Rally At Bangkok's Ratchaprasong

[webfact]

Rally at Ratchaprasong

Despite their earnest struggle for democracy, one of the main reasons the red shirts have not been able to win over the middle-class people in the urban areas and to expand beyond just the loyalists of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is because their lack of consideration for others.

The Ratchaprasong Intersection has become a symbolic place for the red shirts to gather ever since their rally was relocated from Rajadamnoen Road. After the fatal crackdown in which many protesters were killed, the Ratchaprason area was given a place in the history of the red shirts’ so-called struggle for democracy.

However, unlike the Rajadamnoen Road, which has long been known as a historical location, the Ratchaprasong Intersection is the country's commercial and economic center. There are many shopping malls and hotels in the area which are occupied by all types of businesses. These businesses are linked to the livelihoods of a massive number of people. During the red shirt rally from April to May of 2010, the businesses there came to a halt. As a result, many have lost their jobs.

This time around, the red shirts have again turned a deaf ear on a plea for the rallies to be held elsewhere.

The red shirts and other political groups are guaranteed by Article 63 of the 2008 Charter the right to peaceful assembly. However, this right could be revoked by the laws to protect others’ rights in public places. Simply put, all public gatherings must be held without causing disruption to other people’s lives. However, some groups have misunderstood that to hold a demonstration is to cause trouble for the innocents, otherwise their objectives will not be met. This has proven to be untrue in past political unrest.

The red shirt protestors maybe satisfied in believing that they can gather at a historically significant place, where many of their comrades fell. However, others, especially those who are making a living in the area, might not feel the same way. Is the democracy that the red shirts are preaching about the same democracy that will make others suffer? How can they claim to be protecting their own rights by violating others’?

Taken from Editorial Section, Kom Chad Leuk Newspaper, Page 4, January 17, 2011

Translated and Rewritten by Kongkrai Maksrivorawan

Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network.

-- Tan Network 2011-01-17

[gemini81]

take it elsewhere, enough of these prime locations being blocked for a useless cause. This is why they burst outta control before, in central locations, just flirting with disaster here.

[jdinasia]

Quick! somebody chime in with how disgusting it is for the merchants and residents of that section of BKK to NOT want to be continually put out by a group with a long history of violence, being heavily armed, and violating the rights of anyone that disagrees with them ... in pursuit of "democracy!"

[corkman]

Whether Thailand / the Reds aspire to the "type" of democracy that you would find in London or New York, I don't know, whether they should or not, I don't know either, but in any so called democratic and advanced society, when you do things like take over airports or financial / business hubs, and do so with force and/or the threat of violence, then you are met with riot police, tear gass, and a no-bull attitude, and the matter is resolved and quelled and thats it (for example G8 in London a few years ago).

We cannot, nor should not (as farangs) expect Thai's to do xyz just because that is what we would do - however when their behaviour is a threat to society and the nations security, then in my view those who let it happen are worse than the perpetrators.

What is the point in weilding the force of law when you do not have the force to weild it with?

Yellow-shirts & airport / red shirts and ratchaprasong - same difference in my opinion - a case of public order that was ALLOWED to get out of control by ARMED individuals. I don't drink, I just carry a hip-flask just in case...... hugh??? I go to peaceful protests and I bring guns and weapons as a token of my passive protest !!! The reason so many died there is because so many were allowed to gather. No private citizen has the right to opress or supress the rights of others ..... anywhere.......

I am afraid that a society where the rule of law does not rule, it is by defaulty law-less. Label your presonal ambitions as patriotism, and a criminal is transformed to a patriot? Hugh?

I am afraid all these so called leaders are is short sighted narrow minded self indulgent cowardly <deleted>........... I feel sorry for the minnions...... I truly do....... small brains are easy to brainwash....... is it only me that see's the irony in that...... the so-called leaders of the so called liberation movement treating their follows are mere cannon fodder....... and as soon as it gets tough, and the minnions do as they were brain washed to do, they run away like the cowardly sacks of crap that they are.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

Perhaps scoundrel should be changed to scum-bag.

These poor cretins (the minnions that is) are not nearly so disenfranchied or oppressed as they believe themselves to be. Sure, they are down trodden and not as well off as Bkk folks......... but ain't that the same the world over - those who give up their time and liberty to race in the rat race of their capital reap hte rewards .......... when I say this, I know it - my wifes family are Isaan and I;ve spent alot of time up there...... there are alot of hard working people, but there are also alot of 40-somethings that sit around all day wiating for someone to buy a bottle of laos-kao or change...... its not like they can't work, they don't wanna work! I'm Irish, and I'm doing well...... that is inspite of Ireland being consdiered a 3rd world country less than half a century ago...... my grandparetns left their family to work in London for over a decade, and made crappy money - but money all the same while their peers sat around complaining and moaning and blaming the British and blowing up Canary Warf etc...... That megre few my grandparents made (and were loathed for doing so by the British) bob they made put their kids though school and gave them the edge in life..... in turn my parents climbed the social ladder to put me through university..... and while my country men are now languishing in a pool of self pity blaming bankers, USA, and anyone else but themselves because they are too arogant, lazy, or brainwashed by some <deleted> rhetoric into thinking that nothing is their fault and if its not their fault why should they have to fix it....... blame will not fix their problems....... meanwhile I have taken it upon myself to do as my grandparents did....... sound familiar?

So why do I say poor cretins? I say it because Isaan needs Martin Luther King type figures " a mind is a terrible thing to waste" and all that malarky ........... not a brainwashing militant mind numbing muppet like Hitler, convincing them they are something they are not......

Edited January 17, 2011 by corkman

[Nisa]

Despite their earnest struggle for democracy, one of the main reasons the red shirts have not been able to win over the middle-class people in the urban areas and to expand beyond just the loyalists of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is because their lack of consideration for others.

That and their inability to communicate any meaningful proposals regarding solutions to ANY of Thailand's problems. And saying they have "lack of consideration for others" is either a huge understatement and/or a lie as some of their actions seem to indicate they clearly consider others in their choices to hurt, intimidate and/or inconvenience others..

I also question the reporters use of the words, "earnest struggle for democracy" as I think their claimed objectives for democracy remains very questionable based on both the words and actions of their leaders.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Nisa

[jayjay0]

Quick! somebody chime in with how disgusting it is for the merchants and residents of that section of BKK to NOT want to be continually put out by a group with a long history of violence, being heavily armed, and violating the rights of anyone that disagrees with them ... in pursuit of "democracy!"

jayboy should be along any moment now. That is just what he was doing on another thread related to this topic.

It is time that Thailand start looking at the rights of the honest hard working citizens and worry less about the rites of criminals.

That is a problem that is world wide. Unfortunately some of the bigger backers of the rites of criminals and to h-ll with the honest hard working citizen are from countries we came from and many like to compare to.

Every time the red shirt active terrorism is talked about people want to talk about the army stopping it and in the process people died.

Why don't they talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. Two months with a loss of a income can be devastating to a Thai. And road side shops and what not. that lost every thing. Ask Thieda what about them. She probably will deny it happened.

Rant over for now.

Edited January 17, 2011 by jayjay0

[JohnAllan]

And one of the most vociferous and outspoken leaders of the Redshirts, who defies the law and incites others to do likewise, is quite happy to have the arbiters of the law - the judiciary - support his continued defiance of his bail conditions, while he continues to hide behind his parliamentary immunity.

[hanuman1]

Quick! somebody chime in with how disgusting it is for the merchants and residents of that section of BKK to NOT want to be continually put out by a group with a long history of violence, being heavily armed, and violating the rights of anyone that disagrees with them ... in pursuit of "democracy!"

jayboy should be along any moment now. That is just what he was doing on another thread related to this topic.

It is time that Thailand start looking at the rights of the honest hard working citizens and worry less about the rites of criminals.

That is a problem that is world wide. Unfortunately some of the bigger backers of the rites of criminals and to h-ll with the honest hard working citizen are from countries we came from and many like to compare to.

Every time the red shirt active terrorism is talked about people want to talk about the army stopping it and in the process people died.

Why don't they talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. Two months with a loss of a income can be devastating to a Thai. And road side shops and what not. that lost every thing. Ask Thieda what about them. She probably will deny it happened.

Rant over for now.

Okay, let's talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. It was very unfortunate collateral damage. Unfortunate collateral damage in the same sense right-wingers use to describe some of those who were killed last year, except they won't be back to turn their lives around.

[jdinasia]

Okay, let's talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. It was very unfortunate collateral damage. Unfortunate collateral damage in the same sense right-wingers use to describe some of those who were killed last year, except they won't be back to turn their lives around.

Correct, and the leaders that led to that 'collateral damage' are ..

1) In jail, and have just been denied bail again while the cases against them for terrorism and inciting riots etc continue.

2) Out on bail through exercising parliamentary immunity.

3) Ensconced in the wall of a temple (that's a guess-- not a fact) in the case of Seh Daeng.

4) Fled the country (Arisaman and others)

5) Fled the country much earlier and now apparently holding at least a Montenegro passport (even though he promised his collateral damage that he woud be there when the first bullet was fired). and is convicted on one count of corruption and charged with other offenses including terrorism and funding terrorism.

The world isn't fair to those suffering ARMED reds and the people that mixed with them by choice as a sort of human shield.

[hanuman1]

Okay, let's talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. It was very unfortunate collateral damage. Unfortunate collateral damage in the same sense right-wingers use to describe some of those who were killed last year, except they won't be back to turn their lives around.

Correct, and the leaders that led to that 'collateral damage' are ..

1) In jail, and have just been denied bail again while the cases against them for terrorism and inciting riots etc continue.

2) Out on bail through exercising parliamentary immunity.

3) Ensconced in the wall of a temple (that's a guess-- not a fact) in the case of Seh Daeng.

4) Fled the country (Arisaman and others)

5) Fled the country much earlier and now apparently holding at least a Montenegro passport (even though he promised his collateral damage that he woud be there when the first bullet was fired). and is convicted on one count of corruption and charged with other offenses including terrorism and funding terrorism.

The world isn't fair to those suffering ARMED reds and the people that mixed with them by choice as a sort of human shield.

So why aren't the current 'leaders' not subject to the same kind of fate that is resulting in the kind of collateral damage that has been highlighted here? My guess is that the government view the redshirt movement as significant in terms of votes and grievances. I presume you would agree with me that they are not afraid in terms of potential violence, so what's your guess?

And I'm sure you didn't mean to say that thousands of red shirted people consciously agreed to be 'human shields' for violent elements.

Edited January 17, 2011 by hanuman1

[truethailand]

Must be 8 months ago now and nobody has appeared in court on charges of terrorism. Nobody wants its in court and guess what nobody related to May last year is ever going to go to court on charges of terrorism. Inciting violence yes I can agree with that, GBH and ABH but not terrorism. But it makes good headlines. Anybody remember this

"But the situation is changing. The police have issued summonses for 79 leading members of the UDD, including media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, to give themselves up on July 28 to acknowledge criminal charges, including terrorism and treason, for their alleged involvement in the seizure of the two airports". and their little suaree went on 193 days.

If we are to do things in Chronological order, its yellows first in court. If the yellows dont go to court then the reds should not go to court. Its so simple and fair.

And as for treason, another yellow shirt charge

a crime that undermines the offender's government <LI>disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior <LI>treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

disloyalty Subversive, treachery and betrayal

And theres this more damming definition of Treason

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. ... That sounds nasty

Edited January 17, 2011 by truethailand

[jdinasia]

Which "current leaders"? Thida? Perhaps there is nothing to charge her with (yet?)

If the reds knew that there were armed elements amongst them (with the vile spewed by Arisaman and the rest ... they knew months in advance) then they were willing human shields. If they stayed after the April attacks when Seh Daeng's ronin took out so many people .. they knew. If you sit for months on end listening to a single message from the red stage, your only source of info, maybe the rank and file could claim patty hearst/stockholm syndrome.

I do not agree that the governent is not worried about continued and escalating violence from the reds as the apartment block that exploded in Nonthaburi and continued arrests in Chiang Mai suggest that violence is still on the table for the reds. Mao's little red book would simply suggest that the reds do 2 things 1) Put a friendlier face to the public (Thida) and 2) step up the indoctrination of new militant recruits and pick low value targets to keep the government off balance.

[jdinasia]

1. Actually tt if you do things in order it is the reds in court first for the 2007 mess.

Sondhi was never a part of the UDD. They (the PAD leaders) have appeared in court and answered charges for 2008 and the cases are ongoing. Stick with facts please

After the 2007 mess it would be former PM Somchai for oct 7th 2007 (Samak is mercifully not an issue any longer) next, and then the PAD leadership. The PAD leadership will likely only get a slap on the wrist and a HUGE penalty in civil court with Thai airways being the major beneficiary. (after all the AOT laid the blame for the airport closure of swampy not on the PAD but on their own employee.)

And tbh --- Thaksin is out of the jurisdiction of the courts but he has SEVERAL major cases that predate any of these.

Edited January 17, 2011 by jdinasia

[Buchholz]

If we are to do things in Chronological order, its yellows first in court. If the yellows dont go to court then the reds should not go to court. Its so simple and fair.

In real chronological terms, it's the Reds that should be first in court for their July 2007 riot. If the Reds don't go to then the yellows should not go to court. It's so simple and fair.

Additionally, in chronology, Thaksin's brother-in-law Somchai and Chavalit also need to go to court first on their October 2008 frenzied shooting charges.

You can also throw in Potjaman's conviction on a guilty verdict rendered in October 2008, for which she's still not in prison for.

.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Buchholz

[hanuman1]

Which "current leaders"? Thida? Perhaps there is nothing to charge her with (yet?)

If the reds knew that there were armed elements amongst them (with the vile spewed by Arisaman and the rest ... they knew months in advance) then they were willing human shields. If they stayed after the April attacks when Seh Daeng's ronin took out so many people .. they knew. If you sit for months on end listening to a single message from the red stage, your only source of info, maybe the rank and file could claim patty hearst/stockholm syndrome.

I do not agree that the governent is not worried about continued and escalating violence from the reds as the apartment block that exploded in Nonthaburi and continued arrests in Chiang Mai suggest that violence is still on the table for the reds. Mao's little red book would simply suggest that the reds do 2 things 1) Put a friendlier face to the public (Thida) and 2) step up the indoctrination of new militant recruits and pick low value targets to keep the government off balance.

So with all the uproar about redshirt demonstrations depriving people of their livelihood, not to mention the apparent direct contravention of the '5 people max' rule for gatherings (when it was in place), could you tell us why you think the government hasn't enforced the law?

Edited January 17, 2011 by hanuman1

[jdinasia]

So with all the uproar about redshirt demonstrations depriving people of their livelihood, not to mention the apparent direct contravention of the '5 people max' rule for gatehrings (when it was in place), could you tell us why you think the government hasn't enforced the law?

I can make some assumptions .....

1) They allowed gatherings with "good intentions" --- so had to give some leeway for the reds

2) They have red the same playbook that the reds have been using and knew how to defuse some of their tactics (refusing to play the reppressive role the reds wanted to cast them for.

3) "give 'em enough rope"

4) It is better to know where your enemies are and what they are doing.

If Abhisit had come down harder after the May 19th/20th razing of BKK he would have plqyed directly into the red's hands. Instead he played it cool. Looked reasonable and care-worn and didn't gloat. It makes you wonder if the pics and videos taken in those first weeks showing the red leaders basically enjoying a resort-style good life in captivity might not have been arranged to be allowed. The hawks surrounding him hated it BUT the common rank and file of the reds saw it ..... and probably knew that the rest of the reds in jail weren't enjoying life as much as their leaders. If he did tell the guards to let the cameras etc in .. it was one shrewd move. (again taken right from the red's own playbook ......)

edit for Typo ....

Edited January 17, 2011 by jdinasia

[hanuman1]

So with all the uproar about redshirt demonstrations depriving people of their livelihood, not to mention the apparent direct contravention of the '5 people max' rule for gatehrings (when it was in place), could you tell us why you think the government hasn't enforced the law?

I can make some assumptions .....

1) They allowed gatherings with "good intentions" --- so had to give some leeway for the reds

2) They have red the same playbook that the reds have been using and knew how to defuse some of their tactics (refusing to play the reppressive role the reds wanted to cast them for.

3) "give 'em enough rope"

4) It is better to know where your enemies are and what they are doing.

If Abhisit had come down harder after the May 19th/20th razing of BKK he would have plaid directly into the red's hands. Instead he played it cool. Looked reasonable and care-worn and didn't gloat. It makes you wonder if the pics and videos taken in those first weeks showing the red leaders basically enjoying a resort-style good life in captivity might not have been arranged to be allowed. The hawks surrounding him hated it BUT the common rank and file of the reds saw it ..... and probably knew that the rest of the reds in jail weren't enjoying life as much as their leaders. If he did tell the guards to let the cameras etc in .. it was one shrewd move. (again taken right from the red's own playbook ......)

I don't doubt that Abhisit is a clever and able leader. I've long thought that his only potential failure is that he's too ahead of his time for this country. But if what you say is true then surely there should be no condemnation of the government for allowing these demonstrations to take place, and questions such as 'why do they let these demonstrations happen' are therefore moot.

Edited January 17, 2011 by hanuman1

[Chunky1]

is that photo in OP actually from this rally or is that an old photo?

[jdinasia]

I don't doubt that Abhisit is a clever and able leader. I've long thought that his only potential failure is that he's too ahead of his time for this country. But if what you say is true then surely there should be no condemnation of the government for allowing these demonstrations to take place, and questions such as 'why do they let these demonstrations happen' are therefore moot.

You didn't read thay playbook did you?

How should the government respond? They should appear to be conciliatory and flexible. They should appear concerned for all people involved. The reds AND the BKK citizens. They should let the tension build a bit more while the public outcry gets stronger for them to take some action and while the reds lose more and more sympathy from the population both in BKK and in the countryside. Remember ---- the viciousness of the reds in BKK was not entirely lost on many of the red-leaning rural population. Then, when pressure is a bit higher, Abhisit should set up a "free speech/ rally site" and promise press coverage direct from the stage. The only restriction would be that there is a zero tolerance for weapons to be allowed in that area --- from the police, the reds and the military. Whooooooosh ... the sound you are hearing is a sigh of relief from BKK and the air being let out of the red leaders' tires. Of course the red leadership will refuse this act of conciliation by Abhisit, but then again, that works for him too, He seems reasonable and caring. The reds seem unreasonable and vengeful. Next question is ... does he block the reds from returning to Rachaprasong, and if so ... when? There are arguments to be made for either possible choice.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Yellow-shirts & airport / red shirts and ratchaprasong - same difference in my opinion - a case of public order that was ALLOWED to get out of control by ARMED individuals. I don't drink, I just carry a hip-flask just in case...... hugh??? I go to peaceful protests and I bring guns and weapons as a token of my passive protest !!! The reason so many died there is because so many were allowed to gather. No private citizen has the right to opress or supress the rights of others ..... anywhere.......

... end removed

Armed individuals, yellow and reds? It does sound like yet another attempt to justify red-shirt violence. Peaceful protests, bring along weapons, many died. Oh, this refers to the April - May 2010 period only. Now it starts to make sense.

The private citizen is not named, maybe his name start with a ...

Edited January 17, 2011 by rubl

[hanuman1]

I don't doubt that Abhisit is a clever and able leader. I've long thought that his only potential failure is that he's too ahead of his time for this country. But if what you say is true then surely there should be no condemnation of the government for allowing these demonstrations to take place, and questions such as 'why do they let these demonstrations happen' are therefore moot.

You didn't read thay playbook did you?

How should the government respond? They should appear to be conciliatory and flexible. They should appear concerned for all people involved. The reds AND the BKK citizens. They should let the tension build a bit more while the public outcry gets stronger for them to take some action and while the reds lose more and more sympathy from the population both in BKK and in the countryside. Remember ---- the viciousness of the reds in BKK was not entirely lost on many of the red-leaning rural population. Then, when pressure is a bit higher, Abhisit should set up a "free speech/ rally site" and promise press coverage direct from the stage. The only restriction would be that there is a zero tolerance for weapons to be allowed in that area --- from the police, the reds and the military. Whooooooosh ... the sound you are hearing is a sigh of relief from BKK and the air being let out of the red leaders' tires. Of course the red leadership will refuse this act of conciliation by Abhisit, but then again, that works for him too, He seems reasonable and caring. The reds seem unreasonable and vengeful. Next question is ... does he block the reds from returning to Rachaprasong, and if so ... when? There are arguments to be made for either possible choice.

I don't know what playbook you are referring to. Sorry for being slow. Care to spell it out for me?

I was just referring to the events up until now. And up until now Abhisit has allowed the red shirt movement to return to Rachaprasong. I was just trying to reconcile this fact with the discontent shown by some posters as to the redshirt presence at that place. Posters such as yourself complain about the redshirt presence at Rachaprasong, but the government allows it. Just trying to get to the bottom of that particular contradiction.

[jayjay0]

Which "current leaders"? Thida? Perhaps there is nothing to charge her with (yet?)

If the reds knew that there were armed elements amongst them (with the vile spewed by Arisaman and the rest ... they knew months in advance) then they were willing human shields. If they stayed after the April attacks when Seh Daeng's ronin took out so many people .. they knew. If you sit for months on end listening to a single message from the red stage, your only source of info, maybe the rank and file could claim patty hearst/stockholm syndrome.

I do not agree that the governent is not worried about continued and escalating violence from the reds as the apartment block that exploded in Nonthaburi and continued arrests in Chiang Mai suggest that violence is still on the table for the reds. Mao's little red book would simply suggest that the reds do 2 things 1) Put a friendlier face to the public (Thida) and 2) step up the indoctrination of new militant recruits and pick low value targets to keep the government off balance.

So with all the uproar about redshirt demonstrations depriving people of their livelihood, not to mention the apparent direct contravention of the '5 people max' rule for gatherings (when it was in place), could you tell us why you think the government hasn't enforced the law?

Where is the uproar about depriving people of their livelihood?

I could be wrong but I am the only one who post's about it.

And of course kind hearted man that you are you jump up and say collateral damage.

Well so was the dead protesters but you like to talk about them and ignore the ones who didn't have red shirts on and were trying to support families.

Well here is a News Flash. They don't care. It is all over for them they are no more. Obviously none of them were supporting families they were not working and Mr RT said I will give you money to cause trouble in Thailand.And off they went. with there rocket launchers to peacfully protest.

Grow up give me a break.

[jdinasia]

You didn't read thay playbook did you?

How should the government respond? They should appear to be conciliatory and flexible. They should appear concerned for all people involved. The reds AND the BKK citizens. They should let the tension build a bit more while the public outcry gets stronger for them to take some action and while the reds lose more and more sympathy from the population both in BKK and in the countryside. Remember ---- the viciousness of the reds in BKK was not entirely lost on many of the red-leaning rural population. Then, when pressure is a bit higher, Abhisit should set up a "free speech/ rally site" and promise press coverage direct from the stage. The only restriction would be that there is a zero tolerance for weapons to be allowed in that area --- from the police, the reds and the military. Whooooooosh ... the sound you are hearing is a sigh of relief from BKK and the air being let out of the red leaders' tires. Of course the red leadership will refuse this act of conciliation by Abhisit, but then again, that works for him too, He seems reasonable and caring. The reds seem unreasonable and vengeful. Next question is ... does he block the reds from returning to Rachaprasong, and if so ... when? There are arguments to be made for either possible choice.

I don't know what playbook you are referring to. Sorry for being slow. Care to spell it out for me?

I was just referring to the events up until now. And up until now Abhisit has allowed the red shirt movement to return to Rachaprasong. I was just trying to reconcile this fact with the discontent shown by some posters as to the redshirt presence at that place. Posters such as yourself complain about the redshirt presence at Rachaprasong, but the government allows it. Just trying to get to the bottom of that particular contradiction.

The government has been careful not to either allow it or disallow it, per se. They have left it to the BMA to deal with. Scroll back up for the "why" as I see it. The government tact of letting tensions rise while remaining "neutral" and then offering legitimate compromise solutions in the end takes the air out of the red leaders ... builds confidence in them locally, and softens the more moderate red leaning rural people's feelings. It is about the only response that can work when dealing with the reds. They must remain the badguys and the government must appear willing to compromise. That way when the reds refuse compromise they lose even more support.

and with that it is WAY past my bedtime .....

[rubl]

Must be 8 months ago now and nobody has appeared in court on charges of terrorism. Nobody wants its in court and guess what nobody related to May last year is ever going to go to court on charges of terrorism. Inciting violence yes I can agree with that, GBH and ABH but not terrorism. But it makes good headlines. Anybody remember this

"But the situation is changing. The police have issued summonses for 79 leading members of the UDD, including media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul, to give themselves up on July 28 to acknowledge criminal charges, including terrorism and treason, for their alleged involvement in the seizure of the two airports". and their little suaree went on 193 days.

If we are to do things in Chronological order, its yellows first in court. If the yellows dont go to court then the reds should not go to court. Its so simple and fair.

And as for treason, another yellow shirt charge

a crime that undermines the offender's government <LI>disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior <LI>treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

disloyalty Subversive, treachery and betrayal

And theres this more damming definition of Treason

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. ... That sounds nasty

No offence, but please do your homework first before writing a post. This one is too full of holes, a patchwork of bits and pieces found laying around. Write a solid post and I'll be happy to comment on it, when applicable even praise it.

[hanuman1]

It is all over for them they are no more. Obviously none of them were supporting families they were not working and Mr RT said I will give you money to cause trouble in Thailand.And off they went. with there rocket launchers to peacfully protest.

Grow up give me a break.

Obviously. Have fun in whatever planet you're on. And by the way, correct spelling (we call it 'literacy') doesn't make it even into the Democrat manifesto. Post seriously if you want to be taken as such.

Edited January 17, 2011 by hanuman1

[hanuman1]

The government has been careful not to either allow it or disallow it, per se. They have left it to the BMA to deal with. Scroll back up for the "why" as I see it. The government tact of letting tensions rise while remaining "neutral" and then offering legitimate compromise solutions in the end takes the air out of the red leaders ... builds confidence in them locally, and softens the more moderate red leaning rural people's feelings. It is about the only response that can work when dealing with the reds. They must remain the badguys and the government must appear willing to compromise. That way when the reds refuse compromise they lose even more support.

and with that it is WAY past my bedtime .....

The government has been careful not to either allow it or disallow it, per se.

Where I come from, this is known as 'flip-flopping' - not the sign of a strong government.

The government tact of letting tensions rise while remaining "neutral" and then offering legitimate compromise solutions in the end takes the air out of the red leaders

Doesn't this appear a bit Machiavellian to you? (I guess not)

They must remain the badguys and the government must appear willing to compromise.

Spoken like a political campaign manager. There is actually more depth to the redshirt grievances than 500Bt per day, wouldn't you agree?

Nighty night.

Edited January 17, 2011 by hanuman1

[phetaroi]

Okay, let's talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. It was very unfortunate collateral damage. Unfortunate collateral damage in the same sense right-wingers use to describe some of those who were killed last year, except they won't be back to turn their lives around.

Is intentionally torching 31 buildings your idea of "unfortunate collateral damage", also?

[hanuman1]

Okay, let's talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. It was very unfortunate collateral damage. Unfortunate collateral damage in the same sense right-wingers use to describe some of those who were killed last year, except they won't be back to turn their lives around.

Is intentionally torching 31 buildings your idea of "unfortunate collateral damage", also?

No. The people responsible for that should be brought to justice. Those who have blocked trade from taking place at Rajprasong, on the other hand, are free to do so according to the government. Want to know why? Fill us in when you find out.

Edited January 17, 2011 by hanuman1

[phetaroi]

Okay, let's talk about all the honest hard working citizens who lost there means of support. It was very unfortunate collateral damage. Unfortunate collateral damage in the same sense right-wingers use to describe some of those who were killed last year, except they won't be back to turn their lives around.

Is intentionally torching 31 buildings your idea of "unfortunate collateral damage", also?

No. The people responsible for that should be brought to justice. Those who have blocked trade from taking place at Rajprasong, on the other hand, are free to do so according to the government. Want to know why? Fill us in when you find out.

Ok, now you have expressed more clearly what you meant. Thanks...quite in agreement.

[timekeeper]

if they weren't gathered there illegally then then would not have been injured or killed

they had a perfectly good and legal rally site where they could have protested peacefully

instead, the red leaders decided to increase the stakes and move their sheeple to Ratchaprasong where they could harass the public and terrorize the city

they were asked to move many many times, even negotiating directly with the PM who offered to concede some political ground to keep the peace

but the puppet red leaders responded negatively after Thaksin said no way

the red sheeple and their masters were the masters of their own destiny

in my view, som nom na to them all and mak mak to Thaksin

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind"..........