Pheu Thai Fears '3rd Party' Attack During Democrat's Ratchaprasong Rally

[lannarebirth]

..... and if any mischief happens the Red shirts will get the blame.

Very poor planning by Abhisits team as they are not inviting but hoping for conflict.

I would expect that whoever gets caught performing any mischief will get the blame.

Abhisit is probably expecting conflict, since the standard Red Democracy usually means that other people are not allowed to rally or protest.

At least the CCTV system should be working this time

Oh good, so if the Democrats try to derail the Skytrain or shoot grenades at the passenger landings like the Red Shirts did, they'll be busted for sure. Wouldn't want to see any double standards.

[JAG]

..... and if any mischief happens the Red shirts will get the blame.

Well, they are the ones Abhisit will be attacking in his speech, they are the ones opposed to this rally and they are one of the ones with a track history of violence, so it doesn't take a Sherlock to figure out that this is the group with the motive and the means.

That "track history of violence" a problem that is going to follow them. Once it's established, it's extremely difficult to have the perception changed.

It is the perception that other groups, not all that different from Red Shirts modus operandi and with a "track history" like the Ku Klux Klan, for example, face. Many incidents of violence committed with racial overtones are routinely attributed to the Klan, whether they are responsible or not. Similarly to the Red Shirts, when it is shown, since that perception has been established, that various incidents of racial violence are perpetrated by the Klan, the perception is reinforced.

So they're not Nazis anymore then, they're Klu Klux Klan now!!

[MrChangers]

..... and if any mischief happens the Red shirts will get the blame.

Very poor planning by Abhisits team as they are not inviting but hoping for conflict.

I would expect that whoever gets caught performing any mischief will get the blame.

Abhisit is probably expecting conflict, since the standard Red Democracy usually means that other people are not allowed to rally or protest.

or disagree, or speak, or support someone else, or drive a car in Chiang Mai, etc etc etc

Drive a car in Chiang Mai? I drive my car here and have not had any Red shirts throwing themselves on my bonnet, ripping off windscreen wipers .......

[MrChangers]

..... and if any mischief happens the Red shirts will get the blame.

Well, they are the ones Abhisit will be attacking in his speech, they are the ones opposed to this rally and they are one of the ones with a track history of violence, so it doesn't take a Sherlock to figure out that this is the group with the motive and the means.

That "track history of violence" a problem that is going to follow them. Once it's established, it's extremely difficult to have the perception changed.

It is the perception that other groups, not all that different from Red Shirts modus operandi and with a "track history" like the Ku Klux Klan, for example, face. Many incidents of violence committed with racial overtones are routinely attributed to the Klan, whether they are responsible or not. Similarly to the Red Shirts, when it is shown, since that perception has been established, that various incidents of racial violence are perpetrated by the Klan, the perception is reinforced.

I have to agree with you here Buchholz as for years England "fans" were accused of inciting violence even were it was proven not the case but give a dog a bad name.......

My concern is with having the rally at such a political hotspot. I know Abhisit wants to make a point and can see his point of view though prudence should rule in this situation. I fear that there are those opposed to both sides that could see this as a chance for fisty cuffs and laying the blame, very easily, at someone else's door. I'm sure that word would be sent to the rank and file Red shirts to stay well away from the area.

What ever peoples political leanings they should seriously consider the implications, in their comments, of re-igniting this tinderbox. I have no truck with either side before I get accused of supporting this lot or that.

[Buchholz]

..... and if any mischief happens the Red shirts will get the blame.

Well, they are the ones Abhisit will be attacking in his speech, they are the ones opposed to this rally and they are one of the ones with a track history of violence, so it doesn't take a Sherlock to figure out that this is the group with the motive and the means.

That "track history of violence" a problem that is going to follow them. Once it's established, it's extremely difficult to have the perception changed.

It is the perception that other groups, not all that different from Red Shirts modus operandi and with a "track history" like the Ku Klux Klan, for example, face. Many incidents of violence committed with racial overtones are routinely attributed to the Klan, whether they are responsible or not. Similarly to the Red Shirts, when it is shown, since that perception has been established, that various incidents of racial violence are perpetrated by the Klan, the perception is reinforced.

So they're not Nazis anymore then, they're Klu Klux Klan now!!

No one said they were KKK, but if you don't see the similarities of a track history of violence, I feel sorry for you.

.

[hanuman1]

It is noted that there was no violence at all reported at this event. If anyone knows otherwise, please provide details.

Looks like the red shirt leaders aren't that good at predicting violence after all. Maybe their paid under cover thugs all coincidentally took the same day off work in a hilarious administrative blunder. Oh well, maybe next time (again).

Edited June 24, 2011 by hanuman1

[ballpoint]

It is noted that there was no violence at all reported at this event. If anyone knows otherwise, please provide details.

Looks like the red shirt leaders aren't that good at predicting violence after all. Maybe their paid under cover thugs all coincidentally took the same day off work in a hilarious administrative blunder. Oh well, maybe next time (again).

Or maybe it was just a crude threat along the lines of "Nice little business you've got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it..." I wonder how many people were put off attending by the very real possibility of an attack by Thaksin's thugs?

[pedro01]

It is noted that there was no violence at all reported at this event. If anyone knows otherwise, please provide details.

Looks like the red shirt leaders aren't that good at predicting violence after all. Maybe their paid under cover thugs all coincidentally took the same day off work in a hilarious administrative blunder. Oh well, maybe next time (again).

Or maybe it was just a crude threat along the lines of "Nice little business you've got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it..." I wonder how many people were put off attending by the very real possibility of an attack by Thaksin's thugs?

I asked my missus to not go because of the threats. There's 1.

[AleG]

It is noted that there was no violence at all reported at this event. If anyone knows otherwise, please provide details.

Looks like the red shirt leaders aren't that good at predicting violence after all. Maybe their paid under cover thugs all coincidentally took the same day off work in a hilarious administrative blunder. Oh well, maybe next time (again).

It was an empty threat, but a threat none the less; aimed at inciting fear (may I even say terrorize) people into doing what the threat issuer wants. Red Shirts do have experience with it.

It was very similar to a bomb threat over the phone "I heard from confidential sources that there will be a bomb under the rally stage, you'd better not go there if you know what's good for you".

[hanuman1]

It is noted that there was no violence at all reported at this event. If anyone knows otherwise, please provide details.

Looks like the red shirt leaders aren't that good at predicting violence after all. Maybe their paid under cover thugs all coincidentally took the same day off work in a hilarious administrative blunder. Oh well, maybe next time (again).

It was an empty threat, but a threat none the less; aimed at inciting fear (may I even say terrorize) people into doing what the threat issuer wants. Red Shirts do have experience with it.

It was very similar to a bomb threat over the phone "I heard from confidential sources that there will be a bomb under the rally stage, you'd better not go there if you know what's good for you".

Well if what you say is true, it is a pretty low-down tactic. Equally unprovable though is that the announcement was sincere.

What we do have proof for on the other hand is that at the event yesterday, no red-shirted thugs were sent to disrupt it, and no thugs of unknown origin who the red shirted leadership could deny any involvement with were sent to disrupt it. I presume everyone agrees with this.

[whybother]

Well if what you say is true, it is a pretty low-down tactic. Equally unprovable though is that the announcement was sincere.

What we do have proof for on the other hand is that at the event yesterday, no red-shirted thugs were sent to disrupt it, and no thugs of unknown origin who the red shirted leadership could deny any involvement with were sent to disrupt it. I presume everyone agrees with this.

If it was a real threat then Nattawut should be able to forward evidence of it to the police.

In lieu of that, one can only assume he made up the threat to scare people away.

There were reports of ghosts turning up at Erawan temple, but I think they were kept away from the rally.

[ianbaggie]

..... and if any mischief happens the Red shirts will get the blame.

Well, they are the ones Abhisit will be attacking in his speech, they are the ones opposed to this rally and they are one of the ones with a track history of violence, so it doesn't take a Sherlock to figure out that this is the group with the motive and the means.

That "track history of violence" a problem that is going to follow them. Once it's established, it's extremely difficult to have the perception changed.

It is the perception that other groups, not all that different from Red Shirts modus operandi and with a "track history" like the Ku Klux Klan, for example, face. Many incidents of violence committed with racial overtones are routinely attributed to the Klan, whether they are responsible or not. Similarly to the Red Shirts, when it is shown, since that perception has been established, that various incidents of racial violence are perpetrated by the Klan, the perception is reinforced.

So they're not Nazis anymore then, they're Klu Klux Klan now!!

both seems fair!!

[Pi Sek]

It was an empty threat, but a threat none the less; aimed at inciting fear (may I even say terrorize) people into doing what the threat issuer wants. Red Shirts do have experience with it.

It was very similar to a bomb threat over the phone "I heard from confidential sources that there will be a bomb under the rally stage, you'd better not go there if you know what's good for you".

Well if what you say is true, it is a pretty low-down tactic. Equally unprovable though is that the announcement was sincere.

What we do have proof for on the other hand is that at the event yesterday, no red-shirted thugs were sent to disrupt it, and no thugs of unknown origin who the red shirted leadership could deny any involvement with were sent to disrupt it. I presume everyone agrees with this.

I like your train of thought, especially in a country where precedents do not feature in their legal system - but another clear truth is that UDD leaders, in particular Nattawut, have a history of truthfully predicting violence, untruthfully predicting coups and taking the absolute most partisan stance possible against anything non-Peua Thai (which is essentially betraying their non-PT Red Shirt followers). This is all notwithstanding the clear truth that you highlight - there was no violence.

But I was worried that it would erupt, it looks like Pedro01 was too, and that's just on a handful of foreign posters on an expat noticeboard. I wonder how many of the Thai electorate fell for the Nattawut trap too. Maybe our own faults, but this guy is the person who threatened "bloodshed all over the country" and the one named by Black Shirt guard and Seh Daeng’s closest aide and right-hand man Pichet Sukjiddathong (aka Phumkitti) as the primarily person responsible for ordering violence.

It is entirely caretaker PM Abhisit's fault if there is violence at this rally as he could and still can choose not to hold the rally in such a sensitive area, believe me this man knows what he is doing and is quite happy to see Thai people killed or injured again for his own self gain and some of you call K Thaksin selfish!!!

Personally I think this is the most idiotic reply I have ever seen on this site, and that is saying something - although I'm sure others might think otherwise. (Note I said the reply was idiotic - I make no assumptions about the person who posted it :jap: )

Rajprasong was the most suitable place possible to emphasise Abhisit's point that PT's amnesty plan is absolutely geared towards forgetting the 91 deaths last year. I'm not saying he will be able to do anything himself to find "justice" but he will at least maintain that "justice" is important. His message is that he wants justice for all, but PT do not - and Rajprasong is the most striking place to do that given the violence last year.

And it may do you good for you to ask yourself why exactly Rajprasong is a sensitive area (as it might be for Nattawut too). Is it because 91 civilians and officials, from both sides, got killed due to an escalation of violence starting with Arisaman's storming of Government House, the takeover of Thai PBS and then the Kwanchai-led attack on the 1st Infantry barracks prior to the April 10? There may or may not have been violence from the official side since then (I suspect there was) - but given these three violent incidents initiated by Red leaders before the first fatality, I find it hard to believe anyone can suggest that they were not forced into a position to use it. The proportionality of its use is more the question.

[hanuman1]

It was an empty threat, but a threat none the less; aimed at inciting fear (may I even say terrorize) people into doing what the threat issuer wants. Red Shirts do have experience with it.

It was very similar to a bomb threat over the phone "I heard from confidential sources that there will be a bomb under the rally stage, you'd better not go there if you know what's good for you".

Well if what you say is true, it is a pretty low-down tactic. Equally unprovable though is that the announcement was sincere.

What we do have proof for on the other hand is that at the event yesterday, no red-shirted thugs were sent to disrupt it, and no thugs of unknown origin who the red shirted leadership could deny any involvement with were sent to disrupt it. I presume everyone agrees with this.

I like your train of thought, especially in a country where precedents do not feature in their legal system - but another clear truth is that UDD leaders, in particular Nattawut, have a history of truthfully predicting violence, untruthfully predicting coups and taking the absolute most partisan stance possible against anything non-Peua Thai (which is essentially betraying their non-PT Red Shirt followers). This is all notwithstanding the clear truth that you highlight - there was no violence.

But I was worried that it would erupt, it looks like Pedro01 was too, and that's just on a handful of foreign posters on an expat noticeboard. I wonder how many of the Thai electorate fell for the Nattawut trap too. Maybe our own faults, but this guy is the person who threatened "bloodshed all over the country" and the one named by Black Shirt guard and Seh Daeng’s closest aide and right-hand man Pichet Sukjiddathong (aka Phumkitti) as the primarily person responsible for ordering violence.

It is entirely caretaker PM Abhisit's fault if there is violence at this rally as he could and still can choose not to hold the rally in such a sensitive area, believe me this man knows what he is doing and is quite happy to see Thai people killed or injured again for his own self gain and some of you call K Thaksin selfish!!!

Personally I think this is the most idiotic reply I have ever seen on this site, and that is saying something - although I'm sure others might think otherwise. (Note I said the reply was idiotic - I make no assumptions about the person who posted it :jap: )

Rajprasong was the most suitable place possible to emphasise Abhisit's point that PT's amnesty plan is absolutely geared towards forgetting the 91 deaths last year. I'm not saying he will be able to do anything himself to find "justice" but he will at least maintain that "justice" is important. His message is that he wants justice for all, but PT do not - and Rajprasong is the most striking place to do that given the violence last year.

And it may do you good for you to ask yourself why exactly Rajprasong is a sensitive area (as it might be for Nattawut too). Is it because 91 civilians and officials, from both sides, got killed due to an escalation of violence starting with Arisaman's storming of Government House, the takeover of Thai PBS and then the Kwanchai-led attack on the 1st Infantry barracks prior to the April 10? There may or may not have been violence from the official side since then (I suspect there was) - but given these three violent incidents initiated by Red leaders before the first fatality, I find it hard to believe anyone can suggest that they were not forced into a position to use it. The proportionality of its use is more the question.

Nattawut and Jatuporn are loudmouths whose irresponsible rantings do indeed scare people. Loudmouths by definition will make statements which are sometime true and sometimes not, since a characteristic of their loud-mouthery appears to be a rejection of the deeper implications of their words. Their performance on stage during last years riots (and at times since) was in my opinion an aberration of their roles as leaders, taking into account only the moments surrounding their speeches.

Yet they still have enough support from their own ranks and enough discontent exists nationwide with the prevailing political landscape that they are tolerated in Thai society (if not in TV forums).

The life of a bacteria is dependent as much on its environment as its own being.