Thai Democrats Go For Broke

[MrChangers]

The danger to Thailandis not Yingluck but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced womanlike her with the leadership of the political process. It will be far easier tolimit and undo the follies of a PTP Government than to impart the necessary commonsense and good judgment to an ignorant and deluded electorate willing to havesuch a woman for their puppet leader. The problem is much deeper and far moreserious than Yingluck and the rest of the Shinawatra clan, who are mere symptomsof what ails Thailand.Blaming the elected leader of the fools who govern should not blind anyone tothe vast confederacy of fools that made him/her their leader. Thailandcan survive a PTP Government. It is less likely to survive in the modern worldthrough the actions of a multitude of fools whose votes and loyalty can bebought and thus perpetuating what has gone before.

Maybe Thailand'ssalvation will come in the form of full time education and access toinformation via the Internet. I fear that it may be too late already,.

The last line gets to the point.

Salvation of Thailand will be from the under 30-40 generation, who have seen and communicated outside the narrow schooling they grew up from. Their parents have not, and can not in general. So sadly we may have 10-20 years more before these following communications enable generations take full controls, and a more true democratic functioning can take place.

On the subject of education: I agree that with all the hi-tech equipment the younger Thai people use they have access to more truth/opinions in their village/city than the blind following of older generations.... BUT and it is a big BUT .... they are taught not to question the elder/better/richer person from day 1. Those of us that live buried into Thai life know that Po-Rai is the core of the social fabric and will be a very hard, if not impossible thread to tease out. Students never question the teacher, they may question within themselves but will never confront the teacher.

I wonder how long it will take for this to change and hopefully for the better of the people.

It's not going to start with Thaksin coming back now is it?

It's not going to start with any of the current options available.

[mrtoad]

It's not going to start with Thaksin coming back now is it?

Thanks for posting that one.

[SkyHigh]

Getting tired of insulting.

I mean The dems & Thaksin haters are such a pure loser.

They know they are going to lose the battle and the only thing the can think of is screaming 'Thaksin Cheat'.

It will be interesting to see what they going to say after July 3.

500 Bath per vote ?? nah that's old. Please make sth new this time. ;p

[lannarebirth]

Getting tired of insulting.

I mean The dems & Thaksin haters are such a pure loser.

Thanks for the clarification because I wouldn't have gathered that was your meaning without it.

[animatic]

Getting tired of insulting.

I mean The dems & Thaksin haters are such a pure loser.

Thanks for the clarification because I wouldn't have gathered that was your meaning without it.

Exactly my thoughts.

Insulting is ok of they disagree without...

Pathetic, double standard.

[Ricardo]

Getting tired of insulting.

I mean The dems & Thaksin haters are such a pure loser.

<snip for brevity>

Thanks for a near-perfect example of the "insulting" you're wearied by, cogent pithy & intelecshul, all in one short line !

Edited June 18, 2011 by Ricardo

[tlansford]

If they had demonstrated legally there would have been no need of any violence. OF COURSE the Red Sides ringers in Black attacked FIRST.

Red logic:

It is reasonable to shoot at security forces,

and not the other way round.

It is obvious then and now,

that the violence was caused by a chain of Red Leader Decisions

and that the PTP was closely tied to the Red Leaders,

when they weren't actually within the same person like Jaturporn.

Many groups protest in Bangkok, and little or no violence happens,

but few ever push the social order to the breaking point as the red rallies so clearly did, as a clear aim of their very existence.

This needs to be loudly trumpeted and shown on all media,

the facts can speak fro themselves, no need to exaggerate.

The forces of good must show the forces of evil for what they are,

and then show how they plan to help those desperate enough to believe the evil ones lies.

Governments have the obligation to not kill their own citizens. They also have the means to achieve this.

This is not limited to last May in BKK, but that is a good example.

I would say that governments have an obligation to try not to kill their own citizens. Also known as 'Showing Restraint'. Many now say Abhisit showed too much restraint, and let it go too far.

Some times it is unavoidable, such as Bkk 2010, some times said citizens make it the only possible choice. You may call that the tyranny of the majority, but it has always been so. To protect the majority occasionally harm is visited on the individual. Otherwise we have anarchy and individuals indiscriminately harming each other for their own personal advantage. If all humans were properly wired to be good citizens there would be no need for authority to exist.

I disagree.

To use the words "try" & "show restraint" simply opens the door to killings like last year in BKK with a follow up justification eg : "we had no choice". To use lethal force against its own citizens is always a choice - it doesn't happen by accident. And in my opinion, a government has an obligation to not use lethal force against its citizens.

What you describe is exactly what the Thai government did during the cold war while trying to suppress communists. In fact a buddhist monk even gave the government a religious foundation on which to justify it. In 1976, Phra Kittiwutho stated that it was legitimate "to kill some 50,000 people to secure and ensure the happiness of 42 million Thais".

A statement like this, a perversion of buddhist's beliefs, being used to justify the government killing its own people, clearly highlights the illegitimacy of a government killing its own citizens.

[samurai]

Haters are losers by definition. Who would argue about that.

I don't think it is a big insult if you call a hater a poor loser.

[rubl]

Haters are losers by definition. Who would argue about that.

I don't think it is a big insult if you call a hater a poor loser.

I may agree even though this is a bit general.

Maybe I should watch my collection of PTV broadcasts from March - April 2010 and a few from before. It seems to work best on full-blast sound level for some reason

[samurai]

Haters are losers by definition. Who would argue about that.

I don't think it is a big insult if you call a hater a poor loser.

I may agree even though this is a bit general.

Maybe I should watch my collection of PTV broadcasts from March - April 2010 and a few from before. It seems to work best on full-blast sound level for some reason

Do what ever gives you satisfaction.

[rreddin]

Pheu Thai deputy leader Kanawat Wasinsungworn warned yesterday that the Democrats are reviving memories of the May 19 turbulence at their peril. "You know who killed protesters," he said, "but can the government prove the red shirts burned buildings?"

Really, some of us saw it with our own eyes, Guns and Fire. and more to the point the Leadership of the Reds was telling them to do it. What other proof do you need?

Everyone knows... We don't need to prove it was red shirts!

So, if this kind of attitude is not hang 'em high, moderators, what is?

Hey, it was his first post. The mods cut him a bit of slack knowing that by leading with his chin he was going to get a lesson in the school of hard knocks. He did not even get a welcome message! This forum can be brutal at times.

Belatedly, welcome to the forum. Just like the country, this forum is deeply divided and members know which side you are on.

[anterian]

The Dem supporters view of reality... The PAD are nice guys who ran a friendly picnic for a few thousand unavoidably stranded air passengers. The Red shirts are evil incarnate who turned central Bangkok into a raging inferno.

[Ricardo]

Haters are losers by definition. Who would argue about that.

I don't think it is a big insult if you call a hater a poor loser.

How about "pure loser" though, a bit different, from a poor loser ?

[geriatrickid]

A report by Bloomberg in todays Sydney Morning Herald.For those of you who don't know who Bloomberg are they are one of the top Financial Reporting Agencies in the world...no financial institution or big investor does not move until they have read/researched Bloomberg...Abhisit does not smell of roses in the report but he is a mile ahead of Thaksin

http://www.smh.com.a...0617-1g7p3.html

Thanks for the link!

I believe many of the arguments offered are reasonable. The previous economic policies of Mr. Thaksin are not appropriate for Thailand at this time. However, we don't really know what the economic policies are of the PTP do we? Does anyone know what the economic policies of the current government are? That's one of the major problems facing Thailand: None of the major parties is being clear and open about fiscal policy. Finance Minister Korn is slick and puts on a nice dog and pony show, but he never explains where the revenues will come from. The populace doesn't want to hear about responsible tax systems, nor is it willing to support the tough decisions that will have to be made by the next finance minister. This election has not had a proper discussion of fiscal and budget issues.

The situation is typical of governments everywhere. Many Europeans are unable to break their addiction to entitlements, e.g. Greece, Spain, France. The USA can't even have a rational discussion of its current fiscal crisis and is teetering on the verge of an implosion. The Chinese have simmering civil unrest as wage and wealth inequities rise,

Someone, somewhere is going to have to start telling the people that the money just isn't there to pay for all of the wonderful programs promised. Is it any wonder that the world is looming on another economic crisis?

[trisailer]

I think that the Bloomberg article was spot on as you Brit's would say.

Every election is a choice between the lessor of two evils but this one has some serious passion behind it. At this point I don't think you could pay red supporter 5,000 baht to vote for Abhist and to suggest that 500 baht payments is behind this movement is insulting

What do any of you think that happens when people get fed up and it reaches critical mass. Imagine the horrors of revolution or civil war. These things happen because leaders underestimate the anger of the people. All it takes is a leader to exploit that anger. I agree that Thalsin gave lip service to the problems of the poor, but none the less THEY believe that he's their guy. They believe that because they are desperate for change and leadership. Abhist and his yellows are not taking them seriously.

The Thai's watch the news. They see other people around the world rising up against their failed leaders.

Expectations are a very dangerous thing. China is managing things with a iron fist at the moment, but that strategy will not last long. People see their neighbors getting new cars and such and they want them too.

If the either Thaksin or Abhist or the real power in Thailand made a intelligent effort to reduce corruption they would get an overnight benefit of 5% of GDP. I'm guessing the underground economy is around 20% of GDP.The problem is that the people making all the money are the corrupt ones. When the King and Queen built the medical schools it sparked the medical tourism industry. Investing in schools and providing opportunity for the future gives people hope.

This government has had enough time to make some meaningful changes and lock up the red leaders who advocate violence. They could have prevented the BKK riots if they would have just prevented any weapons from entering the city. It is almost as though someone is working behind the curtain to cause failure. Maybe it's Thaksin. If that's the case let him back and let's see him solve the problems.

Edited June 18, 2011 by trisailer

[MrChangers]

It's not going to start with Thaksin coming back now is it?

Thanks for posting that one.

As I replied it's not going to happen with any of the current crop from either side but you seemed to have missed the easy to understand English.

[hyperdimension]

i dont know how you all see it......................but the most funny thing this days is that the DEMOCRATS say NO VOTE over propaganda papers they hand out everywhere in the city but still

call themselve democrats - this is such soooooooo funny and then call thaksin the thief or chinese is even more funny.

abisith is and was always far away of beeing democratic, he is a set up puppet by a interest groupe that only plan to play around with the needings of thai people

but never planed to realy fillfull them, luckely thais are awake this days and many so called "yellow" shirts get pissed of by this kind of agressive fooling tactics.

Ummm... Which Democrats are handing out No Vote leaflets?

paul43 is seriously misinformed. the PAD (or the "For heaven and earth party"), who are calling for a "No" vote, is not the Democrat party. The PAD are in fact taking votes away from the Democrat party.

paul43 is therefore not a credible member to be engaged with in a discussion on Thai politics.

[MrChangers]

i dont know how you all see it......................but the most funny thing this days is that the DEMOCRATS say NO VOTE over propaganda papers they hand out everywhere in the city but still

call themselve democrats - this is such soooooooo funny and then call thaksin the thief or chinese is even more funny.

abisith is and was always far away of beeing democratic, he is a set up puppet by a interest groupe that only plan to play around with the needings of thai people

but never planed to realy fillfull them, luckely thais are awake this days and many so called "yellow" shirts get pissed of by this kind of agressive fooling tactics.

Ummm... Which Democrats are handing out No Vote leaflets?

paul43 is seriously misinformed. the PAD (or the "For heaven and earth party"), who are calling for a "No" vote, is not the Democrat party. The PAD are in fact taking votes away from the Democrat party.

paul43 is therefore not a credible member to be engaged with in a discussion on Thai politics.

might be a bit more polite to have a word off the group postings if you have a few words you need to say?

[phiphidon]

i dont know how you all see it......................but the most funny thing this days is that the DEMOCRATS say NO VOTE over propaganda papers they hand out everywhere in the city but still

call themselve democrats - this is such soooooooo funny and then call thaksin the thief or chinese is even more funny.

abisith is and was always far away of beeing democratic, he is a set up puppet by a interest groupe that only plan to play around with the needings of thai people

but never planed to realy fillfull them, luckely thais are awake this days and many so called "yellow" shirts get pissed of by this kind of agressive fooling tactics.

Ummm... Which Democrats are handing out No Vote leaflets?

paul43 is seriously misinformed. the PAD (or the "For heaven and earth party"), who are calling for a "No" vote, is not the Democrat party. The PAD are in fact taking votes away from the Democrat party.

paul43 is therefore not a credible member to be engaged with in a discussion on Thai politics.

Talking of credible members discussing Thai politics, have you now come up with another formula : PAD = Santi Asoke Sect = For Heaven and Earth Party? Just a thought.

[whybother]

<snip>

This government has had enough time to make some meaningful changes and lock up the red leaders who advocate violence. They could have prevented the BKK riots if they would have just prevented any weapons from entering the city. It is almost as though someone is working behind the curtain to cause failure. Maybe it's Thaksin. If that's the case let him back and let's see him solve the problems.

The government were under pressure to allow a protest. After all, that's a democratic right.

They were also under pressure to allow people to get there (and allow everyone else to get on with their lives) unhindered. They had check points, but there is no way they could check every vehicle.

It's far too simple to move around a big city un-noticed to stop armed people getting to into the protest areas.

The red leaders who advocated violence were locked up, but the courts let them out on bail. That's not something the government had control over, nor should they.

[trisailer]

<snip>

This government has had enough time to make some meaningful changes and lock up the red leaders who advocate violence. They could have prevented the BKK riots if they would have just prevented any weapons from entering the city. It is almost as though someone is working behind the curtain to cause failure. Maybe it's Thaksin. If that's the case let him back and let's see him solve the problems.

The government were under pressure to allow a protest. After all, that's a democratic right.

They were also under pressure to allow people to get there (and allow everyone else to get on with their lives) unhindered. They had check points, but there is no way they could check every vehicle.

It's far too simple to move around a big city un-noticed to stop armed people getting to into the protest areas.

The red leaders who advocated violence were locked up, but the courts let them out on bail. That's not something the government had control over, nor should they.

Of course they should have let the protest happen, but they could have searched the cars and people entering the area for weapons and been completly justified. It is done all the time for the G20 meetings and thousands of demonstrations around the world. These sorts of security measures are done all the time and they work. The govenment has the resources police/military to have done it.

I was talking about locking up people advocating violence. The smart thing would have been to gather the intelligence before hand and be prepaired to defuse it. This is Thailand people are locked up all the time for trumped up charges. Many other country's know who these people are (and should know) and keep them away buy any means possible at least temporarily. I've been locked up several times for peaceful protesting and let out the next day. Governments can "teach" protesters how to make their point without violence. The red protest in BKK was botched and it hurt both sides.

[whybother]

Of course they should have let the protest happen, but they could have searched the cars and people entering the area for weapons and been completly justified. It is done all the time for the G20 meetings and thousands of demonstrations around the world. These sorts of security measures are done all the time and they work. The govenment has the resources police/military to have done it.

I was talking about locking up people advocating violence. The smart thing would have been to gather the intelligence before hand and be prepaired to defuse it. This is Thailand people are locked up all the time for trumped up charges. Many other country's know who these people are (and should know) and keep them away buy any means possible at least temporarily. I've been locked up several times for peaceful protesting and let out the next day. Governments can "teach" protesters how to make their point without violence. The red protest in BKK was botched and it hurt both sides.

By doing anything to hinder the protests, the government would look "undemocratic".

I've never been to a G20 (or similar) protest, so I don't know how much checking is done. I actually doubt that much is done, since protests can spring up anywhere, and the police can't cordon a whole city. A big difference is that G20 protesters don't (or rarely) bring guns and don't throw grenades at police/army, so I don't know how much checking is done. I certainly doubt that many large protests have security checkpoints to be able to enter.

How do you gather up intelligence before hand when the protests were well on the way when a lot of the incitement was done. The police/army couldn't go into the middle of the protest area and arrest the leaders!

I am sure that there could have been more done to limit the protests. Stopping the bamboo and tyre barricades from being set up and stopping people bringing in tyres to burn would have been a good step.

But usually, for "peaceful protests" this isn't required.

The government was hamstrung by not wanting to go in too hard. Previous governments have fallen for doing too much too soon.

And the red shirts never had "peaceful protests" in mind. Their aim was for as many casualties as possible. That's why they increased the pressure at every step. When the government didn't step down in the first few days, the red shirts spattered blood. When they didn't get a reaction, the red shirts confronted the military. When they didn't get a reaction to that, they started parading around the city. When that was allowed, they took over Ratchaprasong. When the government didn't stop that, the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. When the army tried to disperse the protesters, the red shirts brought out their militia with grenades and guns. Amazingly only 25 were killed that night, and the fact that some of them were army personnel and that masked gunmen were caught amongst the red shirts and shooting at the army, this showed that the red shirts weren't just "peaceful protesters" and the government didn't fall. The red shirts used the calm after April 10 to entrench themselves in Ratchaprasong. When the army set up outside the barriers, the red shirts came out of their enclave to attack them.

This wasn't a "slaughter" or a "massacre". It was an armed insurrection over 10 weeks to try to bring down a government.

[mrtoad]

It's not going to start with Thaksin coming back now is it?

Thanks for posting that one.

As I replied it's not going to happen with any of the current crop from either side but you seemed to have missed the easy to understand English.

Um, I think you will see that I responded to lannarebirths picture, so maybe you have some difficulty in easy to understand English?

[mrtoad]

Haters are losers by definition. Who would argue about that.

I don't think it is a big insult if you call a hater a poor loser.

Would that include the political side that you support then? I've seen a lot of hate espoused by politicians from your side.

I'm more concenred about the direction the country is going in, especially if a party that is linked to so much lawlessness, hate, corruption and violence gets to form a government.

[mrtoad]

The Dem supporters view of reality... The PAD are nice guys who ran a friendly picnic for a few thousand unavoidably stranded air passengers. The Red shirts are evil incarnate who turned central Bangkok into a raging inferno.

Not really, but a nice generalisation which you feel backs up your view. The PAD and The Red Shirts should both be criminally responsible for their actions - and neither IMO have done anything good for Thailand.

[rixalex]

Haters are losers by definition. Who would argue about that.

Of course not. People who hate ethnic cleansing are clearly just poor losers.

[whybother]

As previously stated, in Thailand protester deaths bring down governments. Bringing down the government was the red shirts' aim. They tried to get sympathy with people getting killed by the army. But they got caught out with their militia.

They didn't come with violence in mind??? What were all those speeches about bringing a bottle to fill up with petrol so they could burn down Bangkok? And the speeches by Thaksin about him being at the front when they were confronted by the army. If the red shirts were so intent on peaceful protests, why did they have a militia? Why did they have grenades?

At what point were the protesters incited to violence by the government? The red leaders were the ones inciting them to violence, and I'm sure they didn't do it to make themselves look bad.

How undemocratic does it look if protest leaders are arrested BEFORE protests?

The government were stuck between a rock and a hard place. They couldn't stop or hinder the protests, because that would make them look undemocratic, even if they expected the protests to turn violent. They had to let the protests continue until it was obvious to the people that the red shirts were not what they proclaimed to be - "peaceful protesters". Thailand doesn't have the policing available to manage protests effectively, especially large ones. When the army did try and break up the protests (and even that was after a month), the red militia came out to play.

Edited June 19, 2011 by whybother

[trisailer]

As previously stated, in Thailand protester deaths bring down governments. Bringing down the government was the red shirts' aim. They tried to get sympathy with people getting killed by the army. But they got caught out with their militia.

They didn't come with violence in mind??? What were all those speeches about bringing a bottle to fill up with petrol so they could burn down Bangkok? And the speeches by Thaksin about him being at the front when they were confronted by the army. If the red shirts were so intent on peaceful protests, why did they have a militia? Why did they have grenades?

At what point were the protesters incited to violence by the government? The red leaders were the ones inciting them to violence, and I'm sure they didn't do it to make themselves look bad.

How undemocratic does it look if protest leaders are arrested BEFORE protests?

The government were stuck between a rock and a hard place. They couldn't stop or hinder the protests, because that would make them look undemocratic, even if they expected the protests to turn violent. They had to let the protests continue until it was obvious to the people that the red shirts were not what they proclaimed to be - "peaceful protesters". Thailand doesn't have the policing available to manage protests effectively, especially large ones. When the army did try and break up the protests (and even that was after a month), the red militia came out to play.

That must have been an interesting selection process that the reds did, deciding who was going to die for the cause. You can't be serious. Can you?

I don't know the exact timeline of events, but what I do know and is plain to everyone but you is that the violence didn't start until well into the protest. Many people believe that the weapons were brought to the protest after their people started getting killed by the government forces.

That a country would not protect it's people and property for fear of it appearing "undemocratic is, well, just plain foolish. The citizens of every country expect it's government to stop violence by any means possible. It is the law of the land. The Thai Army is almost 700,000 strong I think they could have managed it. Waiting until after people are incited to violence is incompetent. The more I learn about this event the more I believe that the Abhist government purposely incited the violence to make the reds look like a bunch of thugs. Apparently they convinced you.

I think you need to do a little learning history and facts before you engage in conversations that you know little about.

[rixalex]

That must have been an interesting selection process that the reds did, deciding who was going to die for the cause. You can't be serious. Can you?

Red leaders didn't pick names, what they were looking for was random deaths in and around the protesting to create maximum pandemonium, unrest and fear, to the point where the government had to accept that they no longer could control the situation, and would step down.

Many people believe that the weapons were brought to the protest after their people started getting killed by the government forces.

Who are these people? Do they include you? Were you there? Do you live in Bangkok?

The more I learn about this event the more I believe that the Abhist government purposely incited the violence to make the reds look like a bunch of thugs.

Complete arse about face nonsense.

[Ricardo]

I don't know the exact timeline of events, but what I do know and is plain to everyone but you is that the violence didn't start until well into the protest. Many people believe that the weapons were brought to the protest after their people started getting killed by the government forces.

What "many people believe", about weapons being brought into the 'peaceful protest', isn't necessarily true. For example I'd say that it's quite common for the leaders, at both PAD & UDD-rallies, to have armed bodyguards. So there may well have been some weapons on-site from the beginning.

And the fact that it took weeks of 'peaceful protest', before things did turn violent, perhaps supports PM-Abhisit's decision to allow the rally to go ahead, in the first place. So long as it was peaceful, this was a democratic protest, which as PM he surely had a duty to allow, even though he didn't agree with their politics ?