the fire by the mob that was there originally was put out by the sprinklers. I've got my own ideas who the men were working for (no, it wasn't CRES/govt), I wonder who Pavin and a "large number of scholars" think it was.

This sounds like a lot of 9/11 government conspiracy plots circulating. The more denied and/or proven wrong, the more some believe it

PS in the AsiaSentinel article you point at there seem a few inaccuracies. PM Abhisit did not pledge elections would be organized in the first half of 2011, he said something like 'might', or 'could if'.

Edited January 11, 2011 by rubl

[Emptyset]

I am always amused by the 'faction' who say they are against Thaksin, but when push comes to shove they are firmly lined up behind his skirts. 'Critical distance'? just a hackneyed meally-mouthed phrase and as for those who claim that their analysis is 'social' rather then political, I have visions of old sociology textbooks and tattered Che T-shirts.

His "skirts"? Haha, well, I've been firmly anti-Thaksin (as a person) for years and at the time of the 2006 coup I was delighted. It's only in retrospect that I think supporting the coup was wrong. But you're not far off in your visions... I've taken a fresh look at Thaksin since starting to study Thai political history. I'm more interested in long term implications than short term effects & disruption that most people are naturally concerned about.

[Emptyset]

Now I think there was a plan to commit arson by some red shirts - I'm still not clear who planned it etc but I find it difficult to believe Veera, Weng and so on would agree to it - but CTW was definitely burned by armed men, the fire by the mob that was there originally was put out by the sprinklers. I've got my own ideas who the men were working for (no, it wasn't CRES/govt), I wonder who Pavin and a "large number of scholars" think it was.

This sounds like a lot of 9/11 government conspiracy plots circulating. The more denied and/or proven wrong, the more some believe it

Well, it's obvious it was burned by armed men inside the building, isn't it? And surely there's still a question mark about who ordered them to do it? No one can seriously believe the mob outside caused such destruction using molotov cocktails and such. The pictures recently released of inside CTW on the 19th confirm that there were armed men present, though they're not pictured. Obviously there was a conspiracy to burn it, just not by the government. Although someone told me Newin sent men there too, but the job was already being done. That's just a rumour. I don't know why Newin would send people there so tend not to believe it.

[jdinasia]

Please note that your graph for military budgets deliberately leaves out neighboring countries. Note the long downward trend for Thailand at its lowest under Thaksin (and a sharp increase when the military took over for a year). Replacing outdated or useless equipment is not cheap.

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.

Singapore at 4.1%

Thailand at 1.5%

Malaysia at 2.0%

Cambodia 1.1%

Brunie at 3.9%

(2008/9 numbers from http://www.sipri.org/ --- via wiki)

So ----- besides changing the basis for the argument (not the budget now ...) Thailand falls into the mid range of its neighbors after a long steady decline.

[Buchholz]

This year's budget was identified as 1.6 yesterday

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4141229

which is still below the average for ASEAN

previously it was 1.5

On a world scale of military expenditure as a percent of GDP, Thailand ranks # 89.

True, I just checked that myself. I was actually talking about more money being spent to help the poor, though.

Glad you could see it for what it is then, a very modest increase of 0.1%

The percentage increase for those programs helping the poor are, I presume, higher than that with this year's budget.

While it may be fashionable to latch onto one or two bad procurements, it fails to recognize the legitimate efforts to try and upgrade the 1960's technology that Thailand's military has to work everyday with and that very real improvements/procurements have been made such as the Gripen fighter jets. They replaced aging 1950's era jets that all to often crashed, killing their young pilots. I agree that ALL procurements need to be scrutinized.

I've also noticed quite a bit of the budget is going to improve the lives of the lower ranks (who by all definitions are an example of your poor)e.g. new housing for them and their families.

[rubl]

Well, it's obvious it was burned by armed men inside the building, isn't it? And surely there's still a question mark about who ordered them to do it? No one can seriously believe the mob outside caused such destruction using molotov cocktails and such. The pictures recently released of inside CTW on the 19th confirm that there were armed men present, though they're not pictured. Obviously there was a conspiracy to burn it, just not by the government. Although someone told me Newin sent men there too, but the job was already being done. That's just a rumour. I don't know why Newin would send people there so tend not to believe it.

Before we go over who burned what and why AGAIN, please read this old topic on 'Abhisit should get own house in order'. Maybe start with this and work your way till the end:

(edit: add: by now totally off topic)

Edited January 11, 2011 by rubl

[jdinasia]

Empty set --- right after the failed negotiations Veera called for the burning of one of the anti-corruption agencies from the stage.

http://www.thaivisa....-Nacc-Head-Off/

edit to add .. I was watching it live that day (on TV not on Pan Fah) and was shocked! I felt at the time that it was his punishment for appearing weak and willing to accept the government's November election promise.

Edited January 11, 2011 by jdinasia

[TAWP]

My God, pictures are released and yet the conspiracy-nuts come crawling out of the wood-works...

Should we re-iterate the gold-nugget a red supporter told me: "The government burnt down the building to hide that they put hundreds of dead bodies of red shirts in the basement."

[Emptyset]

Before we go over who burned what and why AGAIN, please read this old topic on 'Abhisit should get own house in order'. Maybe start with this and work your way till the end:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4080460

(edit: add: by now totally off topic)

OK... I know the area wasn't controlled by the army at the time CTW was burned. And there aren't any conclusions in the thread you linked. I can't see how anything I've said is remarkable. Evidence points to armed men inside the building being ultimately responsible for the destruction. Do you agree? 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.

[whybother]

<snip>

Now I think there was a plan to commit arson by some red shirts - I'm still not clear who planned it etc but I find it difficult to believe Veera, Weng and so on would agree to it - but CTW was definitely burned by armed men, the fire by the mob that was there originally was put out by the sprinklers. I've got my own ideas who the men were working for (no, it wasn't CRES/govt), I wonder who Pavin and a "large number of scholars" think it was.

There was a lot of talk about the water being turned off at the time.

[Emptyset]

<snip>

Now I think there was a plan to commit arson by some red shirts - I'm still not clear who planned it etc but I find it difficult to believe Veera, Weng and so on would agree to it - but CTW was definitely burned by armed men, the fire by the mob that was there originally was put out by the sprinklers. I've got my own ideas who the men were working for (no, it wasn't CRES/govt), I wonder who Pavin and a "large number of scholars" think it was.

There was a lot of talk about the water being turned off at the time.

It wasn't turned off, the first fire was put out by the sprinklers. Someone that was there before the second fire started said Zen was flooded with water. So either the sprinklers were ineffective at putting the next fire out, or it just ran out of water.

[Emptyset]

Empty set --- right after the failed negotiations Veera called for the burning of one of the anti-corruption agencies from the stage.

http://www.thaivisa....-Nacc-Head-Off/

edit to add .. I was watching it live that day (on TV not on Pan Fah) and was shocked! I felt at the time that it was his punishment for appearing weak and willing to accept the government's November election promise.

That's pretty shocking. I think I saw that at the time, but I'd forgotten. Well, despite that he was generally a peaceful voice.

[Buchholz]

original article has expanded

Red guard re-arrested, facing additional charge for terrorism

The Department of Special Investigation has rearrested red guard Sompong Bangchom to face additional charge for terrorism in connection with last year's riots.

Sompong, a suspect for violating the state of emergency and released on bail in June, was detained again on Monday in Si Sa Ket before being transported today to Bangkok for his custody hearing, scheduled for tomorrow.

DSI director general Tharit Pengdit said the suspect, who is the leader of the red-guard faction "Saming Dam", was involved two major violent incidents - the raid at Chulalongkorn Hospital on April 29 and the bombing attack at the home of Chat Thai Pattana chief adviser Banharn Silapa-Archa on April 25.

Tharit said the suspect led about 200 red guards during the hospital raid under the pretext of checking for anti-riot forces. The incident caused a scare for patients and medical personnel, disrupting and shutting down the hospital services.

Sompong told reporters he had no involvement in any violent incidents.

He said he was hospitalised in early April after anti-riot forces shot him with rubber bullets. Following his discharge, he rejoined the Ratchaprasong rally around April 19.

After the crackdown, he was arrested at Wat Pathum Wanaram for violating emergency rule. He was detained in his remand cell until he was granted temporary release on June 3. He then returned to his hometown.

He admitted he joined the hospital search led by red-shirt leader Payap Panket, but he denied threatening or intimidating the hospital staff.

He said he had no involvement in the bombing attack, saying as a Si Sa Ket man, he did not even know the location of Banharn's home.

He said DSI officials took him into custody at the Muang Si Sa Ket police station where he was scheduled to meet a police officer who recruited him to work as an informant.

-- The Nation 2011-01-11

[hyperdimension]

Empty set --- right after the failed negotiations Veera called for the burning of one of the anti-corruption agencies from the stage.

http://www.thaivisa....-Nacc-Head-Off/

edit to add .. I was watching it live that day (on TV not on Pan Fah) and was shocked! I felt at the time that it was his punishment for appearing weak and willing to accept the government's November election promise.

That's pretty shocking. I think I saw that at the time, but I'd forgotten. Well, despite that he was generally a peaceful voice.

There's a short excerpt with Veera saying "Bangkok will be engulfed in flames" in here:

[hyperdimension]

It shouldn't be a 'leap' that some people have to take. I would hope it could be informed by a point of law, ideally explicitly stated in some legislation or other. Let's look at some hypotheticals:

1) Person A pays someone else to kill someone. Person A is doubtless culpable.

2) Person A incites an individual to burn a building. Person A is culpable.

3) Person A cheers when Person B (culpable) incites someone to burn a building. Is person A culpable? I'd like to see the legal document that says he she is.

Do you think it's socially acceptable to cheer on incitement and threats of violence that cause mass destruction and deaths of people?

It seems the entire crowd (and not just a few people) cheered the terrorist's speeches, particularly Arisman's, as you can see in the video above.

Edited January 11, 2011 by hyperdimension

[jdinasia]

Empty set --- right after the failed negotiations Veera called for the burning of one of the anti-corruption agencies from the stage.

http://www.thaivisa....-Nacc-Head-Off/

edit to add .. I was watching it live that day (on TV not on Pan Fah) and was shocked! I felt at the time that it was his punishment for appearing weak and willing to accept the government's November election promise.

That's pretty shocking. I think I saw that at the time, but I'd forgotten. Well, despite that he was generally a peaceful voice.

hmmm now you seem to be forgiving incitement to arson/riot. Mor Weng openly spoke of violenve from the stage as well. (To understand Weng better might I suggest you read Mao's book? Even Hanuman clearly stated that this type of speech isn't legal. Veera was the last holdout amongst the red leadership to openly call for violence and a "new Thai state". Clearly insurrectionist speech Remember, Veera has been jailed before.

From Arisaman's early calls for burning BKK on ... it was a clearly laid out strategy of the "we are peaceful not terrorists" red shirts.

[Emptyset]

hmmm now you seem to be forgiving incitement to arson/riot. Mor Weng openly spoke of violenve from the stage as well. (To understand Weng better might I suggest you read Mao's book? Even Hanuman clearly stated that this type of speech isn't legal. Veera was the last holdout amongst the red leadership to openly call for violence and a "new Thai state". Clearly insurrectionist speech Remember, Veera has been jailed before.

I think Veera has been jailed twice. Once for his involvement in a failed coup (77, I believe) and once for LM in the late 80s. Not sure what that has to do with now, though. I never liked Veera much anyway because he's just another guy close to Thaksin. Though even Somtow called him a "noble" man. Haha, make of that what you will. No, I'm not forgiving incitement to arson/rioting at all. I'm pointing out that despite that one instance, Veera was generally calling for peace and was the first to try to get others to accept Abhisit's offer. But I'm not totally anti-violence, if someone wants to fight soldiers carrying out a coup (as a hypothetical scenario) then that's far different from harming ordinary people and their property. That's what I can't forgive. I never heard Weng calling for violence - which is different from speaking "of" it (I'm speaking "of" violence now, technically) - and I was monitoring the speeches quite closely, especially in the latter part of the rally. But there are things I've missed I'm sure. I do remember Weng getting worried about rioters damaging the red image and asking them to apologize to shopkeepers etc though. Hopefully trial proceedings will start soon so we can see the allegations against each leader as individuals.

Also, I'm happy to condemn red leaders. I think they were a collective failure and did untold harm to their movement. Some of them are despicable and called for violence against ordinary people. That is unacceptable. I hope some of them are jailed for a long time, as their crimes befit, providing they're given a fair trial. But I'm not going to rush to defend Abhisit either. He held onto power for entirely self-serving reasons. I suppose both sides played their best hands and reds lost. Neither side comes out of it looking good.

I still say that Abhisit could and should've held an election in 2009. It was obvious that things would get further out of hand and I just can't see a good reason not to have held one - especially if Abhisit is the idealist some make him out to be. Now, if he's just another self-serving politico, then obviously you can see why he's decided to hold onto power by supporting gangsters like Newin and choosing a violent crackdown over elections. Of course, you might argue his hands were tied, but he could've stepped down if he were really a man of principle. Remember Abhisit's advice to Samak in 2008? Where he said even if one person asks for house dissolution, it's legitimate? -

‘For the people, just one person or a hundred thousand, to come out to make demands of the government is not against the principles of democracy, especially when there are suspicions that the administration of the country has violated the law and the rights of the people, or is corrupt. In developed countries, these issues do not need to be dealt with by the law, but by a political sense of responsibility.

‘In Korea, when [the government] recently came up with a free trade policy to import beef, hundreds of thousands of people rose up. The government resigned. It has to be admitted that the PAD protests result from frustration which the people have long been harbouring.

‘Even if [the government] deals with [the protesters] once and for all, it will never be able to destroy the concept of resistance.’

‘Today, I have to say what displeases the ears of members of my party and other MPs, who always dislike the idea of a House dissolution. But a House dissolution is part of the show of spirit. If the PM does not want to take responsibility alone, the whole Parliament will take the pain together’.

The sad thing is that if PT win the election, Abhisit will probably have to leave the country to avoid being tried, whereas Suthep will remain the more powerful, since he's likely already done a deal. It's always the insects and parasites that survive.

[hyperdimension]

I still say that Abhisit could and should've held an election in 2009. It was obvious that things would get further out of hand and I just can't see a good reason not to have held one

There was no obligation to do so. Should a government dissolve the house every time it is faced with a violent mob?

Now, if he's just another self-serving politico, then obviously you can see why he's decided to hold onto power by supporting gangsters like Newin and choosing a violent crackdown over elections.

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

[SpoliaOpima]

Farangs that live in Bangkok are the same as Thais that are from Bangkok. Ignorant about the rest of Thailand. I have been all over Thailand and I can a sure you that I have only met handful of people outside of Bangkok that don't like the Red side of the political problem here in Thailand.The Red side is the bigger side, whether they are the better side is not for me to say, because like most farangs that love to post their opinions and feelings on here about this topic, I don't hold a Thai Passport, therefore I don't have a say. The only thing I can say is. If they were to hold free and fair elections the red side would win and anyone who says different obviously hasn't been far outside of Bangkok.

Sounds like you've been around the north and the northeast, but not Bangkok, central Thailand and the south. In the last three regions you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone sympathetic to the redshirts.

My own impressions while traveling in *all* regions of the country is that perhaps one third are red supporters, one third are yellow supporters, and one third are non-allied (or actively hate both red and yellow).

For the sake of argument, if the country is as overwhelmingly red as you suggest, why bother demonstrating? Why not wait for the next election, as provided for by law?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course the answer is that the UDD is not really interested in democracy, rather power.

[whybother]

<snip>

Now I think there was a plan to commit arson by some red shirts - I'm still not clear who planned it etc but I find it difficult to believe Veera, Weng and so on would agree to it - but CTW was definitely burned by armed men, the fire by the mob that was there originally was put out by the sprinklers. I've got my own ideas who the men were working for (no, it wasn't CRES/govt), I wonder who Pavin and a "large number of scholars" think it was.

There was a lot of talk about the water being turned off at the time.

It wasn't turned off, the first fire was put out by the sprinklers. Someone that was there before the second fire started said Zen was flooded with water. So either the sprinklers were ineffective at putting the next fire out, or it just ran out of water.

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.