Red Shirt Leaders Urge EC To Rein In Abhisit's Facebook

[koosdeboer]

Exactly so, Thailand has a 13% penetration in Thailand [ http://www.internetw...acebook.htm#q-z ]

Of these the largest group by age are over 65 at 34.4% the second largest are the 25 to 34 year olds at 30%

52.6% are females. [http://www.checkfacebook.com/ ]

So he is probably preaching to a bunch of geriatric idle rich women who are therefore Democrats anyway

If I was the Red Shirt leaders I'd let him get on with it, it keeps him happy

geriatric? May I ask how old you are?

I am 75 years old also a geriatric, so I feel free to use that word, any objections

Sure you're free to use that word. But how do you know that these democrats are "rich and idle" women? Maybe you are rich and idle also?

Ah shifting goal posts time, first you query my age, now my wealth and idleness

I am not rich by British standards, I am "comfortable" if you understand that expression.

Am I idle. well I'm retired but I seem to find more to do than the time to do them

As to these "idle" geriatric women, I suggest you are not familiar with facebook, it is a playground for the frivolous, you can farm, build a house,keep pets, join clubs, all in cyberspace. I'm sure Abhisit feels at home in the land of make believe. As to "rich", look at the cost of a computer, telephone and internet rental, then tell me how many working class people have such. In my village most families have a car, motorbike or both, I am the only one with an internet facility.

Anything else you feel a need to know, perhaps my height, or weight, my state of health, I'm sure it must be highly relevant

Thanks for the info. No further questions. I know enough.

You know enough of me since you suggest that I'm not familiar with facebook. I must say that I'm surprised thay you can do all these things in facebook. I know you can do all these things in cyberspace.

By the way, may I suggest than that you live in a village with red propaganda?

I don't use smilies because I don't think it's funny.

To know of something does not mean you do it, I know of Skype, Hi5, Netlog and many others, but I do not use them. Being old does not automatically imply ignorance of social trends nor of modern technology.

As to my village it has had 4 Dem machine visits in the last week and 1 PT visit, politically it is fairly evenly divide, the village boss is openly red, many of his support team, including my own partner are openly Democrats.

May I suggest that your suggestion is wrong?

So we are both wrong because I use facebook

[TheyCallmeScooter]

But my question is why security officials would intentionally kill people after the protest had ended.

A certainly pertinent question, indeed.

Just like the question which asks why - after 5 weeks (?) of enduring ever-increasing blatant transparent provocation and taunts and violent attacks and insults and, the odd incoming round - without responding whatsoever....would the Army just 'crack' one day and start "firing randomly into the crowds"...

...missing everyone, of course. Thank heavens! I've seen what automatic rifle fire can do, to targets on a range. There were some guardian angles magically stopping bullets, that day.

So many good questions. So many obvious answers. Rarely has a nation been more undeserving of their leader. Notch one up for democracy. Too afraid to engage in a single debate, about issues or anything else. Good at smiling, but.

Or one could show photographs of unarmed civilians murdered by the Thai army which has refused to co-operate with subsequent enquiries.But that would be equally irresponsible and divisive as the suggestion above.

Is that the comparative? I realise Thaksin was peacefully if unceremoniously but very very gently nudged along by the army. But until then, did he stand up to the generals a lot?

I mean, like Abhisit standing up to them - over and over and over again. Finagling the right result for Thailand, and decency, every time. That's not just courage, by the way. Courage and stupidity are often indistinguishable. Abhisit's public tangles with the military took courage, but that's not why he showed down results. That takes something else - a great deal more rare than courage. That takes genius.

It's completely possible that my memory is unacceptably blank, but can you refer me to some examples where Thaksin stood up to the all-powerful Army? Please don't use the lives of his followers, as an example. That would be in poor taste, as he broke his promise to 'lead' them and return, if they did so. For him.

This was why they believed his offer of an early election last year was not genuine.....it was fake!

lol. There are some - cute - Red tricks of manipulation of recent history.

This is not one of them.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

So what is he achieving ? Nothing will be good but actually he's increasing the hate and the distrust between Thais. He just confirms the democrats are a small regional party, the Bangkok party, a coalition partner. Not a great national party that is needed in a modern democracy.

There was this thing he was trying to do, under great duress caused by those who claim to be all about the little guy.

I forget the name...oh that's right. He was trying to make Thailand...a Welfare State.

The problem, with his intentions, was that the principle beneficiaries aren't really old enough to vote yet. Their parents, are. You may, if you wish, connect the dots. Notch one up for democracy. And shed a tear for the children of the exploited future.

A couple more weeks and the will of the people will run the country. Half of the posters here will be forced to eat humble pie. Which half? Depends on the election results.

I assure you that, no matter who wins, the will of the people will never run a nation-state. I fear that you may possess a curiously naive view, of the nature of states and their citizens. Powers, which do not vote at ballot boxes, run the country. Ballot boxes, (if they are processed as led to believe) merely select the person who has to juggle those powers as best they can. One man in this race can. One woman in this race cannot. And it has nothing to do with their respective sexes. And everything to do with their respective characters.

Anyone reading Abhisit's posts on Facebook is highly unlikely to be an undecided voter. So whathe says there isn't really relevant. But it would be interesting to see if he would repeat it in person in the north of Thailand.

Why? Would his life be in danger?

If so, why is that? He cares more about their children than them, more than...dare I say...some of they do? I suspect you might find, it really might boil down to something as simple as that.

fact is they were there vountarily, illegally and were gladly harbouring and taking care of violent criminals and murderers in their midst

so they died for the red cause,

so what? many said they would be willing to do so, they got their wish

They were victimised and sacrificed in ultimate betrayal. Please do not denigrate their memory. They were led, like lambs, to a slaughter. And then told, the slaughtering was done by the guys who had no reason to be slaughtering. It's all just too sad, more than anything else. No one ever wants to die. Those who said they were willing to, I'm pretty sure they suddenly became willing in response to the unthinkable brutality - heroically, if tragically misguided, into indignant outrage. They were horrified at what they didn't believe would / could happen....happening. They weren't the only ones. They were understandably willing, to heroically fight against such an evil force.

They were simply unable, to see which direction the bullets were flying from (in terms of motive).

And it always really, comes down to motive - doesn't it?

[lannarebirth]

He cares more about their children than them, more than...dare I say...some of they do? I suspect you might find, it really might boil down to something as simple as that.

That's a sad sad fact there Scooter.

[animatic]

Actually the great majority of Thai ladies on Facebook are

firmly in the 35 and under crowd, mostly around 20-25.

Same goes for most of the interactive social media.

The older Thai women are not on that train.

You can usually see many more people on Facebook than you actually are friends with. You need not be friends to all to see obvious trends.

Edited June 20, 2011 by animatic

[animatic]

But my question is why security officials would intentionally kill people after the protest had ended.

A certainly pertinent question, indeed.

Just like the question which asks why - after 5 weeks (?) of enduring ever-increasing blatant transparent provocation and taunts and violent attacks and insults and, the odd incoming round - without responding whatsoever....would the Army just 'crack' one day and start "firing randomly into the crowds"...

...missing everyone, of course. Thank heavens! I've seen what automatic rifle fire can do, to targets on a range. There were some guardian angles magically stopping bullets, that day.

So many good questions. So many obvious answers. Rarely has a nation been more undeserving of their leader. Notch one up for democracy. Too afraid to engage in a single debate, about issues or anything else. Good at smiling, but.

Or one could show photographs of unarmed civilians murdered by the Thai army which has refused to co-operate with subsequent enquiries.But that would be equally irresponsible and divisive as the suggestion above.

Is that the comparative? I realise Thaksin was peacefully if unceremoniously but very very gently nudged along by the army. But until then, did he stand up to the generals a lot?

I mean, like Abhisit standing up to them - over and over and over again. Finagling the right result for Thailand, and decency, every time. That's not just courage, by the way. Courage and stupidity are often indistinguishable. Abhisit's public tangles with the military took courage, but that's not why he showed down results. That takes something else - a great deal more rare than courage. That takes genius.

It's completely possible that my memory is unacceptably blank, but can you refer me to some examples where Thaksin stood up to the all-powerful Army? Please don't use the lives of his followers, as an example. That would be in poor taste, as he broke his promise to 'lead' them and return, if they did so. For him.

This was why they believed his offer of an early election last year was not genuine.....it was fake!

lol. There are some - cute - Red tricks of manipulation of recent history.

This is not one of them.

It was quite obvious due to the excruciatingly slow build up of any security response, that avoiding deaths was formost in the army's actions. To not allow itself to be drawn in ot the obvious attempt to discredit it. It was obviously not in their best interest to kill the general public in any numbers, possibly certain specific trouble makers. But indiscriminate violence served no purpose and played into the reds game plan.

The Red leadership had plenty of reason violence appearing to be cause by the military served their interests in a strong way. Attempting to blame the government for it, as they continue to do for political points, to potentially make the government fall and they walk into power earliest. Or create a public uprising against the military in general, and for some factions the whole general upper power structure .

Means, Motive and Opportunity.

All favor the Red Leaders being the root cause of deaths and the general tragedy, and limit any real or probable motive for the army to intentionally have killed indiscriminately. Add to the the incessantly repeated lie about '91 deaths caused by the army', when any child can add up the numbers and not get close to that count on that side.

It has been a cynically amoral manipulation of the masses by one side to win power. Truth has been in short supply, and analysis biased in bipolar directions. Lets hope the Thai electorate is not demonstrably bipolar.

Edited June 20, 2011 by animatic