It Didn't Take Long For The Deep Divide To Show Its Head

[Lite Beer]

EDITORIAL

It didn't take long for the deep divide to show its head

By The Nation

How can the country be reconciled when even the Pheu Thai and its red shirt supporters cannot agree on what comes first - reconciliation or justice?

In a matter of days, the already slim hope for a "reconciliation" regressed drastically even further. The three-day policy debate has done nothing but underline the dangerous acrimony that exists between both sides of the political divide. Attacks on student activists in front of Parliament and online threats against a TV reporter told those who believed the political fight was now safely back on the House floor they were badly mistaken. And last but not least, we have had an Appeals Court ruling that reminds everyone that simple legal issues that somehow managed to serve as a catalyst for a detrimental ideological showdown have not gone anywhere.

In between, Thaksin Shinawatra flew into Japan for an engagement that served nobody but himself.

England is allegedly his next big plan. The July 3 general election results are being capitalised on with a vengeance. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, his dearest young sister, has found it nearly impossible to convince the public that her focus is firmly on truly national affairs, with the man's shadow looming over most things that her government has touched to date.

Controversial election pledges - a Bt300 daily minimum wage, a Bt15,000 starting salary for new university graduates and abolition of the Oil Fund - have been somewhat downgraded to some things that would be implemented selectively or require new studies. The Yingluck government, however, did not backtrack on the most dangerous campaign promise of them all. The plan to amend the Constitution in order to achieve "peace and reconciliation", we have heard, remains a priority.

For a political party that always gives much importance to opinion polls, Pheu Thai has puzzled everyone with its total ignorance of recent surveys that showed a vast majority of Thais believed that charter amendment now would cause nothing but trouble. Yingluck has not helped matters by always being vague on how an "amnesty" can be carried out. Her silence might have been a good election campaign strategy. With Yingluck now leading a government, every time she declines to be specific about an "amnesty", people see her big brother's shadow over her head.

Nobody had expected Yingluck to have a smooth ride. But recent developments threaten to put her on a slippery slope really early. To be fair to the world's youngest female prime minister, most of the things that have been happening are beyond her control. She has always been warned against using her power to help Thaksin, but it has become obvious that such warnings were irrelevant. It's Thaksin who must come to his senses, or nothing else will matter.

How can Thailand be reconciled? Even Pheu Thai and its red-shirt supporters cannot agree on what should come first between "reconciliation" and "justice". Many say reconciliation and justice are the same thing. Some say reconciliation is impossible without justice. It's easy to say such things. Far more difficult is agreeing on whether, say, justice has been served in Thaksin's Ratchadaphisek land case.

A major role reversal is going on. It's a different game now for Pheu Thai and its supporters. Sometimes being "victims" is easier because you don't have to bother with that tricky thing called "power". And the transition is not easy. If red-shirt protesters had attacked student activists working for "the other camp" months ago, it would have been perceived differently. At least it's not the same as seeing men in red shirts assaulting a student protesting House Speaker Somsak Kiatsuranont the other day. And for a political movement that purportedly holds dear freedom of expression, the red shirts should denounce an online hatred campaign against a TV reporter.

Election is not democracy. Election is a people's decision to marry democracy. What's more important is how to keep the marriage going. Pheu Thai, like the Democrats before them, face the danger of making it all look like power changing hands and nothing more or nothing less. Democracy did not win on July 3. Pheu Thai did. It's what happens next that will determine progress or regress as far as democracy is concerned. After the past few days, it has to be said, things aren't so promising.

-- The Nation 2011-08-28

[mca]

In the interests of impartiality ( and not condoning the Red Shirts actions in any way whatsoever ) I wish the media would stop referring to them as "student activists" That conveys a whole different meaning regarding the blokes who got attacked.

I graduated over 20 years ago and hardly consider myself a student.

I see from another report the somebody from the Dems is referring to them as students as well.

For sure deal with the Red Shirts who assaulted this pair. No matter their agenda be it a simple protest or something deeper it's their undeniable right to do it without being attacked.

But calling them students conjures up images from from Thailand's deep dark past that could possibly fan the flames and lead to another shitstorm for LOS.

Of course it's a possibility that's what some parties want....

Edited August 28, 2011 by mca

[Buchholz]

The plan to amend the Constitution in order to achieve "peace and reconciliation", we have heard, remains a priority.

while one of the pre-election misdirections was...

Thaksin Amnesty 'Not Top Priority'

it was not the only one, the misrepresentation of a laundry list of promises which are also now falling by the wayside...

,

Edited August 28, 2011 by Buchholz

[OzMick]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

[scorecard]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

Part quote from above:

"Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power............ "

Very interesting analysis, and of course the people doing the intmidation were 12 months ago screaming, demanding, and burning down numerous buildings with their demands for 'democracy and justice'.

In one speech from a main red leader he said words to the effect ' we want democracy in the same quality as seen in many western countries with healthy democracy'. This surely would mean total respect for freedom of speech / the ability to make comment & dissenting comment without fear of intimidation or violence etc.

Why does their other claim of 'no double standards' ring in my ears.

'para military force' Again an interesting choice of words. I have seen /observed the private armies 'owned / operated by' a number of high profile ruthless politicians in the Philippines, they have no hesitation to kill when ordered and parts of the Philippines have become so lawless that these private armies can get away with anything, there is no investigation, nothing!

Once this happens, how do you reverse it?

I hope we are not going down the same path all because of one megalomaniac who can buy whatever he needs to satisfy his own mean ends and has no hesitation to do so, all open and with no conscience whatever.

[Buchholz]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

Well said.

These indicators reflect that efforts are being made to return back to the authoritarian despot days. Back to the time when pledges of remaining in power for 20 years were being made. Back to the days when the actions of the government mirrored those of Marcos, who did remain in power for 20 years plus.

.

.

.

[hanuman1]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

[rametindallas]

In the interests of impartiality ( and not condoning the Red Shirts actions in any way whatsoever ) I wish the media would stop referring to them as "student activists" That conveys a whole different meaning regarding the blokes who got attacked.

I graduated over 20 years ago and hardly consider myself a student.

I see from another report the somebody from the Dems is referring to them as students as well.

For sure deal with the Red Shirts who assaulted this pair. No matter their agenda be it a simple protest or something deeper it's their undeniable right to do it without being attacked.

But calling them students conjures up images from from Thailand's deep dark past that could possibly fan the flames and lead to another shitstorm for LOS.

Of course it's a possibility that's what some parties want....

I don't think they were even 'activists'. When have they protested before? The reporters are out to get arise out of people and cause more division in society. That being said, whether they were students or not or activists or not is irrelevant. Citizens should be unhindered by thugs hanging around the Parliment building when participatiing in peaceful protests. Talk about your double standards.

[rametindallas]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Really? You think it's funny for thugs to hang around the Parliment building and rough up fellow citizens because you don't agree with them. What kind of humanity is in you?

Edited August 28, 2011 by rametindallas

[whybother]

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Really? You think it's funny for thugs to hang around the Parliment building and rough up fellow citizens because you don't agree with them. What kind of humanity is in you?

They may be thugs, but (in this case) they're hardly paramilitary.

[lannarebirth]

This isn't going to do anything to heal the deep divide. This is what will bring down the government. Use Google to find article of same name at Bangkok Post which is more detailed.

Finance Ministry operation adjusted

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:00:00 GMT

The new finance minister has made a significant change in the way the ministry is run, putting all revenue collection departments under the responsibility of a single deputy minister.

http://www.thephuketnews.com/arc-page.php?id=11822

[Orac]

In the interests of impartiality ( and not condoning the Red Shirts actions in any way whatsoever ) I wish the media would stop referring to them as "student activists" That conveys a whole different meaning regarding the blokes who got attacked.

I graduated over 20 years ago and hardly consider myself a student.

I see from another report the somebody from the Dems is referring to them as students as well.

For sure deal with the Red Shirts who assaulted this pair. No matter their agenda be it a simple protest or something deeper it's their undeniable right to do it without being attacked.

But calling them students conjures up images from from Thailand's deep dark past that could possibly fan the flames and lead to another shitstorm for LOS.

Of course it's a possibility that's what some parties want....

I don't think they were even 'activists'. When have they protested before? The reporters are out to get arise out of people and cause more division in society. That being said, whether they were students or not or activists or not is irrelevant. Citizens should be unhindered by thugs hanging around the Parliment building when participatiing in peaceful protests. Talk about your double standards.

I would agree with you that the reporters concerned seem to be becoming part of the problem here and The Nation has clearly taken an anti government stance. They are still pushing this 'students' being attacked line which is clearly disengenous.

If this had been reported going to the other extreme I am sure they would have been able to generate a different reaction ie.

"A group of patriots outside Government House were quick to react when two individuals disguised as students, after being witnessed talking to a senior anti-goverment leader, were spotted placing a suspect device with a clearly visible timer."

Clearly this is hugely spinning what happenned here but demonstrates the need for the press to be careful that they do not dial up the rhetoric in this volatile situation.

[hanuman1]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Really? You think it's funny for thugs to hang around the Parliment building and rough up fellow citizens because you don't agree with them. What kind of humanity is in you?

The kind of humanity which would humbly, kindly and gently suggest you look up the word 'paramilitary' in the dictionary.

Thanks for asking. Go in peace.

[scorecard]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

[scorecard]

In the interests of impartiality ( and not condoning the Red Shirts actions in any way whatsoever ) I wish the media would stop referring to them as "student activists" That conveys a whole different meaning regarding the blokes who got attacked.

I graduated over 20 years ago and hardly consider myself a student.

I see from another report the somebody from the Dems is referring to them as students as well.

For sure deal with the Red Shirts who assaulted this pair. No matter their agenda be it a simple protest or something deeper it's their undeniable right to do it without being attacked.

But calling them students conjures up images from from Thailand's deep dark past that could possibly fan the flames and lead to another shitstorm for LOS.

Of course it's a possibility that's what some parties want....

I don't think they were even 'activists'. When have they protested before? The reporters are out to get arise out of people and cause more division in society. That being said, whether they were students or not or activists or not is irrelevant. Citizens should be unhindered by thugs hanging around the Parliment building when participatiing in peaceful protests. Talk about your double standards.

I would agree with you that the reporters concerned seem to be becoming part of the problem here and The Nation has clearly taken an anti government stance. They are still pushing this 'students' being attacked line which is clearly disengenous.

If this had been reported going to the other extreme I am sure they would have been able to generate a different reaction ie.

"A group of patriots outside Government House were quick to react when two individuals disguised as students, after being witnessed talking to a senior anti-goverment leader, were spotted placing a suspect device with a clearly visible timer."

Clearly this is hugely spinning what happenned here but demonstrates the need for the press to be careful that they do not dial up the rhetoric in this volatile situation.

I agree that the quality of reporting is lacking in professionalism, giving all the revelant points, etc.

But that doesn't lessen the point of thugs, who are encouraged to do what they do by red shirt leaders = UDD = pt, hanging around the front gate and intimidating people who appear to disagree with the cause of the thug's paymaster.

This should not be allowed regardless of what party is in the driver's seat, where are the police to keep this under control, and to lay charges quickly (where a law has been broken of course)?

[animatic]

It's pretty clear the agenda does not include fairness to anyone not on the PTP Red teams happy to kow tow lists. The taking back of power was mentioned in the article.

This is not about Democracy, that was just the tool, raw naked power is the name of this game, and the typical outcome of mindless, heedless pursuit of raw naked power over others, is war in the streets and anarchy till one side assumes dictatorial power for a time. Sadly democracy is truly dead in Thailand, because the voting process is so suborned and the parliamentary process are so ineptly controled that representative government is a facade and a sham at best.

An utter travesty of the intent of the people.

Edited August 28, 2011 by animatic

[hanuman1]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

[OzMick]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

If you seriously believe that the red shirt movement is not an armed force, despite the dead soldiers and numerous grenade attacks last year, and the number of red shirt members who have been caught with military weapons and/or confessed to using them, then you are seriously mentally imbalanced or suffering serious short term memory loss. Oh, and add in the exploding apartment building.

BTW slingshots, Molotov cocktails and even wooden staves are weapons. If I was a serving soldier and you were to attack me with any one of the three, I would have no qualms about shooting you dead centre of the seen mass, just like the instruction manual recommends it.

Edit:spelling

Edited August 28, 2011 by OzMick

[tlansford]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

"thugs"?

[geriatrickid]

In the interests of impartiality ( and not condoning the Red Shirts actions in any way whatsoever ) I wish the media would stop referring to them as "student activists" That conveys a whole different meaning regarding the blokes who got attacked.

I graduated over 20 years ago and hardly consider myself a student.

I see from another report the somebody from the Dems is referring to them as students as well.

For sure deal with the Red Shirts who assaulted this pair. No matter their agenda be it a simple protest or something deeper it's their undeniable right to do it without being attacked.

But calling them students conjures up images from from Thailand's deep dark past that could possibly fan the flames and lead to another shitstorm for LOS.

Of course it's a possibility that's what some parties want....

I believe that was the intent. Some groups are trying to create divisions. The only group that can benefit from ongoing clashes between redshirts and others are those that wish to sabotage the duly elected government and replace it by another military dictatorship. It is unfortunate that all parties cannot be sent to their respective corners for a cooling off period. As long as troublemakers like these two middle aged men presenting themselves as representing a student group ( a group which does not exist) are encouraged to instigate by some MPs, it encourages the vigilantes to assemble. Ideally, the instigators would be told to stop it and the redshirts would be told to go home and let the government focus on the work at hand.

[tlansford]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

If you seriously believe that the red shirt movement is not an armed force, despite the dead soldiers and numerous grenade attacks last year, and the number of red shirt members who have been caught with military weapons and/or confessed to using them, then you are seriously mentally imbalanced or suffering serious short term memory loss. Oh, and add in the exploding apartment building.

BTW slingshots, Molotov cocktails and even wooden staves are weapons. If I was a serving soldier and you were to attack me with any one of the three, I would have no qualms about shooting you dead centre of the seen mass, just like the instruction manual recommends it.

Edit:spelling

glad you are not a soldier

[OzMick]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless.

[tlansford]

In the interests of impartiality ( and not condoning the Red Shirts actions in any way whatsoever ) I wish the media would stop referring to them as "student activists" That conveys a whole different meaning regarding the blokes who got attacked.

I graduated over 20 years ago and hardly consider myself a student.

I see from another report the somebody from the Dems is referring to them as students as well.

For sure deal with the Red Shirts who assaulted this pair. No matter their agenda be it a simple protest or something deeper it's their undeniable right to do it without being attacked.

But calling them students conjures up images from from Thailand's deep dark past that could possibly fan the flames and lead to another shitstorm for LOS.

Of course it's a possibility that's what some parties want....

I believe that was the intent. Some groups are trying to create divisions. The only group that can benefit from ongoing clashes between redshirts and others are those that wish to sabotage the duly elected government and replace it by another military dictatorship. It is unfortunate that all parties cannot be sent to their respective corners for a cooling off period. As long as troublemakers like these two middle aged men presenting themselves as representing a student group ( a group which does not exist) are encouraged to instigate by some MPs, it encourages the vigilantes to assemble. Ideally, the instigators would be told to stop it and the redshirts would be told to go home and let the government focus on the work at hand.

it looks like the reality for Thai politics is that democracy must succeed in an environment where many many interests do not want it to succeed.

[tlansford]

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless.

no, no, no, ozmick, first YOU show proof that they had arms at their disposal within 5 minutes...

ps: had to remove a "quote level" in order to post

[OzMick]

Not armed? I have no doubt they have arms at their disposal within 5 minutes.

They were not armed.

Do you have proof of this statement, or is it conjecture? Thet were certainly not 'armless.

no, no, no, ozmick, first YOU show proof that they had arms at their disposal within 5 minutes...

ps: had to remove a "quote level" in order to post

Not my claim sunshine. Put your glasses on.

[OzMick]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

If you seriously believe that the red shirt movement is not an armed force, despite the dead soldiers and numerous grenade attacks last year, and the number of red shirt members who have been caught with military weapons and/or confessed to using them, then you are seriously mentally imbalanced or suffering serious short term memory loss. Oh, and add in the exploding apartment building.

BTW slingshots, Molotov cocktails and even wooden staves are weapons. If I was a serving soldier and you were to attack me with any one of the three, I would have no qualms about shooting you dead centre of the seen mass, just like the instruction manual recommends it.

Edit:spelling

glad you are not a soldier

You're about 40 years too late. Some things you don't forget - one is, don't bring a knife (or equivalent crap weapon) to a gunfight.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

It's pretty clear the agenda does not include fairness to anyone not on the PTP Red teams happy to kow tow lists. The taking back of power was mentioned in the article.

This is not about Democracy, that was just the tool, raw naked power is the name of this game, and the typical outcome of mindless, heedless pursuit of raw naked power over others, is war in the streets and anarchy till one side assumes dictatorial power for a time. Sadly democracy is truly dead in Thailand, because the voting process is so suborned and the parliamentary process are so ineptly controled that representative government is a facade and a sham at best.

An utter travesty of the intent of the people.

Sadly, you are 100% correct. (As an aside, and not to get off topic, the end result of this now over ten year fiasco is going to impact negatively the vast majority of Thais and farangs.)

[rixalex]

no, no, no, ozmick, first YOU show proof that they had arms at their disposal within 5 minutes...

ps: had to remove a "quote level" in order to post

Get in line as far as wanting proof is concerned. I'm still waiting for it from ages ago when the claim was made that these two men were seen talking to a Dem MP shortly before the incident, i'm still waiting for proof that these two men were hired, i'm still waiting for proof that they were intentionally disguising themselves.

Right now about all we have proof of is two men being assaulted by red shirts. The rest is conjecture.

[OzMick]

Why is a para-military force allowed to limit access, protest and criticism near parliament by use of intimidation, threats and violence? Because the thugs are associated with the party in power.

Why don't the police instruct said paramilitary to disperse, allow free access and arrest those clearly shown in the pictures as committing assault? Because the chief of police is related to the rulers of the party in power.

In a fledgling democracy, when the pillars of democracy start to crumble authoritarian rules becomes to seem more desirable. A supposedly independent police is led by a nepotistic appointment and refuses to perform its duties, a supposedly independent court system overturns legitimate lower court decisions to favour the party in power and its leaders, and an independent press is intimidated to stop asking legitimate questions, are all precursors of further turbulence.

And it's deja vu all over again. It seems our little would-be dictator is a slow-learner.

That's possibly the first 'paramilitary force' in the history of violence to not be armed.

If I could just stop laughing for a minute I'd advise you to calm down and give your blood pressure a break. :lol:

Really? You think it's funny for thugs to hang around the Parliment building and rough up fellow citizens because you don't agree with them. What kind of humanity is in you?

The kind of humanity which would humbly, kindly and gently suggest you look up the word 'paramilitary' in the dictionary.

Thanks for asking. Go in peace.

I refrain from using words that I do not understand, but at your insistence:

"a group of civilians trained and organized in a military fashion, but which do not represent the formal forces of a sovereign power."

Now seeming we have red shirt guards and training camps in Cambodia, which part of the definition fails the red shirts.

[tominbkk]

They were not armed.

Arms or not, those definite thug-like characters had no right roughing up protesting students. Students have every right to voice their concerns.