Rally At Bangkok's Ratchaprasong

[jdinasia]

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

More ad hominem attacks from Jayboy ... even in the face of all the evidence

[Buchholz]

Sorry I don't do personal stuff and would suggest you follow my line.

You might recognise these quotes:

You are possibly letting your dislike and ignorance...

Sorry but your tunnel vision is showing....

If you had any self awareness you might understand....

Accusing someone of ignorance, tunnel vision and no self awareness, seems pretty personal to me.

you can also now add:

your ignorance

unread ignoramuses

[jayboy]

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

More ad hominem attacks from Jayboy ... even in the face of all the evidence

Neatly avoiding the facts that don't fit with your view.

[Emptyset]

LOL --- you must have missed where I said the political front denies the violence of the violent front.

No, I saw it but I don't believe it. It's not that far-fetched but I still class it in the realm of conspiracy theory. The best conspiracy theories are those that seem most plausible, of course. Now I can't be 100% sure you're wrong, but I am 90% sure from what I've learned so far. However, we might have a clearer idea in future.

Note that Jaran and Weng didn't leave --- that's the punchline. Just like your stating that people in jail (some of) believed the violent rhetoric from the red leaders and deserve to stay in jail, while apparently defending the UDD "legitimate greivance" about their leaders being in jail (the ones that you appear to be saying incited the violence).

I didn't call it a legitimate grievance, I called it an "immediate" grievance. Yes, I think people that committed crimes need to take responsibility for them themselves. They weren't forced to attend the rally or listen to any speeches.

[Nisa]

There was a "massive and general welcome for the reds before it went pearshaped"? Wow! They proclaim a million will be there but in a city of between 8-12 million they could get a total of 100,000 (mostly paid and trucked in) but hey ... that's a massive and general welcome!

As for connections between the reds and communism you need only look at Thida and Weng. Both actively involved with the Maoist CPT in the past.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

[jayboy]

There was a "massive and general welcome for the reds before it went pearshaped"? Wow! They proclaim a million will be there but in a city of between 8-12 million they could get a total of 100,000 (mostly paid and trucked in) but hey ... that's a massive and general welcome!

As for connections between the reds and communism you need only look at Thida and Weng. Both actively involved with the Maoist CPT in the past.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

Samak's role was disgraceful but he was more of a cheerleader for violence than its instigator.He is incidentally dead so he's not part of any movement.There was a banned member Sriracha John who maintained Samak's final illness was faked, but the general consensus is indeed that he is dead.Bucholz might like to comment.

[Emptyset]

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

No, it wasn't. Samak wasn't even there. Samak had pulled out of Seni's govt in the days before (he was interior minister), and began railing against the students, denouncing them as communists, and against the liberals in government on his radio show. He also had strong links to the rightist vigilante groups that carried out the massacre. But perhaps most importantly, what sparked the protests was the return of the tyrant, Thanom Kittikachorn; Samak is the one that flew out on behalf of the powers that be, and told him it was OK to come back. Anyway, obviously Samak was nothing to do with the red movement, although some reds like him because they perceived him to be on their side and they believe he'd changed in his last few years (though I see no evidence of that). He's dead now, if you didn't know.

Chamlong was actually present at the massacre though, even though he denied this for years. Not that it's particularly relevant now. Although this event is still foremost in some of the minds of those who survived and influences much of their thinking about Thai politics.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Emptyset

[Nisa]

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

No, it wasn't. Samak wasn't even there. Samak had pulled out of Seni's govt in the days before (he was interior minister), and began railing against the students, denouncing them as communists, and against the liberals in government on his radio show. He also had strong links to the rightist vigilante groups that carried out the massacre. But perhaps most importantly, what sparked the protests was the return of the tyrant, Thanom Kittikachorn; Samak is the one that flew out on behalf of the powers that be, and told him it was OK to come back. Anyway, obviously Samak was nothing to do with the red movement, although some reds like him because they perceived him to be on their side and they believe he'd changed in his last few years (though I see no evidence of that). He's dead now, if you didn't know.

Chamlong was actually present at the massacre though, even though he denied this for years. Not that it's particularly relevant now. Although this event is still foremost in some of the minds of those who survived and influences much of their thinking about Thai politics.

I wasn't here but it was what I heard and doing a internet search seems to back this up ...

Thaksin's proxy Prime Minister, Samak Sunthoravej – the interior minister who gave orders to massacre students during a 1976 student uprising...

http://www.sa.org.au...itary-crackdown

Obviously we can't believe everything we hear or read on the net but this seems to have some truth to it.

It had been said that Samak was involved in the 6 October 1976 Massacre at Thammasat University...

http://en.wikipedia....proval_of_Samak

Edited January 18, 2011 by Nisa

[rubl]

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact ...

It's a fact that there are many in Bangkok who were sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Lots of people in Bangkok come from the Isan area, so no surprise. Lots of Bangkokians voted PTP, lots of others Dem's. Lots of people in Bangkok were sympathetic to the yellow-shirts, no surprise either.

To say 'warm welcome' and 'even hostile observers surprised' is less a fact than an interpretation and as such more like an opinion. Somehow I think the soldiers which arrived in Bangkok as part of the September 2006 coup got a much warmer welcome

[rubl]

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

No, it wasn't. Samak wasn't even there. Samak had pulled out of Seni's govt in the days before (he was interior minister), and began railing against the students, denouncing them as communists, and against the liberals in government on his radio show. He also had strong links to the rightist vigilante groups that carried out the massacre. But perhaps most importantly, what sparked the protests was the return of the tyrant, Thanom Kittikachorn; Samak is the one that flew out on behalf of the powers that be, and told him it was OK to come back. Anyway, obviously Samak was nothing to do with the red movement, although some reds like him because they perceived him to be on their side and they believe he'd changed in his last few years (though I see no evidence of that). He's dead now, if you didn't know.

Chamlong was actually present at the massacre though, even though he denied this for years. Not that it's particularly relevant now. Although this event is still foremost in some of the minds of those who survived and influences much of their thinking about Thai politics.

I wasn't here but it was what I heard and doing a internet search seems to back this up ...

Thaksin's proxy Prime Minister, Samak Sunthoravej – the interior minister who gave orders to massacre students during a 1976 student uprising – was then sacked by the constitutional court due to "conflict of interests" because he hosted a cooking show on television. Replacing him as interim Prime Minister was Somchai Wongsawat, Thaksin's brother-in-law. This sparked more Yellow Shirt protests. A faction of Thaksin's party then defected to join a coalition led by the PAD, bringing Abhisit to power.

Obviously we can't believe everything we hear or read on the net but this seems to have some truth to it.

It had been said that Samak was involved in the 6 October 1976 Massacre at Thammasat University

http://en.wikipedia....proval_of_Samak

Some people here seem to have just as selective a memory as the late k. Samak. Even some UDD core members spoke out.

"Prime Minister Samak's comments about the 1976 massacre has many speaking out against his diminishment of the event's brutality"

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

[jayboy]

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact ...

It's a fact that there are many in Bangkok who were sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Lots of people in Bangkok come from the Isan area, so no surprise. Lots of Bangkokians voted PTP, lots of others Dem's. Lots of people in Bangkok were sympathetic to the yellow-shirts, no surprise either.

To say 'warm welcome' and 'even hostile observers surprised' is less a fact than an interpretation and as such more like an opinion. Somehow I think the soldiers which arrived in Bangkok as part of the September 2006 coup got a much warmer welcome

You're absolutely right.This is a subjective matter.I suppose what surprised me was the very positive reaction of non Isaan Bangkokians, mostly working class or lower middle class I agree.I did also see negative reactions mostly from middle class office workers in the Sathorn area.

[Nisa]

There was a "massive and general welcome for the reds before it went pearshaped"? Wow! They proclaim a million will be there but in a city of between 8-12 million they could get a total of 100,000 (mostly paid and trucked in) but hey ... that's a massive and general welcome!

As for connections between the reds and communism you need only look at Thida and Weng. Both actively involved with the Maoist CPT in the past.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

Samak's role was disgraceful but he was more of a cheerleader for violence than its instigator.He is incidentally dead so he's not part of any movement.There was a banned member Sriracha John who maintained Samak's final illness was faked, but the general consensus is indeed that he is dead.Bucholz might like to comment.

If he is dead he is probably doing more to help the reds than any of the live leaders ... but i had no idea he was dead. I had just remembered his role as PM and remembered hearing he had some involvement in the massacre.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Nisa

[jayboy]

Some people here seem to have just as selective a memory as the late k. Samak. Even some UDD core members spoke out.

"Prime Minister Samak's comments about the 1976 massacre has many speaking out against his diminishment of the event's brutality"

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

Actually Emptyset gives a very accurate and concise explanation of the Samak role so it's slightly odd that Nisa came back with the unhelpfully bland Wiki quote.Samak's role was disgraceful but he wasn't the prime mover.I don't quite see what you mean by "selective memory".

Clearly as I said earlier there are several intelligent forum members who simply haven't done (apparently) any detailed reading of the last decades of Thai political history.It explains why so many posts from whatever vantage point lack rooting in any understanding of context.

[Emptyset]

It's a fact that there are many in Bangkok who were sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Lots of people in Bangkok come from the Isan area, so no surprise. Lots of Bangkokians voted PTP, lots of others Dem's. Lots of people in Bangkok were sympathetic to the yellow-shirts, no surprise either.

To say 'warm welcome' and 'even hostile observers surprised' is less a fact than an interpretation and as such more like an opinion. Somehow I think the soldiers which arrived in Bangkok as part of the September 2006 coup got a much warmer welcome

"Many of those cheering the red shirts donned red or had something red on them, such as a handkerchief or a headband. They jumped, danced, waved and shook their foot clappers. They also handed out bottled water to members of arguably the longest political caravan in Thai history." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/03/20/politics/Red-shirts-lap-up-urban-support-30125174.html

Actually, I think your last line is a precise illustration of the problem. But I can't say most of my friends (middle class Bangkokians) were anything but indifferent to the coup. A little surprised at first, but not particularly happy or upset about it. Most people just aren't that political I suppose. I don't remember any parties in the sois either. I remember a curfew. However, I'd say it is a fact that many people greeted the coup warmly... sadly, they were misguided. After the last four years it's clear that military coups are no solution to anything.

[Emptyset]

I wasn't here but it was what I heard and doing a internet search seems to back this up ...

Thaksin's proxy Prime Minister, Samak Sunthoravej – the interior minister who gave orders to massacre students during a 1976 student uprising...

http://www.sa.org.au...itary-crackdown

Obviously we can't believe everything we hear or read on the net but this seems to have some truth to it.

It had been said that Samak was involved in the 6 October 1976 Massacre at Thammasat University...

http://en.wikipedia....proval_of_Samak

I didn't say he wasn't involved. He was heavily involved, just he wasn't present at the massacre itself. And he didn't give the orders either.

[Buchholz]

There was a "massive and general welcome for the reds before it went pearshaped"? Wow! They proclaim a million will be there but in a city of between 8-12 million they could get a total of 100,000 (mostly paid and trucked in) but hey ... that's a massive and general welcome!

As for connections between the reds and communism you need only look at Thida and Weng. Both actively involved with the Maoist CPT in the past.

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

Wasn't it Samak Sunthoravej –who gave orders to massacre the students. Isn't he part of the red movement and was Thaksin's stand in Prime Minister?

Samak's role was disgraceful but he was more of a cheerleader for violence than its instigator.He is incidentally dead so he's not part of any movement.There was a banned member Sriracha John who maintained Samak's final illness was faked, but the general consensus is indeed that he is dead.Bucholz might like to comment.

I looked at past threads on the subject, but couldn't find where any one said his illness was faked.

Can you explain your misstatement?

Preferably without name-calling or inflammatory words for a change.

.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Buchholz

[rubl]

He wasn't elected by winning a plurality in a general election. Some consider that improper. I'm sure in the UK or any parliamentary system there'd be major complaints if things had happened like they did in Thailand. In the last UK election, which was a hung parliament, there was a chance for the "loser" (OK the party who came second) to form a coalition, but even the people from the party that lost considered it undemocratic. The consensus was that the party that won most seats should form the government.

But it's just not comparable, really. It's not just the way he came to power either, it's the way it's perceived. Most think the PAD who the army refused to do anything about had a major role in Abhisit coming to power. Anyway, all I can say is that leaders have resigned for far less reason than Abhisit had to resign (in my opinion) in the west. If I were him I'd have had an election as soon as possible after the red uprising in 2009. Anyone with any foresight could see that there'd be a similar uprising sooner or later.

If situations are not comparable really, why do you do so and even get some conclusions out of a comparison you yourself say is not really valid?

All I'd like to add is that there are also leaders, I guess, who resigned for far more reason than PM Abhisit might have. Doesn't mean he should though. Anyone with any foresight might say that after the 2009 storming of the ASIAN venue and the Songkhran revolt the government already had sufficient reasons to incarcerate some of those who started a similar 'uprising in 2010. IMHO of course

Edited January 18, 2011 by rubl

[Nisa]

I wasn't here but it was what I heard and doing a internet search seems to back this up ...

Thaksin's proxy Prime Minister, Samak Sunthoravej – the interior minister who gave orders to massacre students during a 1976 student uprising...

http://www.sa.org.au...itary-crackdown

Obviously we can't believe everything we hear or read on the net but this seems to have some truth to it.

It had been said that Samak was involved in the 6 October 1976 Massacre at Thammasat University...

http://en.wikipedia....proval_of_Samak

I didn't say he wasn't involved. He was heavily involved, just he wasn't present at the massacre itself. And he didn't give the orders either.

I had actually heard he gave the orders but in doing some research now I see that at best it could only be a claim given the events and the aftermath. Not that it really is all that relevant since we do know he was involved at the very least in instigating things but he does appear to have been either the Deputy Interior Minister or Interior Minister during this time according to a number of accounts of the events and his bio.

Name:Samak Sundaravej

Date of Birth:13 June 1935

Place of Birth:Bangkok

Religion:Buddhist

Nationality:Thai

Profession:Chef

Political Party:Prachakorn Thai Party (1979), PPP (2007)

Position:25th Prime Minister of ThailandIn Office:29 January 2008 – 8 September 2008

Education:• Saint Gabriel's College

• Assumption Commercial College

• Thammasat University

• Bryant & Stratton College, U.S.Background:• Member of Democrat Party (1968–1976)

• Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Cooperative (1975–1976)

• Deputy Interior Minister (1976)

• Minister of Interior (1976–1977)

• Minister of Transport (1983–1986, 1990–1991)

• Governor of Bangkok (2000–2003)

• Senator (2006)

• Leader of People's Power Party (PPP) (2007)

• Prime Minister of Thailand (2008)

Former PM Samak Sundaravej had died of liver cancer at Bamrungrad

International Hospital in Bangkok on 24 November 2009 at the age of 74.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Nisa

[Buchholz]

He wasn't elected by winning a plurality in a general election. Some consider that improper. I'm sure in the UK or any parliamentary system there'd be major complaints if things had happened like they did in Thailand. In the last UK election, which was a hung parliament, there was a chance for the "loser" (OK the party who came second) to form a coalition, but even the people from the party that lost considered it undemocratic. The consensus was that the party that won most seats should form the government.

But it's just not comparable, really. It's not just the way he came to power either, it's the way it's perceived. Most think the PAD who the army refused to do anything about had a major role in Abhisit coming to power. Anyway, all I can say is that leaders have resigned for far less reason than Abhisit had to resign (in my opinion) in the west. If I were him I'd have had an election as soon as possible after the red uprising in 2009. Anyone with any foresight could see that there'd be a similar uprising sooner or later.

If situations are not comparable really, why do you do so and even get some conclusions out of a comparison you yourself say is not really valid?

All I'd like to add is that there are also leaders, I guess, who resigned for far more reason than PM Abhisit might have. Doesn't mean he should though. Anyone with any foresight might say that after the 2009 storming of the ASIAN venue and the Songkhran revolt the government already had sufficient reasons to incarcerate some of those who started a similar 'uprising in 2010. IMHO of course

Indeed, one wonders if the Red Leaders had been incarcerated after their initial 2007 violence if it might have avoided the Black Songkran 2009 violence and the May Mayhem 2010 violence.

.

[Emptyset]

I don't quite see what you mean by "selective memory".

Neither do I... but I'm getting used to people here making broad statements like that without actually specifying what they think is wrong with the argument at hand. I just hope it's not a debating style that rubs off on others.

Clearly as I said earlier there are several intelligent forum members who simply haven't done (apparently) any detailed reading of the last decades of Thai political history.It explains why so many posts from whatever vantage point lack rooting in any understanding of context.

I agree. I just spent some time looking for this which I read a while ago. Very good piece on the 6th of October and what it might mean today for those involved and Thais in general: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~seassa/explorations/v1n1/art6/v1n1-frame6.html

'Thais do not normally discuss the events of Hok Tulaa in public. Additionally, Darunii is a village girl who had to drop out of school early to become a seamstress, so I was a little reluctant to drag her to something which might be either too dry, or too academic. I said something neutral like wouldn't it be "interesting" to go. To my surprise she was excited to attend. "Hok Tulaa is very interesting", she agreed. "For Thais it is difficult to remember. It was so horrible it seems like it was not part of our history or our culture. Maybe it is something we would prefer to forget."

At the time I was surprised to hear this, dumb struck in fact. Darunii stated clearly and succinctly a set of ideas that were just forming in my mind. That many Thais would prefer to forget the massacre of 6 October was clear, many cultures have events and incidents that they would prefer to forget. But what is it that makes a historical event "difficult to remember". Algebraic equations and your mother's birthday are difficult to remember, how so a historic event?'

Also, Thongchai, one of the students involved (now a professor) discusses his memories of the event here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b1z3s

[rubl]

Some people here seem to have just as selective a memory as the late k. Samak. Even some UDD core members spoke out.

"Prime Minister Samak's comments about the 1976 massacre has many speaking out against his diminishment of the event's brutality"

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87178

Actually Emptyset gives a very accurate and concise explanation of the Samak role so it's slightly odd that Nisa came back with the unhelpfully bland Wiki quote.Samak's role was disgraceful but he wasn't the prime mover.I don't quite see what you mean by "selective memory".

Clearly as I said earlier there are several intelligent forum members who simply haven't done (apparently) any detailed reading of the last decades of Thai political history.It explains why so many posts from whatever vantage point lack rooting in any understanding of context.

The 'accurate and concise' explanation was a bit coloured by opinion. The Wikipedia article may have been bland, but with more details.

As for 'Samak nothing to do with the red movement', k. Jaran of the UDD seemed to have agreed with that in the asiamedia article, but then again ... UDD was formed to oppose the coup which deposed k. Thaksin and stopped protests after the 2007 elections when the PPP became the biggest single party and got to form a government. K. Samak was selected by k. Thaksin to lead the 'renewed' PPP.

All this only shows that in Thai politics it's very difficult to remember who's your friend and who's your foe. A daily re-assessment might be in order

[Emptyset]

All this only shows that in Thai politics it's very difficult to remember who's your friend and who's your foe. A daily re-assessment might be in order

Also Suthachai Yimprasert, quoted in that piece, is a red supporter. He was detained in a military camp for a week or two after the crackdown I believe.

It's funny some reds actually still celebrate Samak, because apart from his Thammasat role and all that, didn't he actually play a part in bringing PPP down? I mean wasn't he with Newin and one of the so-called Gang of Four? I assume he felt Thaksin betrayed him after backing Somchai as PM over him. But that's his fault, for not being enough of a "proxy" for Thaksin, I suppose.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Emptyset

[jdinasia]

More ad hominem attacks from Jayboy ... even in the face of all the evidence

Neatly avoiding the facts that don't fit with your view.

Sorry Jayboy, but you can see here several pages of links with the red leadership and former CPT members including those chosen for special training in Hanoi. You can see the front page of a Red shirt publication with Lenin on the cover. You can read where a redshirt leader openly discusses using Maoist tactics ...

Facts are clearly evident that the reds have indeed been using Maoist communist strategies and that fits neatly with exactly what I and others have been saying, what it doesn't neatly fit in with, is your world view of Thailand.

(see how I managed a real response that addresses the issues without resorting to any ad hominem attacks ? You should try that in the future

[rubl]

I don't quite see what you mean by "selective memory".

Neither do I... but I'm getting used to people here making broad statements like that without actually specifying what they think is wrong with the argument at hand. I just hope it's not a debating style that rubs off on others.

In Emptyset's post on Samak he mentioned "Anyway, obviously Samak was nothing to do with the red movement,". Not being a native-English speaker myself I do not want to complain too much on how this (part of a) sentence is constructed. Let's just say it can be interpreted in different ways. Re-reading all I think the 'red movement' refers to the student movement in 1976 rather than the red-shirts in 2007 as I first thought. My mistake maybe, this topic is on 'red-shirt protests' isn't it?

While we're at it, do you have some reference to "Chamlong was actually present at the massacre though," ?

[rubl]

It's funny some reds actually still celebrate Samak, because apart from his Thammasat role and all that, didn't he actually play a part in bringing PPP down? I mean wasn't he with Newin and one of the so-called Gang of Four? I assume he felt Thaksin betrayed him after backing Somchai as PM over him. But that's his fault, for not being enough of a "proxy" for Thaksin, I suppose.

The late k. Samak no longer tried to regain his position of PM early September 2008. He was already ill (with liver cancer it seems) at that time and underwent surgery later that year. Somehow I doubt very much he played a part in the downfall of PPP. Wasn't it because the deputy chairman, Yongyuth Tiyapairat, faced charges of electoral fraud concerning the 2007 general election. These charges led to the PPP dissolution by the verdict of the Constitutional Court in December 2008.

But that's too much truth maybe, a selective and/or distorted memory may be a blessing for some.

Edited January 18, 2011 by rubl

[Emptyset]

While we're at it, do you have some reference to "Chamlong was actually present at the massacre though," ?

Ah, it's lucky you asked me. I'm actually wrong in asserting it so confidently, having gone back to check my source. There's actually no concrete proof, although he's been accused of co-ordinating different factions (i.e. the Border Police, Village Scouts and military). General Prajark, another class 7 general, whose troops were used as part of the coup of the same day, claimed Chamlong was there "gathering intelligence", although he gave no further details of it. Chamlong categorically denies he was present at Thammasat. I got all this from Duncan McCargo's book "Chamlong Srimuang and the new Thai politics", can't find an online copy so I'll just type some relevant bits out.

I won't type all of this out, but there was a woman Chamlong was involved with (politically) who attended protests with the students and never missed speeches from the likes of Thiyaruth Boonmee. Her name is Mrs Chongkol.

"As the political temperature rose in the months and years that followed, Mrs Chongkol became convinced that communist influences were at work in the radical movement. The issue which first pushed her to action was the proposed closure of two US radar stations which she felt to be wrong. She organised the so-called 'Housewives Group' (klum maeban) to oppose the closure, and from then on the group acted as a counter-movement to the students, urging them to return to their classrooms. Mrs Chongkol frequently addressed public rallies, using the pseudonym 'Nang Bua'. During this period she worked closely with some army officers , who called her Phi Bua. Chamlong was one of these officers:

'We (Chamlong and Mrs Chongkol) had a great deal of contact when we rose up to fight in 1973-76. At that time, there was a man in a hat and some glasses (I didn't know where he came from) who handed me a microphone all the time. Later, I asked him why he wore such a hat which made him look like a beggar. Finally, during out attack on government house, whenever I forgot something, he would remind me by saying Phi Bua, don't forget to say this our that, and hand me the microphone. It turned out that this man was none other than Major-General Chamlong.'

The association between Chamlong and Chongkol culminated in a march from the Royal Plaza to Government House on 6th October, 1976. The marchers demanded action to deal with the students who were protesting the return of Field Marshall Thanom. Chongkol and associates were also dissatisfied with Seni's cabinet, which contained three supposed left-wings (Chuan Leekpai, Damrong Lathiphiphat and Surin Masdit) but had omitted right-wingers Samak Sundaravej and Somboon Sirithorn. Chongkol told Lak Thai that her group hated the three 'leftist' ministers. Opposition to the students and the three ministers, had been themes of a right-wing propaganda campaign waged by the radio stations of the Army's Armoured Division, which had repeatedly urged people to kill the students at Thammasat.

The events of 6 October had three main elements: a blood morning attack on the 3,000 students protesters at Thammasat, day-long rightist demonstrations, mainly at the Royal Plaza, and a 'bloodless' coup staged in the late afternoon by elements of the military. In July 1988, Chamlong was accused of involvement in all three of these events."

The book goes on with a lot of detail about whether he was or wasn't involved in each event. Whilst he was definitely part of the Housewives Group at the Royal Plaza and might've been involved in the coup, there's no real evidence he was at Thammasat, although McCargo calls the evidence Chamlong cites as proof of his innocence "problematic" - Chamlong argued that he couldn't kill anyone because he was a strict Buddhist who didn't even kill mosquitoes. Chamlong also claims he didn't even know about the Thammasat killings until he returned home in the evening, but McCargo says this is improbable since there were special editions of newspapers printed in the afternoon which detailed the killings and Chamlong would've found these hard to avoid. McCargo notes that one of the guys fueling the rumours (this in 88 as mentioned above) about Chamlong's role in the massacre was his great political rival, Samak Sundaravej.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Emptyset

[jayjay0]

Even the most hostile observers were surprised by the warm welcome the Reds received from many Bangkokians.That's just a fact and your denial speaks volumes about your ignorance and poor judgement.

Even those like you who apparently have no knowledge of recent Thai history would be struck by the absurdity of those who claims that the Reds embody Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda.These unread ignoramuses probably don't understand however how poisonous this kind of communist branding rhetoric can be.They don't understand or know about the events at Thammasat in 1976, and how right wing thugs were incited to murder under the guise of battling communists.

More ad hominem attacks from Jayboy ... even in the face of all the evidence

Of course they were warmly welcomed. It was there brother's in arms doing the welcoming. They were a sight for sore eyes

Can you imagine standing out in the weather waiting for 1,000,000 people to show. And only getting a total of 100,000 you bet they were grateful.

It was a fool statement to make in the first place. just a sign of some one's desperation to get people to follow his lead.

What kind of crap is [Thaksinite free market capitalism alongside a Marxist agenda] Thaksin could care less about Capitalism or Marxist principals or ideas. His only interest is in filling his pockets. And he dosen't care what principals it takes to do it.

[jayjay0]

I don't quite see what you mean by "selective memory".

Neither do I... but I'm getting used to people here making broad statements like that without actually specifying what they think is wrong with the argument at hand. I just hope it's not a debating style that rubs off on others.

Clearly as I said earlier there are several intelligent forum members who simply haven't done (apparently) any detailed reading of the last decades of Thai political history.It explains why so many posts from whatever vantage point lack rooting in any understanding of context.

I agree. I just spent some time looking for this which I read a while ago. Very good piece on the 6th of October and what it might mean today for those involved and Thais in general: http://www2.hawaii.e...1n1-frame6.html

'Thais do not normally discuss the events of Hok Tulaa in public. Additionally, Darunii is a village girl who had to drop out of school early to become a seamstress, so I was a little reluctant to drag her to something which might be either too dry, or too academic. I said something neutral like wouldn't it be "interesting" to go. To my surprise she was excited to attend. "Hok Tulaa is very interesting", she agreed. "For Thais it is difficult to remember. It was so horrible it seems like it was not part of our history or our culture. Maybe it is something we would prefer to forget."

At the time I was surprised to hear this, dumb struck in fact. Darunii stated clearly and succinctly a set of ideas that were just forming in my mind. That many Thais would prefer to forget the massacre of 6 October was clear, many cultures have events and incidents that they would prefer to forget. But what is it that makes a historical event "difficult to remember". Algebraic equations and your mother's birthday are difficult to remember, how so a historic event?'

Also, Thongchai, one of the students involved (now a professor) discusses his memories of the event here: http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/p00b1z3s

I read most of the article. It was written by students I am sure.

If I had not known better the way they carried on I would have believed thousands had died. The fact that a minimum of 46 died is a horrible thing indeed and it should stand on it's own merits. It really dosen't need all the adverbs, adjectives, innuendos or what ever they are called to make it seem worse.

It was so one sided that only a true believer would buy it all.

Besides what has that got to do with a bunch of people putting on red shirts and shutting down the same portion of Bangkok every two weeks or what ever the flavor of the day for them is. There are venues where they could go and not disrupt the lives of honest hard working citizens. Haven't they done enough to them?

[Siam Simon]

cut// If they stayed after the April attacks when Seh Daeng's ronin took out so many people .. they knew. //cut

Conspiracy theory speculation presented as fact yet again. It's soooo important for the myth to be propagated by the forum's right-wing extremists.

No conspiracy theory at all. Seh Daeng referred to them as "my ronin" (misnomer for sure!) and Weng warned of their guerilla tactics, and there is plenty of video evidence of their presence AMONGST the rank and file red. The myth is strictly on your part SS.

But you stated that Se Daeng's ronin "took out so many people". Which people? And what proof do you have other than your daft A+B must=C conspiracy theory?

[Siam Simon]

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

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

Like I have said before, i think that people who express such daft, insensitive opinions should be obliged by law to spend time cleaning up the mess of severed limbs and splattered brains, and be obliged to spend time working with grieving families and with people who have suffered life-changing injuries. Som nam na indeed. Ugh!!!

You mean working with the soldiers and the families of soldiers that were killed and maimed by the red insurrection? Nah .....

Though some people helping the victims of the red leadership's cowardly (with the exception of Seh Daeng) manipulations and showing them how they had been so callously used as sacrificial lambs by their leaders might possibly do some good.

I mean working with ALL victims and their families. That's the problem with dreamers who cheerlead politically motivated violence, whether it's by protestors or official crackdowns on protests: It's just another exciting video/story for said dreamers.

The rest of your post is more of your daft, unsubstantiated speculation.