Chaos At Bangkok's Zen After Red Shirt Surrender, Court Hears

[rubl]

I don't really want to go into the black Songkhran 2009 issues.

You may not want to go there, but the Songkran 2009 incident, and its aftermath is elementary in having shaped perception leading to the blow up in 2010.

And by the way - the protesters that were shot by the military in the early morning assault were shot hours before the gas tank truck incident, but during the first army assault in the early morning hours.

A more updated, and completed version of the article i wrote then is in my recently published book (no sales pitch - just clarifying).

One of the reason I don't want to go 'there' in this topic's discussion is that the 'real truth' is just as contentious as what is/might/could be the truth on 2010 protests.

There's this claim from a monk who saw people shot, carried away as bodies in a van; no proof. According to Human Rights Watch, "two members of neighbourhood watch groups were shot dead in a clash with protesters. Four soldiers were wounded by gunshot. The rest of the injured suffered from teargas inhalation, bone fractures, and gunshot and shrapnel wounds". At least 1 UDD protester was injured from gunshot wounds sustained during the military's attack in Din Daeng, although the Army claimed the wound was not caused by their standard firearm. The UDD claimed that at least 6 demonstrators were killed in the unrest and their bodies hauled away by the military, although the Army rejected the claim.

All I know is that at that time I lived in a townhouse on Sri Ayutthaya soi 10, with PrayaThai one side, RangNam another, Ratchaprarob third side and Ayutthaya in front. Highrises, saw nothing, heard a lot. Wife told me to stay home (she's from Khet Dusit btw). At least my internet connection worked.

Edited July 29, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

One of the reason I don't want to go 'there' in this topic's discussion is that the 'real truth' is just as contentious as what is/might/could be the truth on 2010 protests.

There's this claim from a monk who saw people shot, carried away as bodies in a van; no proof. According to Human Rights Watch, "two members of neighbourhood watch groups were shot dead in a clash with protesters. Four soldiers were wounded by gunshot. The rest of the injured suffered from teargas inhalation, bone fractures, and gunshot and shrapnel wounds". At least 1 UDD protester was injured from gunshot wounds sustained during the military's attack in Din Daeng, although the Army claimed the wound was not caused by their standard firearm. The UDD claimed that at least 6 demonstrators were killed in the unrest and their bodies hauled away by the military, although the Army rejected the claim.

All I know is that at that time I lived in a townhouse on Sri Ayutthaya soi 10, with PrayaThai one side, RangNam another, Ratchaprarob third side and Ayutthaya in front. Highrises, saw nothing, heard a lot. Wife told me to stay home (she's from Khet Dusit btw). At least my internet connection worked.

The wife was giving the right advise. It was ugly, especially the early morning attack, which was unfortunately witnessed by very few journalists, and even less at the side of the Red Shirts. The midday attack by the military, of which most available footage of that day was shot, was much better disciplined.

The problem is, as i mentioned before already, that there was no investigation into the incidents and everything was whitewashed. This has strongly contributed to the situation in 2010. Some may say here that Red Shirts were instigated by false and unproven claims from the stages. What is misleading in this line of argumentation though is that this argument completely neglects that in the Red Shirts communication does not only go from leaders on the stage down to the ordinary protesters, but that protesters themselves do have their own communication nets, know what they experienced, and talk about it with fellow Red Shirts. The have discussion groups on all levels of society, who meet regularly, discuss politics, strategy and ideology. Their organization improves and widens constantly.

I do blame the mass media to a large part of this misconception on how the Red Shirts operate. There are very few articles available on the Red Shirt's local structures. This is just not juicy enough to make articles about, especially at that time. There are still large gaping holes in the understanding of the Red Shirts. I try my best to fill some of them, but i can't do everything. I miss competent academic researches in local structures of the Red Shirts, researches in their communication networks, and many other such aspects badly. I have neither the background nor the time and budget to do that.

There are very few journalists and academics who have looked into those issues, far too few.

[animatic]

I see the OP is

Chaos At Bangkok's Zen After Red Shirt Surrender, Court Hears

What follows is pages of tangtal obfuscation,

dragging everything off topic to other incidents at other times.

And of course the obligatory personal attacks and twisting of words.

Time to close this

since the SUBJECT is being ignored by most all regardless of bent or warp.

Edited July 29, 2011 by animatic

[rubl]

begin removed ...

This has strongly contributed to the situation in 2010. Some may say here that Red Shirts were instigated by false and unproven claims from the stages. What is misleading in this line of argumentation though is that this argument completely neglects that in the Red Shirts communication does not only go from leaders on the stage down to the ordinary protesters, but that protesters themselves do have their own communication nets, know what they experienced, and talk about it with fellow Red Shirts. The have discussion groups on all levels of society, who meet regularly, discuss politics, strategy and ideology. Their organization improves and widens constantly.

... end removed

Rumour has it that all of these 'informal' networks are equally tainted. Red-shirt radio upcountry is not really 'objective' and neither are 'red-shirt schools'. The 'red-shirt' organisation is much more coherent than either PAD or any other organisation here in Thailand. The link Pheu Thai / UDD is really worrying in my eyes as it effects, diminishes democracy. Sorry to get this into the discussion, but Germany 1930's is a prime example of dedication and what can go wrong (or right depending on which side you're on).

[nicknostitz]

begin removed ...

This has strongly contributed to the situation in 2010. Some may say here that Red Shirts were instigated by false and unproven claims from the stages. What is misleading in this line of argumentation though is that this argument completely neglects that in the Red Shirts communication does not only go from leaders on the stage down to the ordinary protesters, but that protesters themselves do have their own communication nets, know what they experienced, and talk about it with fellow Red Shirts. The have discussion groups on all levels of society, who meet regularly, discuss politics, strategy and ideology. Their organization improves and widens constantly.

... end removed

Rumour has it that all of these 'informal' networks are equally tainted. Red-shirt radio upcountry is not really 'objective' and neither are 'red-shirt schools'. The 'red-shirt' organisation is much more coherent than either PAD or any other organisation here in Thailand. The link Pheu Thai / UDD is really worrying in my eyes as it effects, diminishes democracy. Sorry to get this into the discussion, but Germany 1930's is a prime example of dedication and what can go wrong (or right depending on which side you're on).

We have to bring here also historical context. The UDD, or later called the Red Shirts formed after the 2006 military coup, as a reaction to the coup. Preceding the coup you have had the PAD - which had close links already then not long after its formation - to the Democrat Party and to the military. In the coup period the UDD has still far lagged behind the PAD in organizational matters. When in 2008 the PAD protested again, with even closer links to the Democrat Party and to the military, the UDD began catching up. But only after the Songkran 2009 incident the UDD/Red Shirts began outclassing the PAD in organizational capabilities, also helped by beginning frictions between the PAD and its supporters in the Democrats and the military.

Yes, naturally, the links between the UDD and Puah Thai Party are more than evident. But the former links between the Democrat Party and the PAD started this whole process of street politics off in the first place. Even though the links between the Democrats and the PAD may not be existing anymore, there still is the matter between the highly political position of the military and their links.

Yes, Democracy has been diminishing rapidly in Thailand. Things though began being unleashed by the Democrat's Party's decision to ally itself with the PAD back in early 2006, instead of biding its time.

Naturally the Red Shirt media is not objective or neutral. Neither was the majority of the state media (not under Thaksin, and even less so after the coup). We are in the middle of a massive social conflict that has its roots long before Thaksin appeared on the political scene, and in which Thaksin is but one of many factors.

[hammered]

begin removed ...

This has strongly contributed to the situation in 2010. Some may say here that Red Shirts were instigated by false and unproven claims from the stages. What is misleading in this line of argumentation though is that this argument completely neglects that in the Red Shirts communication does not only go from leaders on the stage down to the ordinary protesters, but that protesters themselves do have their own communication nets, know what they experienced, and talk about it with fellow Red Shirts. The have discussion groups on all levels of society, who meet regularly, discuss politics, strategy and ideology. Their organization improves and widens constantly.

... end removed

Rumour has it that all of these 'informal' networks are equally tainted. Red-shirt radio upcountry is not really 'objective' and neither are 'red-shirt schools'. The 'red-shirt' organisation is much more coherent than either PAD or any other organisation here in Thailand. The link Pheu Thai / UDD is really worrying in my eyes as it effects, diminishes democracy. Sorry to get this into the discussion, but Germany 1930's is a prime example of dedication and what can go wrong (or right depending on which side you're on).

We have to bring here also historical context. The UDD, or later called the Red Shirts formed after the 2006 military coup, as a reaction to the coup. Preceding the coup you have had the PAD - which had close links already then not long after its formation - to the Democrat Party and to the military. In the coup period the UDD has still far lagged behind the PAD in organizational matters. When in 2008 the PAD protested again, with even closer links to the Democrat Party and to the military, the UDD began catching up. But only after the Songkran 2009 incident the UDD/Red Shirts began outclassing the PAD in organizational capabilities, also helped by beginning frictions between the PAD and its supporters in the Democrats and the military.

Yes, naturally, the links between the UDD and Puah Thai Party are more than evident. But the former links between the Democrat Party and the PAD started this whole process of street politics off in the first place. Even though the links between the Democrats and the PAD may not be existing anymore, there still is the matter between the highly political position of the military and their links.

Yes, Democracy has been diminishing rapidly in Thailand. Things though began being unleashed by the Democrat's Party's decision to ally itself with the PAD back in early 2006, instead of biding its time.

Naturally the Red Shirt media is not objective or neutral. Neither was the majority of the state media (not under Thaksin, and even less so after the coup). We are in the middle of a massive social conflict that has its roots long before Thaksin appeared on the political scene, and in which Thaksin is but one of many factors.

In hindsight that the Democrats did not criticise the coup has been a disaster not only for them but for the country. They didnt even have to demonstrate against it, just make clear they didnt support it and wouldnt use it to take any position in power. In hindsight they would also have been well advised to have forced an election two years ago instead of taking the reigns of power in the manner they did. And still apart from the public nobody is really calling the Democrats out for the part they have played in the whole mess. And no doubt on August 6 they will reselect Abhisit to great cheers from the PTP and red movement

Another point re the reds is that while much is made of what they do wrong and how bad they are, and in such a way that everybody in the whole country hears it, they still command massive and from what I see growing support among the people. It seems what the establishment says is now ignored and what they want deliberately gone against.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

This has strongly contributed to the situation in 2010. Some may say here that Red Shirts were instigated by false and unproven claims from the stages. What is misleading in this line of argumentation though is that this argument completely neglects that in the Red Shirts communication does not only go from leaders on the stage down to the ordinary protesters, but that protesters themselves do have their own communication nets, know what they experienced, and talk about it with fellow Red Shirts. The have discussion groups on all levels of society, who meet regularly, discuss politics, strategy and ideology. Their organization improves and widens constantly.

... end removed

Rumour has it that all of these 'informal' networks are equally tainted. Red-shirt radio upcountry is not really 'objective' and neither are 'red-shirt schools'. The 'red-shirt' organisation is much more coherent than either PAD or any other organisation here in Thailand. The link Pheu Thai / UDD is really worrying in my eyes as it effects, diminishes democracy. Sorry to get this into the discussion, but Germany 1930's is a prime example of dedication and what can go wrong (or right depending on which side you're on).

We have to bring here also historical context. The UDD, or later called the Red Shirts formed after the 2006 military coup, as a reaction to the coup. Preceding the coup you have had the PAD - which had close links already then not long after its formation - to the Democrat Party and to the military. In the coup period the UDD has still far lagged behind the PAD in organizational matters. When in 2008 the PAD protested again, with even closer links to the Democrat Party and to the military, the UDD began catching up. But only after the Songkran 2009 incident the UDD/Red Shirts began outclassing the PAD in organizational capabilities, also helped by beginning frictions between the PAD and its supporters in the Democrats and the military.

Yes, naturally, the links between the UDD and Puah Thai Party are more than evident. But the former links between the Democrat Party and the PAD started this whole process of street politics off in the first place. Even though the links between the Democrats and the PAD may not be existing anymore, there still is the matter between the highly political position of the military and their links.

Yes, Democracy has been diminishing rapidly in Thailand. Things though began being unleashed by the Democrat's Party's decision to ally itself with the PAD back in early 2006, instead of biding its time.

Naturally the Red Shirt media is not objective or neutral. Neither was the majority of the state media (not under Thaksin, and even less so after the coup). We are in the middle of a massive social conflict that has its roots long before Thaksin appeared on the political scene, and in which Thaksin is but one of many factors.

In hindsight that the Democrats did not criticise the coup has been a disaster not only for them but for the country. They didnt even have to demonstrate against it, just make clear they didnt support it and wouldnt use it to take any position in power. In hindsight they would also have been well advised to have forced an election two years ago instead of taking the reigns of power in the manner they did. And still apart from the public nobody is really calling the Democrats out for the part they have played in the whole mess. And no doubt on August 6 they will reselect Abhisit to great cheers from the PTP and red movement

Another point re the reds is that while much is made of what they do wrong and how bad they are, and in such a way that everybody in the whole country hears it, they still command massive and from what I see growing support among the people. It seems what the establishment says is now ignored and what they want deliberately gone against.

If k. Thaksin hadn't bent rules in selling the families shares in Shinawatra Holdings without paying taxes, if he hadn't been more than 'Amply Rich and therefor without a need to be corrupt', if he hadn't prolonged his care-taker PMship beyond the legal limit, even retaken it without royal consent, if he hadn't tried to demolish all checks and balances and tried to put his family members and other 'trusted' people in key positions, there would most likely never have been a coup.

As for Dem's speaking out against the coup in September 2006, they did but maybe not in the loud voice as we come to expect from others like the UDD.

"Later that year, he opposed the military when it overthrew Mr Thaksin in a coup.

"We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it is done. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out the reforms they promised," he said at the time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13298394

[Siam Simon]

In hindsight that the Democrats did not criticise the coup has been a disaster not only for them but for the country. They didnt even have to demonstrate against it, just make clear they didnt support it and wouldnt use it to take any position in power. In hindsight they would also have been well advised to have forced an election two years ago instead of taking the reigns of power in the manner they did. And still apart from the public nobody is really calling the Democrats out for the part they have played in the whole mess. And no doubt on August 6 they will reselect Abhisit to great cheers from the PTP and red movement

Another point re the reds is that while much is made of what they do wrong and how bad they are, and in such a way that everybody in the whole country hears it, they still command massive and from what I see growing support among the people. It seems what the establishment says is now ignored and what they want deliberately gone against.

If k. Thaksin hadn't bent rules in selling the families shares in Shinawatra Holdings without paying taxes, if he hadn't been more than 'Amply Rich and therefor without a need to be corrupt', if he hadn't prolonged his care-taker PMship beyond the legal limit, even retaken it without royal consent, if he hadn't tried to demolish all checks and balances and tried to put his family members and other 'trusted' people in key positions, there would most likely never have been a coup.

As for Dem's speaking out against the coup in September 2006, they did but maybe not in the loud voice as we come to expect from others like the UDD.

"Later that year, he opposed the military when it overthrew Mr Thaksin in a coup.

"We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it is done. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out the reforms they promised," he said at the time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13298394

Impressive words from an impressive speaker. I remember them well.

And the military did return the mandate to the people, albeit under martial law in large swathes of Isaan. Then a Thaksin-allied government was formed, much to the surprise and dismay of the military and their backers. Then we had the PAD running rampage through Greater Bangkok, with an incompetent and ill-equipped police force trying to contain them, and the military and it's backers supporting them. The constitutional government was disbanded by a legal decision that was hurried forward a week. Instead of having a new general election, we had a new alignment of groupings that was brokered at army barracks by the army chief of staff where potential coalition partners mere made to sleep on an 'offer' to join a 'recommended' coalition without any direct access to the world beyond their hotel rooms. Thus, we had a government cobbled together fronted by a couple of forward-thinking politicians (who were supposed to be the 'acceptable face' but were regularly undermined by their own side) plus the usual dodgy supporting cast.

Fast forward to now, and has anything got better? IMO no, except, as Hammered keeps pointing out, the lower classes keep bravely and defiantly sticking two fingers up at extra-constitutional interference and anybody associated with it.

Further offtopic, sorry, Uncle Rubl, but it's an interesting offtopic, isn't it?

[whybother]

Impressive words from an impressive speaker. I remember them well.

And the military did return the mandate to the people, albeit under martial law in large swathes of Isaan. Then a Thaksin-allied government was formed, much to the surprise and dismay of the military and their backers. Then we had the PAD running rampage through Greater Bangkok, with an incompetent and ill-equipped police force trying to contain them, and the military and it's backers supporting them. The constitutional government was disbanded by a legal decision that was hurried forward a week. Instead of having a new general election, we had a new alignment of groupings that was brokered at army barracks by the army chief of staff where potential coalition partners mere made to sleep on an 'offer' to join a 'recommended' coalition without any direct access to the world beyond their hotel rooms. Thus, we had a government cobbled together fronted by a couple of forward-thinking politicians (who were supposed to be the 'acceptable face' but were regularly undermined by their own side) plus the usual dodgy supporting cast.

Fast forward to now, and has anything got better? IMO no, except, as Hammered keeps pointing out, the lower classes keep bravely and defiantly sticking two fingers up at extra-constitutional interference and anybody associated with it.

Further offtopic, sorry, Uncle Rubl, but it's an interesting offtopic, isn't it?

"Instead of having a new general election"

Given that the PTP (ex-PPP) were still in power after the PPP execs were banned, wasn't the PTP's acting-PM in a position to call an election, rather than going to the standard parliamentary vote to elect a new PM?

[rixalex]

Additionally - the military coup, even though then bloodless, was an act of violence, and at the time illegal and unconstitutional. The military even had to get in the new constitution an amnesty written in (it beats me though what an amnesty has to do in an constitution).

That the military has underestimated the loyalty of the electorate to Thaksin, their chosen Prime Minister, and overestimated their abilities to rule Thailand through their appointed government, should be clear by now as well.

With regards the public's feeling on the coup and their loyalty to Thaksin, i refer you back to a point i made earlier in this thread:

Not the first time you have mentioned your belief that the coup was in part what fuelled red protesters' violent acts in 2009 and 2010. My question to you is, if these people really felt so personally and so emotionally outraged at the staging of the coup to the point of it driving them to shooting, throwing bombs and setting light to things, how did they manage to hold these feelings in at the actual time the coup took place? Surely this would have been the natural time to express their feelings, no?

Granted, there may not have been the time to protest in an organised fashion, but i put it to you that if people are genuinely outraged by what the state does, what happens is that people take it upon themselves, on impulse, to leave their homes and take to the streets right there and then, immediately, they don't leave it 36 months and then get angry.

Delayed reaction? Yeah right. More like contrived reaction. A man with his own ulterior motives and in need of a cause that looks a bit more noble and altruistic than simply an attempt at winning back power and money he feels he is owed, just about sums it up.

So, tell me, why did not a single person take to the streets when the tanks rolled out in 2006?

I repeat again, if people were so against the coup and so loyal to Thaksin, why did not a soul step out onto the streets in 2006?

[rubl]

If k. Thaksin hadn't bent rules in selling the families shares in Shinawatra Holdings without paying taxes, if he hadn't been more than 'Amply Rich and therefor without a need to be corrupt', if he hadn't prolonged his care-taker PMship beyond the legal limit, even retaken it without royal consent, if he hadn't tried to demolish all checks and balances and tried to put his family members and other 'trusted' people in key positions, there would most likely never have been a coup.

As for Dem's speaking out against the coup in September 2006, they did but maybe not in the loud voice as we come to expect from others like the UDD.

"Later that year, he opposed the military when it overthrew Mr Thaksin in a coup.

"We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it is done. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out the reforms they promised," he said at the time."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13298394

Impressive words from an impressive speaker. I remember them well.

And the military did return the mandate to the people, albeit under martial law in large swathes of Isaan. Then a Thaksin-allied government was formed, much to the surprise and dismay of the military and their backers. Then we had the PAD running rampage through Greater Bangkok, with an incompetent and ill-equipped police force trying to contain them, and the military and it's backers supporting them. The constitutional government was disbanded by a legal decision that was hurried forward a week. Instead of having a new general election, we had a new alignment of groupings that was brokered at army barracks by the army chief of staff where potential coalition partners mere made to sleep on an 'offer' to join a 'recommended' coalition without any direct access to the world beyond their hotel rooms. Thus, we had a government cobbled together fronted by a couple of forward-thinking politicians (who were supposed to be the 'acceptable face' but were regularly undermined by their own side) plus the usual dodgy supporting cast.

Fast forward to now, and has anything got better? IMO no, except, as Hammered keeps pointing out, the lower classes keep bravely and defiantly sticking two fingers up at extra-constitutional interference and anybody associated with it.

Further offtopic, sorry, Uncle Rubl, but it's an interesting offtopic, isn't it?

The part on k. Abhisit was not really important, just a correction on 'The Dem's didn't say anything'.

The important part was on 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved?'. no answer there.

As for the 'PAD rampage through Greater Bangkok', I'm confused. You mean the 'red-shirt rampage through Greater Bangkok in 2010' or just the 'Black songkhran fun in 2009'? 2008 the PAD protested against clear and confirmed Thaksin-proxy governments which only tried one thing 'bring back Thaksin' and ignored other important issues in Thailand. The PAD protest was not really against the elected MP's and government itself.

Anyway, with the PAD we never had 'Chaos in Zen'

[nicknostitz]

I repeat again, if people were so against the coup and so loyal to Thaksin, why did not a soul step out onto the streets in 2006?

Well, but they did step out onto the streets and did protests.

What do you think i have done all along 2006 and 2007?

I photographed the protests.

They protested peacefully (apart from the 2007 Si Sao Thewet Clash), and nobody paid any attention other than discrediting them as Thaksin's hirelings. Media has mostly ignored the protests, and/or massively under-reported the numbers of protesters.

[nicknostitz]

The part on k. Abhisit was not really important, just a correction on 'The Dem's didn't say anything'.

The important part was on 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved?'. no answer there.

As for the 'PAD rampage through Greater Bangkok', I'm confused. You mean the 'red-shirt rampage through Greater Bangkok in 2010' or just the 'Black songkhran fun in 2009'? 2008 the PAD protested against clear and confirmed Thaksin-proxy governments which only tried one thing 'bring back Thaksin' and ignored other important issues in Thailand. The PAD protest was not really against the elected MP's and government itself.

Anyway, with the PAD we never had 'Chaos in Zen'

Whatever Thaksin has or has not done - it still is no excuse or justification for a military coup.

With PAD we may not have had Chaos in Zen, but we had Chaos at many other places. That chaos caused by the PAD in 2008 is a major contributing factor in the escalation process that led to Songkran 2009 and 2010. Both incidents the PAD has played some role as well, and so did some of the PAD fighters. Not just the Red Shirts have extremely violent elements...

[rubl]

The part on k. Abhisit was not really important, just a correction on 'The Dem's didn't say anything'.

The important part was on 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved?'. no answer there.

As for the 'PAD rampage through Greater Bangkok', I'm confused. You mean the 'red-shirt rampage through Greater Bangkok in 2010' or just the 'Black songkhran fun in 2009'? 2008 the PAD protested against clear and confirmed Thaksin-proxy governments which only tried one thing 'bring back Thaksin' and ignored other important issues in Thailand. The PAD protest was not really against the elected MP's and government itself.

Anyway, with the PAD we never had 'Chaos in Zen'

Whatever Thaksin has or has not done - it still is no excuse or justification for a military coup.

With PAD we may not have had Chaos in Zen, but we had Chaos at many other places. That chaos caused by the PAD in 2008 is a major contributing factor in the escalation process that led to Songkran 2009 and 2010. Both incidents the PAD has played some role as well, and so did some of the PAD fighters. Not just the Red Shirts have extremely violent elements...

True, the PAD and probably the NPF part by now, has militant elements. Maybe less so, maybe less need, who knows.

Still the PAD really started with Thaksin proxy governments. The activities in 2006 were against Thaksin's Amply Rich activities, 'we can rule for 20 years' and so. So k. Thaksin is to blame for PAD rising, coup, proxy-governments, k. Abhisit, 2010 protests and 91 deaths. Same reasoning.

IMHO if our forefathers hadn't fumbled around with some Neanderthalers we might had had a more friendly DNA setup

[rixalex]

I repeat again, if people were so against the coup and so loyal to Thaksin, why did not a soul step out onto the streets in 2006?

Well, but they did step out onto the streets and did protests.

What do you think i have done all along 2006 and 2007?

I photographed the protests.

They protested peacefully (apart from the 2007 Si Sao Thewet Clash), and nobody paid any attention other than discrediting them as Thaksin's hirelings. Media has mostly ignored the protests, and/or massively under-reported the numbers of protesters.

I'm talking about at the actual time of the coup taking place. The only people i recall taking to the streets then were those who went to give flowers to the soldiers. Where was all this genuine and personal outrage at the coup, and loyalty to Thaksin then?

It's easy to stage an event. Anyone with money can do it. But how much do we know about the feelings of those who attend? Not half as much as the people who without prompting, without instruction and without organisation, take to the streets. If all you say is true, it's what should have happened on Tuesday 19th September 2006. It didn't and it seems you have no answer why not.

[nicknostitz]

I'm talking about at the actual time of the coup taking place. The only people i recall taking to the streets then were those who went to give flowers to the soldiers. Where was all this genuine and personal outrage at the coup, and loyalty to Thaksin then?

It's easy to stage an event. Anyone with money can do it. But how much do we know about the feelings of those who attend? Not half as much as the people who without prompting, without instruction and without organisation, take to the streets. If all you say is true, it's what should have happened on Tuesday 19th September 2006. It didn't and it seems you have no answer why not.

If you go back in Thai history, you can see that rarely the coups itself are violent. Violence comes in the aftermath, one way or the other. It is also part of the Thai collective conscience that the Thai military has in the past slaughtered protesters on several occasions, the most recent incident was May '92.

Most of Thaksin's supporters were taken by surprise and had no contingency plans, they had hardly any protest organization in place back then. Others, who came from a anti-Thaksin background, but refused to participate in the PAD due to this groups ultra-royalist and ultra-nationalist stand only became active after the coup. And the ones with experience knew better than calling up their people to fight tanks with their bare hands.

Yes, of course there were people handing flowers to the military. Many were genuinely in favor of the coup, and not a few were family members of soldiers. And then, there was Numthong, the taxi driver, who drove his taxi into one of the tanks, and then, shortly after released from hospital, he hung himself in protest. Many reports described him as mentally ill, but for this he has left a very lucid letter, and also a longish tape in which he explained his action and political position and reasons.

Now the UDD has incredibly good organizational structures, and i am quite sure that in case of a future military coup, you would see very different scenes on the streets.

Back then what is now a extremely well organized protest group were common people that exercised their right to vote, and did not think of ever going to the streets and protest. They just voted and made a normal living.

People need a focus. Soon the focus was given by initially small groups, and increasing attendance as word spread around. Organizational structures were built, and the rest is history.

One of the biggest failures by both the media and the academic world was ignoring the early anti-coup protests to the most part, for exactly the reasons you have described in your post. Most were under the impression that these were only a few malcontents, and that this will trickle out over time. At the time i have not thought of ever writing blog articles, but i was there all the time. Already then i was fascinated by these protests, and guessed that this will develop into massive changes in Thai society. I am planning to publish either as a separate book, or as part of a book, a more detailed account of that era than i managed to do in my first volume, and including also photos i have taken back then.

[nicknostitz]

True, the PAD and probably the NPF part by now, has militant elements. Maybe less so, maybe less need, who knows.

Still the PAD really started with Thaksin proxy governments. The activities in 2006 were against Thaksin's Amply Rich activities, 'we can rule for 20 years' and so. So k. Thaksin is to blame for PAD rising, coup, proxy-governments, k. Abhisit, 2010 protests and 91 deaths. Same reasoning.

IMHO if our forefathers hadn't fumbled around with some Neanderthalers we might had had a more friendly DNA setup

You are quite wrong there about the development of the PAD. The height of the PAD's popular support has been before the coup. That was when they reached the highest number of protesters (yet never as high as the PAD and sympathetic media sources claimed). When the PAD protested in 2008 many people that have supported the PAD in 2006 have distanced themselves from the PAD, and the numbers dwindled radically, yet their actions turned far more radical and extremist, as their speeches on the stages were as well. What they coud not reach then in numbers of genuine protesters anymore, was made up by people sent in by Democrat Party networks and the military.

Already in 2006 many people supporting the PAD had huge problems with the PAD's decision to adopt Sondhi and Chamlong's ultra-royalist stand. They still continued as part of the PAD as they saw it then that there was no alternative opposition to Thaksin. They have not protested though in favor of a military coup, and were disgusted in the main leader's pro coup position, and refused to join in in 2008. Under the UDD protesters you will find quite a few people that were in 2006 PAD protesters. Some left before the coup, such as Dr Weng, and many others after the coup.

[rixalex]

If you go back in Thai history, you can see that rarely the coups itself are violent. Violence comes in the aftermath, one way or the other. It is also part of the Thai collective conscience that the Thai military has in the past slaughtered protesters on several occasions, the most recent incident was May '92.

Here you seem to be saying that Thai coups are usually not violent, but then go on to imply that perhaps fear of violence kept people indoors. Putting that contradiction to one side, if fear was behind the reason nobody came out, it certainly didn't seem an obstacle in 2009 and 2010 when the government told people that the protest areas were dangerous places to be and to stay home.

Most of Thaksin's supporters were taken by surprise and had no contingency plans, they had hardly any protest organization in place back then.

You are missing the point. Genuine outrage felt by the public does not require planning to be expressed. It just happens spontaneously.

Now the UDD has incredibly good organizational structures, and i am quite sure that in case of a future military coup, you would see very different scenes on the streets.

As already stated, yes, staging events is easy.

As to whether the UDD would be more active in case of another military coup, i would suggest that would depend on whether the coup was to their benefit or not. I think in the midst of all the violence in 2010, had the army stepped in and said, ok, enough, Dems you step down, we'll take over for the next few months, and then there will be fresh elections, as was quite a likely outcome at one point, i suggest to you that the UDD would have had no problem with this at all. In fact i think most of the reds would have been dancing in the streets.

[nicknostitz]

If you go back in Thai history, you can see that rarely the coups itself are violent. Violence comes in the aftermath, one way or the other. It is also part of the Thai collective conscience that the Thai military has in the past slaughtered protesters on several occasions, the most recent incident was May '92.

Here you seem to be saying that Thai coups are usually not violent, but then go on to imply that perhaps fear of violence kept people indoors. Putting that contradiction to one side, if fear was behind the reason nobody came out, it certainly didn't seem an obstacle in 2009 and 2010 when the government told people that the protest areas were dangerous places to be and to stay home.

Most of Thaksin's supporters were taken by surprise and had no contingency plans, they had hardly any protest organization in place back then.

You are missing the point. Genuine outrage felt by the public does not require planning to be expressed. It just happens spontaneously.

Now the UDD has incredibly good organizational structures, and i am quite sure that in case of a future military coup, you would see very different scenes on the streets.

As already stated, yes, staging events is easy.

As to whether the UDD would be more active in case of another military coup, i would suggest that would depend on whether the coup was to their benefit or not. I think in the midst of all the violence in 2010, had the army stepped in and said, ok, enough, Dems you step down, we'll take over for the next few months, and then there will be fresh elections, as was quite a likely outcome at one point, i suggest to you that the UDD would have had no problem with this at all. In fact i think most of the reds would have been dancing in the streets.

You are under the mistaken impression that the only genuine protests are protests that happen spontaneously. Sorry, but that may happen in a Hollywood movie, but not in reality. Sometimes large protest movements make it appear that such a protest is spontaneous, obfuscating the organizational structures in the background, for a variety of reasons. The difference between September 19,, 2006, and 2009 and 2010 was that by that time the UDD has established increasingly sophisticated organizational structures and communication lines.

I think you should spend some time with large protests groups in order to understand the mechanics of and the complex organization behind large scale and continued protests.

The what if scenario you described, that the military could have staged a coup in favor of the Reds was about as unlikely as me winning the lottery. Since Prem's infamous jockey speech back in 2006 the military has replaced all Thaksin loyalists in direct command of troops at regional, divisional, regimental and battalion level with his opponents, and sent these Thaksin loyalists into the desert. You cannot stage a coup without the support of certain key regiments and divisions. With that they have also upset a careful balance between the different factions in the military, and the now overwhelming force of Burapa Payak officers has led to even more frictions inside the barracks.

Edited July 30, 2011 by nicknostitz

[jdinasia]

I have been following Nick's reasoning and I can say that my opinions haven't changed. He presents everything through red-hued glasses in my estimation. All the responsibility falls on those that oppose the reds and none appears to fall on Thaksin or the reds themselves. He tells himself that it is Thaksin's overwhelming popularity that is the crux of the issue and not the wholesale purchase of regional political machines that voted how they were told. He blames the coup but doesn't see what led to it. He calls the coup 'violent'. It certainly wasn't. He blames all the media for under-reporting the redshirt numbers. (All but him I guess.)

[rixalex]

You are under the mistaken impression that the only genuine protests are protests that happen spontaneously.

I wouldn't say that only genuine protests are those that happen spontaneously, i would say that those that do happen spontaneously have a motivation and drive which is harder to question, and i remain unable to understand why all this outrage at the coup and loyalty to Thaksin that you speak of was not in any evidence whatsoever at the most obvious time one would expect to see it, ie at the time the coup occured and at the time Thaksin was booted out.

The what if scenario you described, that the military could have staged a coup in favor of the Reds was about as unlikely as me winning the lottery. Since Prem's infamous jockey speech back in 2006 the military has replaced all Thaksin loyalists in direct command of troops at regional, divisional, regimental and battalion level with his opponents, and sent these Thaksin loyalists into the desert. You cannot stage a coup without the support of certain key regiments and divisions. With that they have also upset a careful balance between the different factions in the military, and the now overwhelming force of Burapa Payak officers has led to even more frictions inside the barracks.

I don't agree with your comments on the likelihood of a coup at the time of the 2010 protests, but if we accept your notion that it simply would not have happened, we surely can not dispute the fact that the intention of the reds was to get the government to stand down by use of force. I don't see this action as being that far removed from a military coup. Do you? And this is what the UDD was so fundamentally opposed to? No. Not buying. Fundamentally opposed to it if it goes against their interests more like. No different from the Democrats.

[jayboy]

the wholesale purchase of regional political machines that voted how they were told.

I wonder whether he can explain exactly what he means by this, and how precisely this "accounts for" Thaksin's popularity at the polls.He often refers to this but I strongly suspect it is really a muddled understanding of "patronage networks".I think most forum members have a reasonable idea how patronage networks operate in Thailand but it would be instructive to know in this member's view how this translated into Thaksin's dominance at the polls.

[nicknostitz]

I have been following Nick's reasoning and I can say that my opinions haven't changed. He presents everything through red-hued glasses in my estimation. All the responsibility falls on those that oppose the reds and none appears to fall on Thaksin or the reds themselves. He tells himself that it is Thaksin's overwhelming popularity that is the crux of the issue and not the wholesale purchase of regional political machines that voted how they were told. He blames the coup but doesn't see what led to it. He calls the coup 'violent'. It certainly wasn't. He blames all the media for under-reporting the redshirt numbers. (All but him I guess.)

In your view my arguments may be red-hued glasses - i prefer to say that i have no yellow-hued glasses, and therefore have a slightly more clear vision, also helped by the fact that there is possibly not one single reporter - Thai or farang - existing who has spent more time in more protests here of all sides than i have (two Thai Rath journalists have spend nearly as much time in the protests, one has mostly stopped now after the dispersal, and the other one's duty was more at stages than on front lines)

The wholesale purchase of existing election networks happened before the 2001 elections. At the time of the 2005 election his popularity surpassed the need for those networks - a popularity that was based on fulfilled promises to the electorate, and not because of regular and polemic accusation of "vote buying". Whatever fiddling Thaksin has done with the system, it was not really beyond what is quite normal in the Thai semi-democracies.

The coup though was a chasm that really has set things in motion. What led to the coup was less "Thaksin's abuses of the system", but long held aspirations by military and establishment to regain the influence they once had, riding on the coattail of popular and partly justified protests of the PAD (though what was not justified by the PAD were their ultra-royalist proposed solutions). Another influence was paranoia over Thaksin's popularity - in the Thai system politicians are not to be popular, they are to be seen as a necessary evil that should not be given too much power as the old pyramid is supposed to run this country - military, bureaucracy and judiciary.

At the time there were many possible solutions without resorting to a coup. The 2006 elections, if they would not have been boycotted, would have resulted again in a functioning opposition in parliament. TRT was already in the process of internal collapse, increasing amounts power players have already left TRT, or were in the process of leaving TRT. The conspiracy theories at the time i ignore, as i do generally with conspiracy theories, theories such as that Thaksin was planning to become president, that Thaksin was planning to become the next Hitler - there is no evidence whatsoever.

A military coup is per se violent - a violent overthrow of the system. Yes, the local media under the coup massively under-reported numbers, and the international media was not interested anymore after the coup did not not result in bloodshed. And no - i have not reported the real numbers at the time, as i was not thinking of writing any articles - in blogs or in traditional media. I only began writing about the crisis in summer 2008 - and i had no idea that these articles would make me such a controversial figure here, and would lead to a series of books. I just thought that i will write articles from what was happening on ground level for a small website and a more academically oriented readership.

But i was there then, back in 2005/2006/2007, on the ground, and so were other respected journalists, maybe not as regular, but nevertheless - enough to have seen what i have seen.

You can doubt my statements as much as you want, but can you point out in any of my books or articles that i have misrepresented facts? You may not agree with my analyses, but my facts (on which my analyses is based) are researched according to proper journalistic procedere - that means corroboration of facts, processes to verify information received, and basically - what i have seen on the ground.

[rubl]

The part on k. Abhisit was not really important, just a correction on 'The Dem's didn't say anything'.

The important part was on 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved?'. no answer there.

As for the 'PAD rampage through Greater Bangkok', I'm confused. You mean the 'red-shirt rampage through Greater Bangkok in 2010' or just the 'Black songkhran fun in 2009'? 2008 the PAD protested against clear and confirmed Thaksin-proxy governments which only tried one thing 'bring back Thaksin' and ignored other important issues in Thailand. The PAD protest was not really against the elected MP's and government itself.

Anyway, with the PAD we never had 'Chaos in Zen'

Whatever Thaksin has or has not done - it still is no excuse or justification for a military coup.

With PAD we may not have had Chaos in Zen, but we had Chaos at many other places. That chaos caused by the PAD in 2008 is a major contributing factor in the escalation process that led to Songkran 2009 and 2010. Both incidents the PAD has played some role as well, and so did some of the PAD fighters. Not just the Red Shirts have extremely violent elements...

Sorry to have been a bit sidetracked here, but my original question 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved' is not answered. I must admit it's not the easiest of questions. Too many ifs. Still might we have had a more gradual evolution of Thailand, politics, entitlement? Maybe even no coup, no Chaos at Zen?

Just to put forward again:

"If k. Thaksin hadn't bent rules in selling the families shares in Shinawatra Holdings without paying taxes, if he hadn't been more than 'Amply Rich and therefor without a need to be corrupt', if he hadn't prolonged his care-taker PMship beyond the legal limit, even retaken it without royal consent, if he hadn't tried to demolish all checks and balances and tried to put his family members and other 'trusted' people in key positions, there would most likely never have been a coup."

[rubl]

At the time there were many possible solutions without resorting to a coup. The 2006 elections, if they would not have been boycotted, would have resulted again in a functioning opposition in parliament. TRT was already in the process of internal collapse, increasing amounts power players have already left TRT, or were in the process of leaving TRT. The conspiracy theories at the time i ignore, as i do generally with conspiracy theories, theories such as that Thaksin was planning to become president, that Thaksin was planning to become the next Hitler - there is no evidence whatsoever.

To compare k. Thaksin with Hitler is indeed incorrect except for the way the democratic system was misused to get or try to get a one-party system. A more modern and less controversial comparision might be President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

As for coup versus 'wait and see', difficult, difficult. Both were bound to cause problems. With k. Thaksin's 'we will rule for twenty years' (or was it ten only?) wait and see might have caused more longterm problems. One thing I know for sure. How this question is answered depends on views more than facts. To put this in a somewhat humorous context, read this about the USA debt-limit issue:

""Sarah Palin said that if a deal isn't reached by Aug. 2, nothing will happen. Do you hear that, award-winning economists?" –Jimmy Kimmel"

Edited July 30, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

Sorry to have been a bit sidetracked here, but my original question 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved' is not answered. I must admit it's not the easiest of questions.

Behaved in which sense?

Some of what Thaksin has done was not very nice, to say the least. During some of those things almost all quarters have collaborated, even and especially his later opponents. Some of what Thaksin has done may have been very bad behavior according to Thai elitist politics, but where the things that had to be done.

I would suggest you to have a chat with some of the high powered of this country. Quite interesting views you here there about Thaksin's corruption. They don't really have much of a problem with the corruption per se (and have initially profited greatly from Thaksin), but what really pisses them off that Thaksin cut them out of the endless gravy trail, and allowed his people to benefit. And my experience is that local corruption under Thaksin actually went down quite a bit - in the villages i am familiar with many things such land offices and such suddenly began working quite efficiently.

Quite funny (or sad, however you want to take it) - just before the military coup where we have our house upcountry a asphalt road was being built. At the time of the coup the asphalt road was just 500 meters away from our house. Well, that is where it still ends. At least the coup makers could have waited for the month or so until the road has reached our house!

What constitutes "good behavior" here in Thailand is at times bewildering. What enrages many rabid anti-Thaksin posters i see here on this forum, doesn't phase many of Thaksin's high powered opponents the least bit - such as the drug war killings, for example, in which they have more than actively collaborated. Don't forget that Thaksin became a bit too popular a politician is allowed to in Thailand...

[Crushdepth]

The part on k. Abhisit was not really important, just a correction on 'The Dem's didn't say anything'.

The important part was on 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved?'. no answer there.

As for the 'PAD rampage through Greater Bangkok', I'm confused. You mean the 'red-shirt rampage through Greater Bangkok in 2010' or just the 'Black songkhran fun in 2009'? 2008 the PAD protested against clear and confirmed Thaksin-proxy governments which only tried one thing 'bring back Thaksin' and ignored other important issues in Thailand. The PAD protest was not really against the elected MP's and government itself.

Anyway, with the PAD we never had 'Chaos in Zen'

Whatever Thaksin has or has not done - it still is no excuse or justification for a military coup.

With PAD we may not have had Chaos in Zen, but we had Chaos at many other places. That chaos caused by the PAD in 2008 is a major contributing factor in the escalation process that led to Songkran 2009 and 2010. Both incidents the PAD has played some role as well, and so did some of the PAD fighters. Not just the Red Shirts have extremely violent elements...

Sorry to have been a bit sidetracked here, but my original question 'what if k. Thaksin had behaved' is not answered. I must admit it's not the easiest of questions. Too many ifs. Still might we have had a more gradual evolution of Thailand, politics, entitlement? Maybe even no coup, no Chaos at Zen?

Just to put forward again:

"If k. Thaksin hadn't bent rules in selling the families shares in Shinawatra Holdings without paying taxes, if he hadn't been more than 'Amply Rich and therefor without a need to be corrupt', if he hadn't prolonged his care-taker PMship beyond the legal limit, even retaken it without royal consent, if he hadn't tried to demolish all checks and balances and tried to put his family members and other 'trusted' people in key positions, there would most likely never have been a coup."

I pretty much agree with that. The coup wasn't done for the hell of it, it was a reaction to some serious problems. Had Thaksin and his government respected the bounds of office I very much doubt the coup would have occurred.

But since he didn't, its hypothetical.

[metisdead]

Removed a post that insinuated another member was paid to post. If you have any actual evidence please forward it to support. If it's just a lame debating tactic, further references like that may find you without posting rights.

Removed some off topic baiting posts and replies as well.

[jdinasia]

I pretty much agree with that. The coup wasn't done for the hell of it, it was a reaction to some serious problems. Had Thaksin and his government respected the bounds of office I very much doubt the coup would have occurred.

But since he didn't, its hypothetical.

This is what Nick entirely ignores. Lots of speculation etc etc ... but simply the situation arose from Thaksin's abuses. He thought that after buying up the regional power families and thus the vote, that he could act any way he chose to. The Dems called him on it leading to the failed elections. Thaksin quitting. Thaksin returning. The coup then followed.

We have a few more days to see how this election plays out ... maybe longer if things get kicked up to the Constitutional court level and the reds stay quiet and don't attack the EC.

[nicknostitz]

This is what Nick entirely ignores. Lots of speculation etc etc ... but simply the situation arose from Thaksin's abuses. He thought that after buying up the regional power families and thus the vote, that he could act any way he chose to. The Dems called him on it leading to the failed elections. Thaksin quitting. Thaksin returning. The coup then followed.

We have a few more days to see how this election plays out ... maybe longer if things get kicked up to the Constitutional court level and the reds stay quiet and don't attack the EC.

Actually, i haven't ignored this point at all - i have made several posts concerning the points raised. I just do not agree with the view as it does not take the particular Thai complexities into account.