Democrat Party Says Provoking 'Red Shirts' Is Not Plan For Rally At Bangkok's Ratchaprasong

[Nickymaster]

The reds shirts are controlled, managed and sometimes even paid by their leaders. All rallies are organised by Thaksin and the red shirt leaders. People are invited to come. All this is done to overtrow the government.

This is something very different from an uprising or revolution. No reveulution in this world has a whole media and propagande machine (and a lot of money) behind it.

So anybody who believes that 20 thousand people camping out at a rallie site (organised and paid for) in the midle of a city is a reason that a government should resign, has in my opinion very little education.

You can dislike the Dems, that's fine. But what Thaksin is doing (trough his red leaders) is simply organised crime.

[AleG]

The reds shirts are controlled, managed and sometimes even paid by their leaders. All rallies are organised by Thaksin and the red shirt leaders. People are invited to come. All this is done to overtrow the government.

This is something very different from an uprising or revolution. No reveulution in this world has a whole media and propagande machine (and a lot of money) behind it.

So anybody who believes that 20 thousand people camping out at a rallie site (organised and paid for) in the midle of a city is a reason that a government should resign, has in my opinion very little education.

You can dislike the Dems, that's fine. But what Thaksin is doing (trough his red leaders) is simply organised crime.

In the US they use the term Astroturfing for this.

Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

[trisailer]

Read a objective view of events from Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos-0 based on hundreds of interviews with people who wittnessed the events.

Try to read the whole thing and not just a few sentenences that support your already black and white viewpoint.

[jdinasia]

Read a objective view of events from Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos-0 based on hundreds of interviews with people who wittnessed the events.

Try to read the whole thing and not just a few sentenences that support your already black and white viewpoint.

You read that and are still a Thaksin supporter? You still question who escalated events at each step of the way?

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/98399/section/6

C'mon ---- you can read about the escalation all the way through by the reds (or Seh Daeng's ronin--- internal to the red overall organization). It was ugly and there are still MANY unknowns but it was clear who was behind it and what the effort was for.

Traditionally in Thailand if the army has fired on protesters in BKK, the current government fell within days. It would appear obvious at every stage of escalation that the goal was just that, for the reds to force the army into attacking. What they failed to take into account was that in 2010 it was a different world than 1992 or 1976. People were able to see in real time the violence of the reds and that they were the armed instigators. The current government not only stayed in power, but also in spite of the red insurgency in BKK there was a 7.8%+ increase in GDP (while the world faltered in a recession!)

edit --- always worth mentioning that HRW has a very left-leaning agenda ... leaving many of their conclusions in question. The did, however, put together a decent report that seems to get most of the day to day facts right. If Thailand ever does a thorough investigation of the truth, this report would be a good starting point.

Edited June 20, 2011 by jdinasia

[jayboy]

always worth mentioning that HRW has a very left-leaning agenda ... leaving many of their conclusions in question. The did, however, put together a decent report that seems to get most of the day to day facts right. If Thailand ever does a thorough investigation of the truth, this report would be a good starting point.

What exactly does he believe about the HRW report? Is concern for human rights "left leaning", and if so why? I would have thought right wingers and moderates also shared a concern for individual liberties. He questions HRW's conclusions because "left leaning", a meaningless caveat I would have thought in the context of events on the street, but goes on to say a decent report was produced.Thoroughly muddled thinking I'm afraid.I suppose he agrees with the parts of the report criticising the redshirts but not those parts criticising the army's brutality.

[whybother]

http://uk.reuters.co...E75J0FM20110620

There's a whole thread on this specific subject. Why not post it there?

And you should have a look at the forum rules on "Fair Use" too.

Edited June 20, 2011 by whybother

[jdinasia]

What I'd like to know is how you explain the strong showing of PTP in all the major polls that have recently come out.

It's all very well going on about the possible influence of local/regional bosses telling people how to vote, but for me the most striking thing about the recent Suan Dusit poll was the relatively strong support for the PTP in Bangkok itself, where the mechanics of localized village influence doesn't apply.

I am sure there are threads about the polls ..... but what do I think about the polls? Not much.

The polls aren't even close to scientific and I think we all know that. The military used to do a poll (haven't seen it yet this time) that Hammered says was always very accurate. (Polling random people in BKK doesn't determine if/where they are eligible to vote --- the wording of the NIDA poll was horrific even in Thai --- I didn't read the wording of the Suan Dusit poll.) There may be more accuracy in the polls regarding BKK than I would like, but that would be based upon BKK being fickle and almost never voting for the same party 2 elections in a row, historically)

I am guessing about 24-27 constituencies in BKK will go Dem but I could be way off! We'll know on the 3rd/4th/9th whenever .... I am also guessing there will be more yellow and red cards (how appropriate) handed out in this election then ever before.

[Maestro]

An off-topic post, also in violation of copyrights, has been deleted.

[timekeeper]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

actually the reds drew first blood in this overall conflict

they shot and killed a food vendor on 13th April 2009 during the first Songkran uprising in Bangkok

he challenged them when they were making molotov cocktails near his house

they killed him and shot indescriminately into a crowd, seriously injuring 10 others.

he was the first of many innocents to die at the hands of the ''peaceful ''reds

[trisailer]

But you said that they were peaceful for a month before the army tried to shut them down. That's simply not true.

On April 10, the army were in riot gear to disperse the protesters after they had stormed parliament and Thaicom the previous two days. At Thaicom the protesters used molotov cocktails.

It was all peaceful on the night of April 10 until shooting started, and no one knows where it started. Then all hell broke loose, including army personnel being hit by grenades, and red shirt militia running around with guns.

Your selected quotes above (after the first one) are taken from events that occurred well after the April 10 events, nearly 5 weeks after the April 10 incidents.

I think you need to go back and spend a couple more days on your research. Two days researching what happened over 10 weeks last year doesn't really cut it.

Like I said read the report. This time pay attention to the time line and you will see tha the protest was peaceful until the securitiy forces attempted to take the bridge.

Someone pleas explain to me why, If the red plan was to violently overthrow the government would protesters bring their children to the event. None of the accusations about a plan by the reds for violence are supported by the facts. The red "schools" that preceed the protest were aimed at insuring peaceful protest. Four weeks of peaceful protest and then the army started shooting and kept shooting people armed with slingshots. If that same thing happened in your own country do you seriously believe that you wouldn't fight back?

I don't support the violence. I have attended many protests myself. The reds made a huge mistake by bringing weapons (which the government had to know about in advanced) If the would have not fought back and been shot down than they would have gained the sympathy of the rest of Thailand. The Army wanted violence and provoked it for political gain.

[whybother]

Like I said read the report. This time pay attention to the time line and you will see tha the protest was peaceful until the securitiy forces attempted to take the bridge.

Someone pleas explain to me why, If the red plan was to violently overthrow the government would protesters bring their children to the event. None of the accusations about a plan by the reds for violence are supported by the facts. The red "schools" that preceed the protest were aimed at insuring peaceful protest. Four weeks of peaceful protest and then the army started shooting and kept shooting people armed with slingshots. If that same thing happened in your own country do you seriously believe that you wouldn't fight back?

I don't support the violence. I have attended many protests myself. The reds made a huge mistake by bringing weapons (which the government had to know about in advanced) If the would have not fought back and been shot down than they would have gained the sympathy of the rest of Thailand. The Army wanted violence and provoked it for political gain.

You obviously haven't read the report, because you missed the violence in the days leading up to April 10. The protesters needed to be dispersed after their violent storming of parliament and Thaicom in the days before April 10. On the night of April 10, everything was peaceful, up to a point. The protesters weren't only armed with sling shots. They were armed with guns and grenades. Another thing you missed in the report.

How do you know WHO was fighting back? How did the red shirts know how to take out the lead colonel with direct hit of a grenade? Was that chance, or planned?

Maybe you can also get someone to explain to you why the red shirts had grenades and guns in a "peaceful protest". If you look at the videos available of the night of April 10, you don't see many women or children around. They were only at the Ratchaprasong intersection under the "Peaceful Protests. Not Terrorists" banner, while on the outside of the protest area, the guys were burning tyres and shooting various things at the army.

Did you attend the red "schools" and find out what they were teaching? If they were teaching about insuring a peaceful protest, they failed badly.

[timekeeper]

Like I said read the report. This time pay attention to the time line and you will see tha the protest was peaceful until the securitiy forces attempted to take the bridge.

Someone pleas explain to me why, If the red plan was to violently overthrow the government would protesters bring their children to the event. None of the accusations about a plan by the reds for violence are supported by the facts. The red "schools" that preceed the protest were aimed at insuring peaceful protest. Four weeks of peaceful protest and then the army started shooting and kept shooting people armed with slingshots. If that same thing happened in your own country do you seriously believe that you wouldn't fight back?

I don't support the violence. I have attended many protests myself. The reds made a huge mistake by bringing weapons (which the government had to know about in advanced) If the would have not fought back and been shot down than they would have gained the sympathy of the rest of Thailand. The Army wanted violence and provoked it for political gain.

You obviously haven't read the report, because you missed the violence in the days leading up to April 10. The protesters needed to be dispersed after their violent storming of parliament and Thaicom in the days before April 10. On the night of April 10, everything was peaceful, up to a point. The protesters weren't only armed with sling shots. They were armed with guns and grenades. Another thing you missed in the report.

How do you know WHO was fighting back? How did the red shirts know how to take out the lead colonel with direct hit of a grenade? Was that chance, or planned?

Maybe you can also get someone to explain to you why the red shirts had grenades and guns in a "peaceful protest". If you look at the videos available of the night of April 10, you don't see many women or children around. They were only at the Ratchaprasong intersection under the "Peaceful Protests. Not Terrorists" banner, while on the outside of the protest area, the guys were burning tyres and shooting various things at the army.

Did you attend the red "schools" and find out what they were teaching? If they were teaching about insuring a peaceful protest, they failed badly.

whybother, i admire your tenacity in trying to educate trisailer but i fear you are wasting your breath with this guy

there are non so blind as those who do not want to see...........

[animatic]

I would think that Abhisit would not want to remind people of his failure to protect people and property last year.

This supports my belief that Abhisit purposely provoked what had been a peaceful demonstration into violence for his own political ends. The reds were protesting peaceful for 4 weeks before the government started killing them. He would like to put the blame on the reds, but he and his advisor's have the blood on their hands.

Ask yourself what would have happened if the army had started killing the protesters at the airport. Does anyone think that the outcome would be any different? Funny how none of those people were killed.

actually the reds drew first blood in this overall conflict

they shot and killed a food vendor on 13th April 2009 during the first Songkran uprising in Bangkok

he challenged them when they were making molotov cocktails near his house

they killed him and shot indescriminately into a crowd, seriously injuring 10 others.

he was the first of many innocents to die at the hands of the ''peaceful ''reds

Actually the 1st blood was one of their own when UDD DAAD members attacked the PAD encampment on Makkesan road. Apparently not expecting a strong response.

This after a drunken rally at Suan Luong (or Lumpini Park) run by PPP MPS and Red Leaders. The attack aimed at giving Samak a S.O.E., to shut down PAD.

Not counting the Chaing Mai murder

and Udon beatings of Democratic speakers at a rally there.

Or proto-Reds invading The Nation Offices, and holding the staff hostage while Thaksin was still in office.

Edited June 21, 2011 by animatic

[jdinasia]

Actually the 1st blood was one of their own when UDD DAAD members attacked the PAD encampment on Makkesan road. Apparently not expecting a strong response.

This after a drunken rally at Suan Luong (or Lumpini Park) run by PPP MPS and Red Leaders. The attack aimed at giving Samak a S.O.E., to shut down PAD.

Not counting the Chaing Mai murder

and Udon beatings of Democratic speakers at a rally there.

Or proto-Reds invading The Nation Offices, and holding the staff hostage while Thaksin was still in office.

You are leaving out the red riot in 2007 ... they have been violent from the beginning.

[jdinasia]

You obviously haven't read the report, because you missed the violence in the days leading up to April 10. The protesters needed to be dispersed after their violent storming of parliament and Thaicom in the days before April 10. On the night of April 10, everything was peaceful, up to a point. The protesters weren't only armed with sling shots. They were armed with guns and grenades. Another thing you missed in the report.

How do you know WHO was fighting back? How did the red shirts know how to take out the lead colonel with direct hit of a grenade? Was that chance, or planned?

Maybe you can also get someone to explain to you why the red shirts had grenades and guns in a "peaceful protest". If you look at the videos available of the night of April 10, you don't see many women or children around. They were only at the Ratchaprasong intersection under the "Peaceful Protests. Not Terrorists" banner, while on the outside of the protest area, the guys were burning tyres and shooting various things at the army.

Did you attend the red "schools" and find out what they were teaching? If they were teaching about insuring a peaceful protest, they failed badly.

WB-- play nice! Tri-sailer told us yesterday that he had studied all of this for 2 whole days! Perhaps someone should post the Arisaman and Natthuwat videos calling for violence and arson (Arisaman's video in advance of them coming to BKK in the first place ---- which explains, perhaps why Arisaman is still a fugitive.)

edit --- the Thaksin video for "when the first shot is fired, I will be there with you" may belong in said post as well. The reds wanted a violent crackdown from the beginning.

Edited June 21, 2011 by jdinasia

[animatic]

You obviously haven't read the report, because you missed the violence in the days leading up to April 10. The protesters needed to be dispersed after their violent storming of parliament and Thaicom in the days before April 10. On the night of April 10, everything was peaceful, up to a point. The protesters weren't only armed with sling shots. They were armed with guns and grenades. Another thing you missed in the report.

How do you know WHO was fighting back? How did the red shirts know how to take out the lead colonel with direct hit of a grenade? Was that chance, or planned?

Maybe you can also get someone to explain to you why the red shirts had grenades and guns in a "peaceful protest". If you look at the videos available of the night of April 10, you don't see many women or children around. They were only at the Ratchaprasong intersection under the "Peaceful Protests. Not Terrorists" banner, while on the outside of the protest area, the guys were burning tyres and shooting various things at the army.

Did you attend the red "schools" and find out what they were teaching? If they were teaching about insuring a peaceful protest, they failed badly.

WB-- play nice! Tri-sailer told us yesterday that he had studied all of this for 2 whole days! Perhaps someone should post the Arisaman and Natthuwat videos calling for violence and arson (Arisaman's video in advance of them coming to BKK in the first place ---- which explains, perhaps why Arisaman is still a fugitive.)

edit --- the Thaksin video for "when the first shot is fired, I will be there with you" may belong in said post as well. The reds wanted a violent crackdown from the beginning.

It was their only move left.

[rubl]

I'm still puzzled at the opposition to the Democrats campaigning at Rachaprasong. It's only a few hours, it's neither a Monday or a Friday. Personally I'd be surprised at numbers larger than 10,000 - 20,000 attending. Some of the UDD leaders who are now 'respectable PTP party candidates were there for months, full blast sound level. Let and leave the Dem's.

Of course the Thaksin / PTP / UDD engaged Robert Amsterdam complains

"“It’s not only a profound insult to the victims and survivors, Prime Minister Abhisit is flaunting his denial of responsibility for this atrocity in an attempt to provoke Red Shirts and shore up support among his political base,” said Robert Amsterdam, lawyer for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), who has filed an application before the International Criminal Court requesting an independent investigation into the political violence last year."

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/?p=826

He's paid for it. More than a year now this person has insulted the Thai government and the intelligence of Thai and many other people. The ICC won't tell, but I wonder if they already told him a firm NO on this 'request to investigate a possible bla bla blablabla' ?

[animatic]

I'm still puzzled at the opposition to the Democrats campaigning at Rachaprasong. It's only a few hours, it's neither a Monday or a Friday. Personally I'd be surprised at numbers larger than 10,000 - 20,000 attending. Some of the UDD leaders who are now 'respectable PTP party candidates were there for months, full blast sound level. Let and leave the Dem's.

Of course the Thaksin / PTP / UDD engaged Robert Amsterdam complains

""It's not only a profound insult to the victims and survivors, Prime Minister Abhisit is flaunting his denial of responsibility for this atrocity in an attempt to provoke Red Shirts and shore up support among his political base," said Robert Amsterdam, lawyer for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), who has filed an application before the International Criminal Court requesting an independent investigation into the political violence last year."

http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=826

He's paid for it. More than a year now this person has insulted the Thai government and the intelligence of Thai and many other people. The ICC won't tell, but I wonder if they already told him a firm NO on this 'request to investigate a possible bla bla blablabla' ?

I am sure the ICC has a dossier as thick as Amsterdam's head and ass held stacked up, about his doings. No doubt many secret services / intelligence agencies and Interpol, have him under surveillance regularly. His client roster alone demands this. His attempts to manipulate the politics in foreign countries alone is enough to keep general tabs on his doings.

Edited June 21, 2011 by animatic

[Nickymaster]

If you were Thai which one would you vote for. :jap:

Who is that guy on the left? Is he running to become PM?

[Nickymaster]

I'm still puzzled at the opposition to the Democrats campaigning at Rachaprasong. It's only a few hours, it's neither a Monday or a Friday. Personally I'd be surprised at numbers larger than 10,000 - 20,000 attending. Some of the UDD leaders who are now 'respectable PTP party candidates were there for months, full blast sound level. Let and leave the Dem's.

Of course the Thaksin / PTP / UDD engaged Robert Amsterdam complains

""It's not only a profound insult to the victims and survivors, Prime Minister Abhisit is flaunting his denial of responsibility for this atrocity in an attempt to provoke Red Shirts and shore up support among his political base," said Robert Amsterdam, lawyer for the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), who has filed an application before the International Criminal Court requesting an independent investigation into the political violence last year."

http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=826

He's paid for it. More than a year now this person has insulted the Thai government and the intelligence of Thai and many other people. The ICC won't tell, but I wonder if they already told him a firm NO on this 'request to investigate a possible bla bla blablabla' ?

I am sure the ICC has a dossier as thick as Amsterdam's head and ass held stacked up, about his doings. No doubt many secret services / intelligence agencies and Interpol, have him under surveillance regularly. His client roster alone demands this. His attempts to manipulate the politics in foreign countries alone is enough to keep general tabs on his doings.

This low-life Amsterdam guy belongs to the most dirty people in the world. He defends the biggest criminals . For money his propagande machine works for anybody . He would even try to create a civil war if that's what is needed for his client to win.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Nickymaster

[themockrat]

Your ignoring the facts. No civilized country on earth would allow a uncontrolled protest demonstration who's stated aim was to shut down the government.

You need to look at the facts. I have studied it over the last two days and it is clear to every objective viewer that the protesters were provoked after 4 weeks of peaceful gathering.

You can say anything, but you cannot back up what your saying with any facts at all. These are just uninformed opinions. Do a little research and learn the facts. I have.

Why don't you start with explaining what the reds did to escalate the violence and at what "steps" If I am wrong please correct me with facts

You have made a lot of comments about this issue, but I have yet to see a single fact to back up any of them.

You have spent TWO whole days learning about this?!? Wow!

April 9th Reds use molotov cocktails at the regiment and Thaicom. April 10th the military starts trying to clear Pan Fa. (This is disregarding the random grenade attacks all over the city -- aimed at targets all perceived to be against the reds/Thaksin.)

Your objectivity is certainly subjective.

(edit to add ---- where are the facts in your posts?)

ooops here is one of your facts.... "Funny how none of those people were killed. " --- which, of course, is entirely wrong.

Thai airport blast kills activist

Anti-government protesters at the airport were attacked on the weekend

A blast has killed at least one Thai anti-government protester and wounded 22 others at Bangkok's Don Mueang airport, emergency officials have said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7759899.stm

And who taught them? The yellow shirts have had weapons during the airport siege, there's photos all over Google, and so did the blue shirts (Newin) in Pattaya. I'm certainly against armed protests, but you can't reward some people who have participated in armed protests with government positions and jail the other side for terrorism over the same thing.

[rubl]

And who taught them? The yellow shirts have had weapons during the airport siege, there's photos all over Google, and so did the blue shirts (Newin) in Pattaya. I'm certainly against armed protests, but you can't reward some people who have participated in armed protests with government positions and jail the other side for terrorism over the same thing.

Pray tell who were these 'some people' rewarded? The only name which seems to pop up is k. Kasit who didn't participate in armed protests. Now if were we talking of UDD / red-shirt leaders who seek to escape their responsibility by having been awarded with PTP party list positions which more-or-less guarantee they'll be MP's for four years at the most with the parliamentary immunity which goes with it, ... ...

BTW welcome back, the mock rat

[themockrat]

And who taught them? The yellow shirts have had weapons during the airport siege, there's photos all over Google, and so did the blue shirts (Newin) in Pattaya. I'm certainly against armed protests, but you can't reward some people who have participated in armed protests with government positions and jail the other side for terrorism over the same thing.

Pray tell who were these 'some people' rewarded? The only name which seems to pop up is k. Kasit who didn't participate in armed protests. Now if were we talking of UDD / red-shirt leaders who seek to escape their responsibility by having been awarded with PTP party list positions which more-or-less guarantee they'll be MP's for four years at the most with the parliamentary immunity which goes with it, ... ...

BTW welcome back, the mock rat

I just wonder why there were never investigations in who the armed people at the yellow shirt protests were? Or those with Newin's blue shirts in Pattaya? Or is it OK to have armed gangs running around the international airport and tourist resorts as long as they're pro-government?

Edited June 22, 2011 by themockrat

[rubl]

And who taught them? The yellow shirts have had weapons during the airport siege, there's photos all over Google, and so did the blue shirts (Newin) in Pattaya. I'm certainly against armed protests, but you can't reward some people who have participated in armed protests with government positions and jail the other side for terrorism over the same thing.

Pray tell who were these 'some people' rewarded? The only name which seems to pop up is k. Kasit who didn't participate in armed protests. Now if were we talking of UDD / red-shirt leaders who seek to escape their responsibility by having been awarded with PTP party list positions which more-or-less guarantee they'll be MP's for four years at the most with the parliamentary immunity which goes with it, ... ...

BTW welcome back, the mock rat

I just wonder why there were never investigations in who the armed people at the yellow shirt protests were? Or those with Newin's blue shirts in Pattaya? Or is it OK to have armed gangs running around the international airport and tourist resorts as long as they're pro-government?

Good point, but with almost anyone in politics, police force, etc., etc. carrying a gun it's difficult to decide where to start. Maybe with k. Chalerm's son who didn't shoot his fellow police officer. I mean k. Chalerm is put in charge of amnesty, isn't he?

On a more serious note, who did get shot when the PAD occupied the airport, who got shot by (possibly) Newin's blue-shirts? Any grenades thrown? Lots of PAD leaders have been charged and convicted for the airport occupation, appealing they are released on bail. Lots of UDD leaders have been charged and been released on bail. With their comfortable PTP party list position the court case will be suspended while they 'enjoy' parliamentary immunity. If memory serves me right there are 2007 / 2008 cases against red-shirts also progressing like snails in molasses.

Maybe we should start a general disarmament campaign, only police allowed to carry weapons and army while on duty.

Anyway the OP is about Dem's not out to provoke 'red-shirts', probably only out to provoke TV posters