Thai Democrat Rally At Ratchaprasong 'Not Just To Woo Voters'

[jdinasia]

I put precisely the same amount of effort into reading that AT article as you did finding out why Nattawut was released.

I would have thought since you've spent so much time highlighting the clear error of his ways, you'd also be interested in why he was free. But that would take the kind of balanced enquiry that is alien to a prejudiced view.

Nah .. I knew WHY he was free. The courts granted bail. I did follow the links Rubl gave just because he took the effort to do the work I assumed you didn't read the AT article because "that would take the kind of balanced enquiry that is alien to a prejudiced view."

Oh my... researching things is fun! It appears that the main source for that article (article ) you are touting may also have a bit of an axe to grind....

http://asiancorrespondent.com/33095/who-is-therdpoum-chaidee/

for those like me who aren't always bothered to click on links, here's an excerpt or two:

Hope I haven't broken any quoting laws.

You're good at discrediting authors of evidence that goes against your bias, not so good in the opposite direction.

It appears sometimes you believe the word of a 'terrorist who should be in jail', and sometimes you don't, as fits your agenda.

Oh, and by the way, I withdraw my earlier assessment that the article should be taken into consideration. I wonder how many other TV members have been fooled by such articles over the months.

Probably none since [He] isn't the author.

Thai power grows from the barrel of a gun

By William Barnes

William Barnes is the author. "[He]" is a quoted source.

Therdpoum, a former member of parliament under Thaksin's original Thai Rak Thai party, says there has been obfuscation and propaganda on both sides of the conflict..........

It is thus ironic that more former communists are currently on side with the royalist PAD than the supposedly pro-poor UDD, which is simultaneously striving to restore the billionaire Thaksin's wealth and power. So, too, is the fact that while the UDD has called with revolutionary zeal for a new political order, the Thaksin-aligned Puea Thai party that will contest the next elections is packed with old-style and corruption-tainted patronage politicians. ........

Therdpoum believes that the UDD's sincere left-wing members are using Thaksin and anticipate the opportunity to eventually dump his personal agenda in favor of the establishment of a more socialist society.

Yeppers ... "[He}" not the author, is a former TRT MP, [He] again not the author, places blame on both sides for obfuscation and propaganda. [He] yes once again not the author, absolutely might have an axe to grind. You can give it as much credit as you personally believe it is worth.

So .. all-in-all I would say [He] being Therpoum, has given not only a fair and balanced assessment of what he and Weng and others were taught, but also put it into perspective at some point prior to or on May 13th 2010.

Remember, when reading ... the author's name is usually under the title of the story

You hadn't edited when I wrote my reply ...... I am glad you noted the hypocrisy, but looking things up on your own IS a good thing.

I do not base my entire view of the reds on that article. I already had a pretty clear idea of what a violent movement they were from 2007, 2008, 2009, and April 2010.

Edited June 22, 2011 by jdinasia

[hanuman1]

Oh my... researching things is fun! It appears that the main source for that article (article ) you are touting may also have a bit of an axe to grind....

http://asiancorrespondent.com/33095/who-is-therdpoum-chaidee/

for those like me who aren't always bothered to click on links, here's an excerpt or two:

Hope I haven't broken any quoting laws.

You're good at discrediting authors of evidence that goes against your bias, not so good in the opposite direction.

It appears sometimes you believe the word of a 'terrorist who should be in jail', and sometimes you don't, as fits your agenda.

Oh, and by the way, I withdraw my earlier assessment that the article should be taken into consideration. I wonder how many other TV members have been fooled by such articles over the months.

Probably none since [He] isn't the author.

Thai power grows from the barrel of a gun

By William Barnes

William Barnes is the author. "[He]" is a quoted source.

Therdpoum, a former member of parliament under Thaksin's original Thai Rak Thai party, says there has been obfuscation and propaganda on both sides of the conflict..........

It is thus ironic that more former communists are currently on side with the royalist PAD than the supposedly pro-poor UDD, which is simultaneously striving to restore the billionaire Thaksin's wealth and power. So, too, is the fact that while the UDD has called with revolutionary zeal for a new political order, the Thaksin-aligned Puea Thai party that will contest the next elections is packed with old-style and corruption-tainted patronage politicians. ........

Therdpoum believes that the UDD's sincere left-wing members are using Thaksin and anticipate the opportunity to eventually dump his personal agenda in favor of the establishment of a more socialist society.

Yeppers ... "[He}" not the author, is a former TRT MP, [He] again not the author, places blame on both sides for obfuscation and propaganda. [He] yes once again not the author, absolutely might have an axe to grind. You can give it as much credit as you personally believe it is worth.

So .. all-in-all I would say [He] being Therpoum, has given not only a fair and balanced assessment of what he and Weng and others were taught, but also put it into perspective at some point prior to or on May 13th 2010.

Remember, when reading ... the author's name is usually under the title of the story

Thanks.

I made a mistake by using the word 'authors' instead of 'sources' once in my post.

You made absolutely no mistake in posting a highly questionable (if not discredited) article based on a source (not author) more biased even than you in support of your devisive arguments.

Well done. I guess there'll always be an audience for you here on TV, at least.

PS -

Therdpoum believes that the UDD's sincere left-wing members are using Thaksin and anticipate the opportunity to eventually dump his personal agenda in favor of the establishment of a more socialist society.

Well he may have got this bit right. Doesn't seem like PTP = UDD from his point of view.

Edited June 22, 2011 by hanuman1

[jdinasia]

Thanks.

I made a mistake by using the word 'authors' instead of 'sources' once in my post.

You made absolutely no mistake in posting a highly questionable (if not discredited) article based on a source (not author) more biased even than you in support of your devisive arguments.

Well done. I guess there'll always be an audience for you here on TV, at least.

PS -

Therdpoum believes that the UDD's sincere left-wing members are using Thaksin and anticipate the opportunity to eventually dump his personal agenda in favor of the establishment of a more socialist society.

Well he may have got this bit right. Doesn't seem like PTP = UDD from his point of view.

Cool! So the article is to be discredited because you don't like the source except when the source appears to agree with you? (The source doesn't appear to agree with you .. since there is a caveat in there "UDD's sincere left-wing members" --- that would be both of them? Nothing discredited about the article though, it just needs to be taken for what it is worth to you personally. Since, to me, it appears to mirror the facts of what we have seen since 2007 it was a valuable affirmation of what I already believed.

[hanuman1]

Thanks.

I made a mistake by using the word 'authors' instead of 'sources' once in my post.

You made absolutely no mistake in posting a highly questionable (if not discredited) article based on a source (not author) more biased even than you in support of your devisive arguments.

Well done. I guess there'll always be an audience for you here on TV, at least.

PS -

Therdpoum believes that the UDD's sincere left-wing members are using Thaksin and anticipate the opportunity to eventually dump his personal agenda in favor of the establishment of a more socialist society.

Well he may have got this bit right. Doesn't seem like PTP = UDD from his point of view.

Cool! So the article is to be discredited because you don't like the source except when the source appears to agree with you? (The source doesn't appear to agree with you .. since there is a caveat in there "UDD's sincere left-wing members" --- that would be both of them? Nothing discredited about the article though, it just needs to be taken for what it is worth to you personally. Since, to me, it appears to mirror the facts of what we have seen since 2007 it was a valuable affirmation of what I already believed.

I'm sure you'd agree that a bit of background knowledge of an article's source always helps to round out an opinion of said article. I submit this article as a case in point. It portrayed information which gave significant weight to one side of the argument, whereas the background to the source (not author) of the article considerably reduced its impact.

I wonder if you would have considered it such worthwhile reading for TV members had a fuller portrayal of the source's history been added to it?

[jdinasia]

Cool! So the article is to be discredited because you don't like the source except when the source appears to agree with you? (The source doesn't appear to agree with you .. since there is a caveat in there "UDD's sincere left-wing members" --- that would be both of them? Nothing discredited about the article though, it just needs to be taken for what it is worth to you personally. Since, to me, it appears to mirror the facts of what we have seen since 2007 it was a valuable affirmation of what I already believed.

I'm sure you'd agree that a bit of background knowledge of an article's source always helps to round out an opinion of said article. I submit this article as a case in point. It portrayed information which gave significant weight to one side of the argument, whereas the background to the source (not author) of the article considerably reduced its impact.

I wonder if you would have considered it such worthwhile reading for TV members had a fuller portrayal of the source's history been added to it?

Absolutely I would think it was worthwhile reading.

After all .....

UDD organizer Jaran Dittapichai told this correspondent that the protest group had adopted "Mao Zedong's method of thinking" and some of his techniques, including the establishment of a united front.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html (link added again so people can see the cited article.)

The guy you only like on one thing he says, but consider discredited on everything else, wasn't the only "source" of the article. Jaran certainly openly admitted to using Maoist techniques. He did, of course, deny any communist leanings for the red shirts or that they were behind the bombings etc

[hanuman1]

Cool! So the article is to be discredited because you don't like the source except when the source appears to agree with you? (The source doesn't appear to agree with you .. since there is a caveat in there "UDD's sincere left-wing members" --- that would be both of them? Nothing discredited about the article though, it just needs to be taken for what it is worth to you personally. Since, to me, it appears to mirror the facts of what we have seen since 2007 it was a valuable affirmation of what I already believed.

I'm sure you'd agree that a bit of background knowledge of an article's source always helps to round out an opinion of said article. I submit this article as a case in point. It portrayed information which gave significant weight to one side of the argument, whereas the background to the source (not author) of the article considerably reduced its impact.

I wonder if you would have considered it such worthwhile reading for TV members had a fuller portrayal of the source's history been added to it?

Absolutely I would think it was worthwhile reading.

After all .....

UDD organizer Jaran Dittapichai told this correspondent that the protest group had adopted "Mao Zedong's method of thinking" and some of his techniques, including the establishment of a united front.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html (link added again so people can see the cited article.)

The guy you only like on one thing he says, but consider discredited on everything else, wasn't the only "source" of the article. Jaran certainly openly admitted to using Maoist techniques. He did, of course, deny any communist leanings for the red shirts or that they were behind the bombings etc

Well at least this second (and only other) source who occupies the last 3 out of the 30-odd paragraphs of the piece doesn't appear as dodgy as the main source (not author).

Jaran also suggested that the army was trying to assassinate 25 of the UDD's leading members in this article:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Army-wants-to-kill-us-Jaran-30093855.html

Do you believe him on that, too?

Edited June 22, 2011 by hanuman1

[rubl]

Okay guys, I've had enough for tonight. We'll continue tomorrow.

I'd like a condensed, one page overview of what was written today. So cut the crap and only leave essentials. I only hope there will be something left then

[hanuman1]

Okay guys, I've had enough for tonight. We'll continue tomorrow.

I'd like a condensed, one page overview of what was written today. So cut the crap and only leave essentials. I only hope there will be something left then

Not a chance, old chap

[jdinasia]

Absolutely I would think it was worthwhile reading.

After all .....

UDD organizer Jaran Dittapichai told this correspondent that the protest group had adopted "Mao Zedong's method of thinking" and some of his techniques, including the establishment of a united front.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html (link added again so people can see the cited article.)

The guy you only like on one thing he says, but consider discredited on everything else, wasn't the only "source" of the article. Jaran certainly openly admitted to using Maoist techniques. He did, of course, deny any communist leanings for the red shirts or that they were behind the bombings etc

Well at least this second (and only other) source who occupies the last 3 out of the 30-odd paragraphs of the piece doesn't appear as dodgy as the main source (not author).

Jaran also suggested that the army was trying to assassinate 25 of the UDD's leading members in this article:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Army-wants-to-kill-us-Jaran-30093855.html

Do you believe him on that, too?

The AUTHOR (not the sources) put together an interesting article that fit with the apparent reality and facts surrounding the red shirt movement and how it works into the idea of a street politik arm and a political arm. The article (like all others) is only as useful as the credence you choose to give it. If you completely discredit a source then use that source to back a point of yours ... that would be .....?

In answer to Jaran's statement in the Nation.

Were they assassinated? No.

Does the message still fit with the idea of the reds using the Maoist techniques that were pointed out by BOTH sources in the AT article? Yes.

Does the inconvenient truth seem to bother you that a significant number of redshirt leaders are ex CPT and that their strategy uses Mao's little red book extensively? It would appear so.

Did you show some pretty extreme hypocrisy a couple of times in this thread? imho Yes.

[hanuman1]

Absolutely I would think it was worthwhile reading.

After all .....

UDD organizer Jaran Dittapichai told this correspondent that the protest group had adopted "Mao Zedong's method of thinking" and some of his techniques, including the establishment of a united front.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LE13Ae01.html (link added again so people can see the cited article.)

The guy you only like on one thing he says, but consider discredited on everything else, wasn't the only "source" of the article. Jaran certainly openly admitted to using Maoist techniques. He did, of course, deny any communist leanings for the red shirts or that they were behind the bombings etc

Well at least this second (and only other) source who occupies the last 3 out of the 30-odd paragraphs of the piece doesn't appear as dodgy as the main source (not author).

Jaran also suggested that the army was trying to assassinate 25 of the UDD's leading members in this article:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Army-wants-to-kill-us-Jaran-30093855.html

Do you believe him on that, too?

The AUTHOR (not the sources) put together an interesting article that fit with the apparent reality and facts surrounding the red shirt movement and how it works into the idea of a street politik arm and a political arm. The article (like all others) is only as useful as the credence you choose to give it. If you completely discredit a source then use that source to back a point of yours ... that would be .....?

In answer to Jaran's statement in the Nation.

Were they assassinated? No.

Does the message still fit with the idea of the reds using the Maoist techniques that were pointed out by BOTH sources in the AT article? Yes.

Does the inconvenient truth seem to bother you that a significant number of redshirt leaders are ex CPT and that their strategy uses Mao's little red book extensively? It would appear so.

Did you show some pretty extreme hypocrisy a couple of times in this thread? imho Yes.

The apparent reality is whatever you decide it is plus a few articles like the one you dug up, based on the evidence of an individual - like yourself - diammetrically opposed to the red shirt movement. So its veracity can easily be called into question if it is offered - as you offered it - as evidence of what the redshirt movement is about.

I don't have a problem when Teeraporn and Jaran come out with stuff like this. I'm not judging them, I'm saying that their words ought to be taken in context, that's all.

You always dismiss the words of people like Nattawut and cite his criminality (which whilst currently unproven in court is still fairly evident), but use your own pet terrorist to support your argument. Yep, you're no stranger to hypocrisy that's for sure.

And yes, I do think there was one point of Jaran which struck a note I happen to agree with. If he said the sun rises in the morning I expect you would think I ought to disagree with him. That's what prejudice does, you see - turns color into black and white.

[jdinasia]

Well at least this second (and only other) source who occupies the last 3 out of the 30-odd paragraphs of the piece doesn't appear as dodgy as the main source (not author).

Jaran also suggested that the army was trying to assassinate 25 of the UDD's leading members in this article:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Army-wants-to-kill-us-Jaran-30093855.html

Do you believe him on that, too?

The AUTHOR (not the sources) put together an interesting article that fit with the apparent reality and facts surrounding the red shirt movement and how it works into the idea of a street politik arm and a political arm. The article (like all others) is only as useful as the credence you choose to give it. If you completely discredit a source then use that source to back a point of yours ... that would be .....?

In answer to Jaran's statement in the Nation.

Were they assassinated? No.

Does the message still fit with the idea of the reds using the Maoist techniques that were pointed out by BOTH sources in the AT article? Yes.

Does the inconvenient truth seem to bother you that a significant number of redshirt leaders are ex CPT and that their strategy uses Mao's little red book extensively? It would appear so.

Did you show some pretty extreme hypocrisy a couple of times in this thread? imho Yes.

The apparent reality is whatever you decide it is plus a few articles like the one you dug up, based on the evidence of an individual - like yourself - diammetrically opposed to the red shirt movement. So its veracity can easily be called into question if it is offered - as you offered it - as evidence of what the redshirt movement is about.

I don't have a problem when Teeraporn and Jaran come out with stuff like this. I'm not judging them, I'm saying that their words ought to be taken in context, that's all.

You always dismiss the words of people like Nattawut and cite his criminality (which whilst currently unproven in court is still fairly evident), but use your own pet terrorist to support your argument. Yep, you're no stranger to hypocrisy that's for sure.

And yes, I do think there was one point of Jaran which struck a note I happen to agree with. If he said the sun rises in the morning I expect you would think I ought to disagree with him. That's what prejudice does, you see - turns color into black and white.

I agree, your viewpoint does seem to be black and white. I don't pretend to be neutral, unlike yourself. In the above statement you show just how far you will go to push an agenda. I, on the other hand, point out that Jaran (UDD insider) and Therdpoum (PAD insider -- and former close associate of TRT and the ex CPT members of the reds) don't disagree about the use of Maoist tactics by the reds. That a UDD insider openly admits it seems to be dismissed by you because it doesn't fit your worldview. The article itself means nothing other than there is apparent agreement between both a former Thaksin associate and a current UDD insider that the UDD adopted Maoist techniques. It only means something more when you put it into historical context which includes the violence etc....

The fact that you consider Therdpoum my "pet terrorist" tells a lot too. The author of the article didn't cite a single source nor hide who the sources were. No political party seems to be running Therdpoum as a party-list MP to apparently shield him from the consequences of his actions. You attempt to discredit him BUT then use him to back up one of your stranger claims. Any terrorism case against Therdpoum is weak at best but hey ... it appears to fit your worldview. The article, again, stands only for what the reader chooses to accept it for as far as credibility goes. That the two diametrically opposed sources in the article agree on the Maoist tactics makes it very credible to me. that it also matches my personal observations over the years that I have spent in Thailand and have studied and commented on Thai politics is fortuitous.

[Thai at Heart]

The good thing about this thread, and a couple others running now, is that we don't talk about Yingluck at all.... Is it that she is soon to be forgotten??

I find it far more interesting to see the Dems campaign apparently implode by coming up with the fine idea that stopping the traffic in Bangkok will get them more votes. If they decided to "show the truth" in Chiangmai, Chiangrai, Khon Kaen, Kalasin and Udon, they may actually convince a couple of PTP supporters to vote for them. Al they are doing is annoying their own grass roots. Very stupid ploy I think.

and where do you live. If you really think anyone in deep red territory can say anything that is slightest off red message without fear of death please get a Thai to come up and try and I guarantee you he/she would be lucky to escape with their lives. That is democracy Taksin red shirt style. Also they have meetings here to teach followers what democracy and politics means. Sort of reminds me of pol pot death camps or hitlers youth and rest. You really do not live in real red world here.

Funny that. the "Vote No" bunch had a get together at the town gate only last week. As for where I live, I am not giving that away 100%, but safe to say, it is well and truly in Red country. I am not denying that there is violence in Thai politics. I just disagree with your idea that if the Dems did campaign more strongly in other areas of the country, it would descend into a bloodbath.

[hanuman1]

Well at least this second (and only other) source who occupies the last 3 out of the 30-odd paragraphs of the piece doesn't appear as dodgy as the main source (not author).

Jaran also suggested that the army was trying to assassinate 25 of the UDD's leading members in this article:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Army-wants-to-kill-us-Jaran-30093855.html

Do you believe him on that, too?

The AUTHOR (not the sources) put together an interesting article that fit with the apparent reality and facts surrounding the red shirt movement and how it works into the idea of a street politik arm and a political arm. The article (like all others) is only as useful as the credence you choose to give it. If you completely discredit a source then use that source to back a point of yours ... that would be .....?

In answer to Jaran's statement in the Nation.

Were they assassinated? No.

Does the message still fit with the idea of the reds using the Maoist techniques that were pointed out by BOTH sources in the AT article? Yes.

Does the inconvenient truth seem to bother you that a significant number of redshirt leaders are ex CPT and that their strategy uses Mao's little red book extensively? It would appear so.

Did you show some pretty extreme hypocrisy a couple of times in this thread? imho Yes.

The apparent reality is whatever you decide it is plus a few articles like the one you dug up, based on the evidence of an individual - like yourself - diammetrically opposed to the red shirt movement. So its veracity can easily be called into question if it is offered - as you offered it - as evidence of what the redshirt movement is about.

I don't have a problem when Teeraporn and Jaran come out with stuff like this. I'm not judging them, I'm saying that their words ought to be taken in context, that's all.

You always dismiss the words of people like Nattawut and cite his criminality (which whilst currently unproven in court is still fairly evident), but use your own pet terrorist to support your argument. Yep, you're no stranger to hypocrisy that's for sure.

And yes, I do think there was one point of Jaran which struck a note I happen to agree with. If he said the sun rises in the morning I expect you would think I ought to disagree with him. That's what prejudice does, you see - turns color into black and white.

I agree, your viewpoint does seem to be black and white. I don't pretend to be neutral, unlike yourself. In the above statement you show just how far you will go to push an agenda. I, on the other hand, point out that Jaran (UDD insider) and Therdpoum (PAD insider -- and former close associate of TRT and the ex CPT members of the reds) don't disagree about the use of Maoist tactics by the reds. That a UDD insider openly admits it seems to be dismissed by you because it doesn't fit your worldview. The article itself means nothing other than there is apparent agreement between both a former Thaksin associate and a current UDD insider that the UDD adopted Maoist techniques. It only means something more when you put it into historical context which includes the violence etc....

The fact that you consider Therdpoum my "pet terrorist" tells a lot too. The author of the article didn't cite a single source nor hide who the sources were. No political party seems to be running Therdpoum as a party-list MP to apparently shield him from the consequences of his actions. You attempt to discredit him BUT then use him to back up one of your stranger claims. Any terrorism case against Therdpoum is weak at best but hey ... it appears to fit your worldview. The article, again, stands only for what the reader chooses to accept it for as far as credibility goes. That the two diametrically opposed sources in the article agree on the Maoist tactics makes it very credible to me. that it also matches my personal observations over the years that I have spent in Thailand and have studied and commented on Thai politics is fortuitous.

Let's take this apart piece by piece....

I was aware from several sources that years ago some UDD leaders studied Maoist techniques, and my purpose here is not to argue that point. As to the extent to which what they learned back then is being implemented today, that is very much open to question. The source that contributed to about 10% to your argument, Jaran, is someone who based on the limited info I've got seems to be believable. The source responsible for 90% of the article is someone whose motives for contributing in the way he did are clearly colored by the facts not hidden, but omitted from the article and made available on Bangkok Pundit's website.

In my book, this makes Therdpoum a poor source of unbiased info. Now, the bit where the two sources intersect is NOT about the use of violence as part of a Maoist tactic, in fact Jaran "has consistently denied that the group is behind the mysterious bombing campaign that has coincided with its protest activities" and even states "the red shirt people don't like communism". The use of violence as part of red shirt tactics is only spoken of by Therdpoum, the PAD guy with an axe to grind.

So that brings us back to the ever-thinning 'overlap' between the two sources you speak of - that some aspects of Maoist tactics are sometimes used even today by the UDD leaders. This may be true. It is a question of degree, though. Jaran has already ruled out the violent aspect, which is somewhat at odds with your personal view, so perhaps there are other less perceptible ways in which these Maoist tactics are being implemented. maybe the 'United Front' thing, which I'm not sure exactly the meaning of. Maybe you can help me out with that.

One thing I suspect that wasn't in the Little Red Book was getting your revolutionary organization to follow a political party and encourage everyone to vote in democratic elections. This of course doesn't destroy your arguments, but shows that quite clearly there are also big differences between red shirt strategies and Maoist ones.

To be honest I don't care much whether red shirts are Maoist, Totskyite, Thatcherite, Neo-Con or if they follow Lord Zog of the Planet Ass. I just want to develop an informed opinion from plausible sources, and a plausible source is not what you have used to back up your current arguments on here.

It's a plausible source to you because you're just looking for prejudiced sources to back up your already prejudiced views.

Edited June 23, 2011 by hanuman1

[jdinasia]

Let's take this apart piece by piece....

I was aware from several sources that years ago some UDD leaders studied Maoist techniques, and my purpose here is not to argue that point. As to the extent to which what they learned back then is being implemented today, that is very much open to question. The source that contributed to about 10% to your argument, Jaran, is someone who based on the limited info I've got seems to be believable. The source responsible for 90% of the article is someone whose motives for contributing in the way he did are clearly colored by the facts not hidden, but omitted from the article and made available on Bangkok Pundit's website.

In my book, this makes Therdpoum a poor source of unbiased info. Now, the bit where the two sources intersect is NOT about the use of violence as part of a Maoist tactic, in fact Jaran "has consistently denied that the group is behind the mysterious bombing campaign that has coincided with its protest activities" and even states "the red shirt people don't like communism". The use of violence as part of red shirt tactics is only spoken of by Therdpoum, the PAD guy with an axe to grind.

So that brings us back to the ever-thinning 'overlap' between the two sources you speak of - that some aspects of Maoist tactics are sometimes used even today by the UDD leaders. This may be true. It is a question of degree, though. Jaran has already ruled out the violent aspect, which is somewhat at odds with your personal view, so perhaps there are other less perceptible ways in which these Maoist tactics are being implemented. maybe the 'United Front' thing, which I'm not sure exactly the meaning of. Maybe you can help me out with that.

One thing I suspect that wasn't in the Little Red Book was getting your revolutionary organization to follow a political party and encourage everyone to vote in democratic elections. This of course doesn't destroy your arguments, but shows that quite clearly there are also big differences between red shirt strategies and Maoist ones.

To be honest I don't care much whether red shirts are Maoist, Totskyite, Thatcherite, Neo-Con or if they follow Lord Zog of the Planet Ass. I just want to develop an informed opinion from plausible sources, and a plausible source is not what you have used to back up your current arguments on here.

It's a plausible source to you because you're just looking for prejudiced sources to back up your already prejudiced views.

LOL

I see Therdpoum isn't plausible EXCEPT on that one point that plays to your bias.

Maoist techniques are spelled out quite simply. Jaran states unequivocally that the UDD uses Maoist techniques (hard to deny!). Jaran is a UDD insider. Of course, he denies violence. The fact is that violence (that is deniable by the political arm) is CENTRAL to Maoist doctrine. Maoist techniques would actually include rallying behind a political party (thus offering a unified front) but don't let that stop you from ignoring the facts

The author (not the source) used multiple sources to make a direct connection. One source (the one you only find credible on the point that suits your political agenda!) that is diametrically opposed to the other source that is an insider in the group in question. Those sources concur about the Maoist techniques. The insider denies the violence. (aint that strange!) I don't think ANYONE is making the argument that the reds actually are all commies! They aren't a Maoist organization! They are simply using the techniques. There is a suggestion that some of the more leftist/socialist individuals involved in the movement would like to break with Thaksin, but wasn't that point made by Therpoum? Great -- you like that one!

What makes Therdpoum credible to me is not just that Jaran confirms the Maoism, it is also that Therdpoum also states without equivocation that there is obfuscation and propaganda on both sides.

The AUTHOR - William Barnes, certainly used a source that is anti-Thaksin to get his juiciest quotes from but he found a source inside the UDD to confirm the premise of the story. Barnes, relates the violence of the reds in April and before in a way that suggest that the premise of the article is accurate. He shows the "simple message" etc etc ... He could have, just as easily, read up on things and used less from Therdpoum and come to the exact same conclusions. Why didn't he? Dry reading! Instead he got people from both sides and let the events speak to the accuracy of Therdpoum's message. All-in-all a pretty good piece. I understand that the violent history of the reds (from 2007 until the present) and the comparison of how the red movement mirrors Maoist techniques would be painful for someone that wants to be seen as 'neutral, but obviously isn't.

Both approaches have their advantages and shortcomings. While the cross-sectional

studies have focused on reasons why individuals may choose to commit acts of political

violence, they have ignored the important role that political parties and leaders play in

organizing and instigating conflict. The qualitative studies, on the other hand, treat the

insurgency as if it was the outcome of a number of possible causes, none of which are

disproved to be explanatory

Maybe reading this http://www.princeton.edu/~aacharya/maoist.pdf would help you get a better picture? It has absolutely nothing to do with Thailand and is about the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Again, I am granting that the authoritarian/dictatorial practices of Thaksin are far from Maoist -- the techniques are just a "tool" for him in the same way that democracy is just a tool for him

Edited June 23, 2011 by jdinasia

[hanuman1]

Let's take this apart piece by piece....

I was aware from several sources that years ago some UDD leaders studied Maoist techniques, and my purpose here is not to argue that point. As to the extent to which what they learned back then is being implemented today, that is very much open to question. The source that contributed to about 10% to your argument, Jaran, is someone who based on the limited info I've got seems to be believable. The source responsible for 90% of the article is someone whose motives for contributing in the way he did are clearly colored by the facts not hidden, but omitted from the article and made available on Bangkok Pundit's website.

In my book, this makes Therdpoum a poor source of unbiased info. Now, the bit where the two sources intersect is NOT about the use of violence as part of a Maoist tactic, in fact Jaran "has consistently denied that the group is behind the mysterious bombing campaign that has coincided with its protest activities" and even states "the red shirt people don't like communism". The use of violence as part of red shirt tactics is only spoken of by Therdpoum, the PAD guy with an axe to grind.

So that brings us back to the ever-thinning 'overlap' between the two sources you speak of - that some aspects of Maoist tactics are sometimes used even today by the UDD leaders. This may be true. It is a question of degree, though. Jaran has already ruled out the violent aspect, which is somewhat at odds with your personal view, so perhaps there are other less perceptible ways in which these Maoist tactics are being implemented. maybe the 'United Front' thing, which I'm not sure exactly the meaning of. Maybe you can help me out with that.

One thing I suspect that wasn't in the Little Red Book was getting your revolutionary organization to follow a political party and encourage everyone to vote in democratic elections. This of course doesn't destroy your arguments, but shows that quite clearly there are also big differences between red shirt strategies and Maoist ones.

To be honest I don't care much whether red shirts are Maoist, Totskyite, Thatcherite, Neo-Con or if they follow Lord Zog of the Planet Ass. I just want to develop an informed opinion from plausible sources, and a plausible source is not what you have used to back up your current arguments on here.

It's a plausible source to you because you're just looking for prejudiced sources to back up your already prejudiced views.

LOL

I see Therdpoum isn't plausible EXCEPT on that one point that plays to your bias.

Maoist techniques are spelled out quite simply. Jaran states unequivocally that the UDD uses Maoist techniques (hard to deny!). Jaran is a UDD insider. Of course, he denies violence. The fact is that violence (that is deniable by the political arm) is CENTRAL to Maoist doctrine. Maoist techniques would actually include rallying behind a political party (thus offering a unified front) but don't let that stop you from ignoring the facts

The author (not the source) used multiple sources to make a direct connection. One source (the one you only find credible on the point that suits your political agenda!) that is diametrically opposed to the other source that is an insider in the group in question. Those sources concur about the Maoist techniques. The insider denies the violence. (aint that strange!) I don't think ANYONE is making the argument that the reds actually are all commies! They aren't a Maoist organization! They are simply using the techniques. There is a suggestion that some of the more leftist/socialist individuals involved in the movement would like to break with Thaksin, but wasn't that point made by Therpoum? Great -- you like that one!

What makes Therdpoum credible to me is not just that Jaran confirms the Maoism, it is also that Therdpoum also states without equivocation that there is obfuscation and propaganda on both sides.

The AUTHOR - William Barnes, certainly used a source that is anti-Thaksin to get his juiciest quotes from but he found a source inside the UDD to confirm the premise of the story. Barnes, relates the violence of the reds in April and before in a way that suggest that the premise of the article is accurate. He shows the "simple message" etc etc ... He could have, just as easily, read up on things and used less from Therdpoum and come to the exact same conclusions. Why didn't he? Dry reading! Instead he got people from both sides and let the events speak to the accuracy of Therdpoum's message. All-in-all a pretty good piece. I understand that the violent history of the reds (from 2007 until the present) and the comparison of how the red movement mirrors Maoist techniques would be painful for someone that wants to be seen as 'neutral, but obviously isn't.

Both approaches have their advantages and shortcomings. While the cross-sectional

studies have focused on reasons why individuals may choose to commit acts of political

violence, they have ignored the important role that political parties and leaders play in

organizing and instigating conflict. The qualitative studies, on the other hand, treat the

insurgency as if it was the outcome of a number of possible causes, none of which are

disproved to be explanatory

Maybe reading this http://www.princeton.edu/~aacharya/maoist.pdf would help you get a better picture? It has absolutely nothing to do with Thailand and is about the Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Again, I am granting that the authoritarian/dictatorial practices of Thaksin are far from Maoist -- the techniques are just a "tool" for him in the same way that democracy is just a tool for him

In answer to your continued references to a) my mistake in typing the word 'authors' instead of 'sources' in one of my posts, and the fact that I think someone who I discredited as an unreliable source of unbiased information actually said one thing I do happen to agree with, please see my rebuttals in previous posts.

So as far as you're concerned, every time Jaran denies violence it actually makes him more culpable for that violence. Nice - a self-condemning target, how convenient! And this business about a 'unified front'. What political organization doesn't have or strive for a 'unified front'? They're all using Maoist tactics under this definition of a Maoist tactic.

In your own words, the UDD are NOT a Maoist organization but they use 'Maoist techniques' and they have adopted the 'Maoist Doctrine' inasmuch as the violence some of their followers perpetrate is a CENTRAL part of that doctrine.

Well, I don't know if the Maoists ever took out patents on their 'techniques' but they certainly should have. Goodness knows how many opposition movements worldwide have used exactly the same 'unified front' and had followers capable of violence deniable by politicians.

So the UDD leaders - according to credible and biased sources alike - were well aware of Maoist techniques years ago. The degree to which they are employing them now as a way of forwarding their cause is open to debate, since non-Maoist 'techniques' of civil disobedience can also include the same types of tactics.

Barnes paraphrases Therdpoum saying:

The five tactics they learned for unseating a government included: divide your enemies; form a united front; use provocative violence; secure the loyalty of people inside the ruling regime; and, finally, win over the army.

The two you're hanging your hat on in this argument are 'form a united front' and 'use provocative violence'. In the matter of the other Maoist tactics listed, I don't know if the UDD are engaged in them or not but they are not enlarged upon by either you or the article you are using to back your opinions up with.

As mentioned earlier, forming a 'united front' is so common a feature of all political/social movements that to specifically label it a 'Maoist technique' would be to do any non-Maoist organization a disservice. If Maoists liked to eat McDonalds, would you say all the other customers were eating 'Maoist food'? And on the issue of using provocative violence, that too has actually been known to happen all around the world on 'behalf' of a widely disparate set of parties and movements.

Since you say that the UDD itself is NOT a Maoist organization, I'm not sure what the point is of bringing up this 'Maoist techniques' issue and applying it to today's situation given that the Maoist techniques you refer to are indistinguishable from the 'techniques' of dozens if not hundreds of political movements in various countries over the years.

Edited June 23, 2011 by hanuman1

[jdinasia]

In answer to your continued references to a) my mistake in typing the word 'authors' instead of 'sources' in one of my posts, and the fact that I think someone who I discredited as an unreliable source of unbiased information actually said one thing I do happen to agree with, please see my rebuttals in previous posts.

So as far as you're concerned, every time Jaran denies violence it actually makes him more culpable for that violence. Nice - a self-condemning target, how convenient! And this business about a 'unified front'. What political organization doesn't have or strive for a 'unified front'? They're all using Maoist tactics under this definition of a Maoist tactic.

In your own words, the UDD are NOT a Maoist organization but they use 'Maoist techniques' and they have adopted the 'Maoist Doctrine' inasmuch as the violence some of their followers perpetrate is a CENTRAL part of that doctrine.

Well, I don't know if the Maoists ever took out patents on their 'techniques' but they certainly should have. Goodness knows how many opposition movements worldwide have used exactly the same 'unified front' and had followers capable of violence deniable by politicians.

So the UDD leaders - according to credible and biased sources alike - were well aware of Maoist techniques years ago. The degree to which they are employing them now as a way of forwarding their cause is open to debate, since non-Maoist 'techniques' of civil disobedience can also include the same types of tactics.

Barnes paraphrases Therdpoum saying:

The five tactics they learned for unseating a government included: divide your enemies; form a united front; use provocative violence; secure the loyalty of people inside the ruling regime; and, finally, win over the army.

The two you're hanging your hat on in this argument are 'form a united front' and 'use provocative violence'. In the matter of the other Maoist tactics listed, I don't know if the UDD are engaged in them or not but they are not enlarged upon by either you or the article you are using to back your opinions up with.

As mentioned earlier, forming a 'united front' is so common a feature of all political/social movements that to specifically label it a 'Maoist technique' would be to do any non-Maoist organization a disservice. If Maoists liked to eat McDonalds, would you say all the other customers were eating 'Maoist food'? And on the issue of using provocative violence, that too has actually been known to happen all around the world on 'behalf' of a widely disparate set of parties and movements.

Since you say that the UDD itself is NOT a Maoist organization, I'm not sure what the point is of bringing up this 'Maoist techniques' issue and applying it to today's situation given that the Maoist techniques you refer to are indistinguishable from the 'techniques' of dozens if not hundreds of political movements in various countries over the years.

LOL

OK .. then let's say that "I agree with Jaran" that they use Maoist techniques. I am not stupid enough to expect anyone to openly suggest that they do in fact use provocative violence. I am not stupid enough to fail to see that the reds have a history from the very beginning of using provocative violence. The UDD is a tool of an authoritarian despot It doesn't keep them from doing exactly what they have admitted to. That you suggest they use techniques are indistinguishable from those of others (which you'd have to prove) doesn't get rid of Jaran's statement or Weng's time in Hanoi, or the other former CPT trained folks in their ranks They did secure some loyalty from inside the ruling regime (aint going into it per forum rules) and they failed to pull the army (but that was why everything had to happen before Oct.

Thanks for playing and I am glad that you agree with Therdpoum (on one thing at least --- though you never do address the other issues --- just attempt to hit the source --- and since it is two sources, you failed at that

Thanks for playing though!

[hanuman1]

In answer to your continued references to a) my mistake in typing the word 'authors' instead of 'sources' in one of my posts, and the fact that I think someone who I discredited as an unreliable source of unbiased information actually said one thing I do happen to agree with, please see my rebuttals in previous posts.

So as far as you're concerned, every time Jaran denies violence it actually makes him more culpable for that violence. Nice - a self-condemning target, how convenient! And this business about a 'unified front'. What political organization doesn't have or strive for a 'unified front'? They're all using Maoist tactics under this definition of a Maoist tactic.

In your own words, the UDD are NOT a Maoist organization but they use 'Maoist techniques' and they have adopted the 'Maoist Doctrine' inasmuch as the violence some of their followers perpetrate is a CENTRAL part of that doctrine.

Well, I don't know if the Maoists ever took out patents on their 'techniques' but they certainly should have. Goodness knows how many opposition movements worldwide have used exactly the same 'unified front' and had followers capable of violence deniable by politicians.

So the UDD leaders - according to credible and biased sources alike - were well aware of Maoist techniques years ago. The degree to which they are employing them now as a way of forwarding their cause is open to debate, since non-Maoist 'techniques' of civil disobedience can also include the same types of tactics.

Barnes paraphrases Therdpoum saying:

The five tactics they learned for unseating a government included: divide your enemies; form a united front; use provocative violence; secure the loyalty of people inside the ruling regime; and, finally, win over the army.

The two you're hanging your hat on in this argument are 'form a united front' and 'use provocative violence'. In the matter of the other Maoist tactics listed, I don't know if the UDD are engaged in them or not but they are not enlarged upon by either you or the article you are using to back your opinions up with.

As mentioned earlier, forming a 'united front' is so common a feature of all political/social movements that to specifically label it a 'Maoist technique' would be to do any non-Maoist organization a disservice. If Maoists liked to eat McDonalds, would you say all the other customers were eating 'Maoist food'? And on the issue of using provocative violence, that too has actually been known to happen all around the world on 'behalf' of a widely disparate set of parties and movements.

Since you say that the UDD itself is NOT a Maoist organization, I'm not sure what the point is of bringing up this 'Maoist techniques' issue and applying it to today's situation given that the Maoist techniques you refer to are indistinguishable from the 'techniques' of dozens if not hundreds of political movements in various countries over the years.

LOL

OK .. then let's say that "I agree with Jaran" that they use Maoist techniques. I am not stupid enough to expect anyone to openly suggest that they do in fact use provocative violence. I am not stupid enough to fail to see that the reds have a history from the very beginning of using provocative violence. The UDD is a tool of an authoritarian despot It doesn't keep them from doing exactly what they have admitted to. That you suggest they use techniques are indistinguishable from those of others (which you'd have to prove) doesn't get rid of Jaran's statement or Weng's time in Hanoi, or the other former CPT trained folks in their ranks They did secure some loyalty from inside the ruling regime (aint going into it per forum rules) and they failed to pull the army (but that was why everything had to happen before Oct.

Thanks for playing and I am glad that you agree with Therdpoum (on one thing at least --- though you never do address the other issues --- just attempt to hit the source --- and since it is two sources, you failed at that

Thanks for playing though!

Awww...is that it? I was just warming up Anyway, thanks for indulging me with your game.

At the end of the day, it's 11.59. Or maybe it isn't (no need to discuss).