Seeing Red Over Political Mismanagement

[Ricardo]

the protests last year were peaceful for over a month before the violence started.

So why not give PM-Abhisit the credit for seeing that, and allowing the protests to continue, in a democratic peaceful fashion ?

Let's forget that the PM Abhisit rejected the request to hold elections (which is what had to happen in the end anyway),

Simply untrue, as he did offer an early-election, live on TV, only to have 'someone' order that the offer be rejected. Who was it that did that ? Don't you agree that they should carry part of the blame for what followed ?

And do you agree that PM-Abhisit did eventually decide to hold the next election several months before he had to ?

A sitting PM faced with a small peaceful demonstration doesn't have to call an immediate election, he/she is PM of the whole country, not just a large-minority, who support or are against them..

and that 90+ people are now dead because of it. And let's forget that the government was the side doing the killing on a 10-1 scale - why was that ?? Why did they use a sniper to kill an ex-military man while he was giving an interview? Why did the government authorize, EVER, the use of lethal force against the protesters? And *someone* did torch Central World (do you know how hard it is to set a building like that on fire?) - anyway, last time I was in BKK Central World was looking just fine, but 91 people are still dead - ohhhh, poor burning Bangkok, tears of a clown...

You're attributing a lot of bad acts to the government or PM-Abhisit, while I myself would blame the man in Dubai, for much of it. But at least you appear to accept that several people ("90+ people are now dead" and "on a 10-1 scale") were killed by the Reds.

And neither of us can yet offer conclusive evidence either way, it will be interesting how much blame the independent investigation will eventually put, on the Red-Shirts and their leadership.

[tlansford]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it. And Ozmick, like so many others, likes to gloss over the facts regarding the Dems gaining the government house - pretending that it was all just part of the normal parliamentary system process. Anyone who has read more than The Drivel knows that story is about as true as "follow the yellow-brick road"...

[Buchholz]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it.

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

[OzMick]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

As they are facing jail time over it, I would say not. But your attempt to link PAD and democrats fails badly when you remember that their court cases were initiated under the Dem govt.

Just a bit different to the present situation, where the criminals are invited to be part of the govt, thus preventing any further legal proceedings (for the moment).

[OzMick]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it. And Ozmick, like so many others, likes to gloss over the facts regarding the Dems gaining the government house - pretending that it was all just part of the normal parliamentary system process. Anyone who has read more than The Drivel knows that story is about as true as "follow the yellow-brick road"...

" He took a stand against a military coup which in his mind is a fight for democracy, but clearly not in your mind." Your statement. He did it 3 governments too late. (_*_)

[tlansford]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it.

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

an interesting observation. Could that be an indication that the rabidly conservative TVF posters are effective at driving people away from this forum, or maybe just proof that open-minded, intelligent, tolerant people don't suffer fools and move on after 2 months?

[Crushdepth]

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it.

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

an interesting observation. Could that be an indication that the rabidly conservative TVF posters are effective at driving people away from this forum, or maybe just proof that open-minded, intelligent, tolerant people don't suffer fools and move on after 2 months?

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

[tlansford]

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it.

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

an interesting observation. Could that be an indication that the rabidly conservative TVF posters are effective at driving people away from this forum, or maybe just proof that open-minded, intelligent, tolerant people don't suffer fools and move on after 2 months?

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

But the non-Thaskin-haters are not here on the forum defending him. For example, I don't have a single post that "defends" Thaskin. Of course, I do say that a military coup is not democratic, but that is not a defense of Thaskin. I'm not alone on TVF in pointing out the hyperbole regarding the PTP and Red-shirts on the forum, but that is not defending Thaskin.

[tlansford]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

As they are facing jail time over it, I would say not. But your attempt to link PAD and democrats fails badly when you remember that their court cases were initiated under the Dem govt.

Just a bit different to the present situation, where the criminals are invited to be part of the govt, thus preventing any further legal proceedings (for the moment).

You are just rotating around the question. The PAD demonstrations were not only instrumental in bringing down the government, these demonstrations were clearly manipulated by the opposition, specifically Abhisit, in order to force the judicial coup - that little detail that you and others gloss over as a "functioning parliamentary system".

[Siam Simon]

You guys missed another bit of 'rotating' by Mick:

cut///when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats.///cut

Uh.....yeah.....right. Like the 'negotiations' and arm-twisting by military brass weren't the real reason.

[Emptyset]

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

I read Thaivisa a bit during the time of the coup (but didn't post), IIRC there were at least a couple of regular posters who were fairly pro-Thaksin and a lot who seemed to be sitting on the fence more so than now. It seemed more balanced anyway.

[Siam Simon]

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

Aren't suspicions about returning banned posters supposed to be reported to the mods? Thats's what I and many others were told when we all spotted the return of the infamous sriracha john.

[rametindallas]

wow, pretty amazing for The Nation.

-------

It is nice to be able to read someone's story like this. Although just a quick peek into their history, none the less, it gives a glimpse of their personal history (engineering, business, politics, family) and into their political thoughts and motivations (disillusionment, democracy, support & action).

@kkvampire, as a university educated engineer & entrepreneur, I suspect that Kokaew is neither naive, nor stupid, not typical of the broader red-shirt population, nor anyone's minion. You may not agree with his ideas and politics, but he tells his own story here, and it is perfectly understandable to see how he came to where he is today.

Cheers - Tom

You are correct, Tom. While I don't agree with Mr. Korkaeow, he is very much an intellectual force and those who underestimate him, do so at their peril.

[ianf]

I suspect that if he were any more of a mug, he would have a handle in the middle of his back.

Read this soft-soap interview with a touch of cynicism and his image becomes clearer;

His business folds due to the asian economic crisis - of course that can't be because of his failure to adapt, it must be the government's fault.

He is inspired by Thaksin, despite all the evidence that the man is corrupt - I wonder what he aspires to.

Doesn't want to be anybody's enemy, but gets sucked into the red shirt mess.

Becomes a "people's politician" and is rejected. No worries, get on the party list.

Is glad he joined the "fight for democracy" - probably will never see the light and realise he was used to get thaksin's cronies back into power.

Thinks Thaksin should be allowed to return because he has a lot to offer - whereas Thaksin wants to return because there is still a lot to take.

How about an interview with some REAL questions, like is corruption acceptable, why were armed militants allowed to mix with protesters, was it necessary to burn BKK ?

you guys are so funny.

The Drivel showers roses over the Dems and you people don't say squat, but if it is a piece about red shirt, suddenly you know how to "read critically".

maybe you should remember : in the financial crisis of the 90s a lot of companies went under - and it was primarily due to imposed conditions from the IMF which (and yeah, it's documented) made the situation worse. The Dem government in the 90s fell in due to extraordinary corruption. This guy runs out of the democratic strong-hold, how many PTP were elected in the south? But you imply he is a failure. He took a stand against a military coup which in his mind is a fight for democracy, but clearly not in your mind. Yay for TVF democracy. Sure he feels that Thaskin should come back - and other people feel that he shouldn't - but his right to an opinion is called "being used" by you. And let's just forget that it was the PAD who were the first "armed-militants" or that the protests last year were peaceful for over a month before the violence started. Let's forget that the PM Abhisit rejected the request to hold elections (which is what had to happen in the end anyway), and that 90+ people are now dead because of it. And let's forget that the government was the side doing the killing on a 10-1 scale - why was that ?? Why did they use a sniper to kill an ex-military man while he was giving an interview? Why did the government authorize, EVER, the use of lethal force against the protesters? And *someone* did torch Central World (do you know how hard it is to set a building like that on fire?) - anyway, last time I was in BKK Central World was looking just fine, but 91 people are still dead - ohhhh, poor burning Bangkok, tears of a clown...

Cheers, Tom

Obviously Tom when the GOOD reds marched peacefully to Bangkok, they ignored their leaders' speeches that were riddled with violence. They didn't bring empty bottles or petrol; they didn't engage 300 'men in black'; they didn't steal weapons from the military and the police; they didn't threaten to burn Bangkok. They didn't take any advice from Mein Kampf and listen to speeches that offered no 'argumentation' only emotional manipulation in the time honoured fashion of fascist leaders, etc etc, boring etc. When Khun Abhisit offered an early election, they didn't accept because it wasn't soon enough. Or perhaps that offer was made in Jest. And when the famous military leader was targeted as a high profile sacrifice to the red movement, they rang Khun Abhisit and asked if he would kindly send a sniper in to blow his brains out. So kind of the then PM to oblige. Dear Tom, I must say to you that what you think you see is not what you get. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can certainly fool the dispossessed all of the time. And if you get that right, then you can grab back the ownership of the country and do as you will. Or perhaps I'm just a cynic and the then PM was really out there pulling triggers? Somehow my intellectual reasoning thinks not!!

the constant references to hitler and mao on this forum are a joke.

If you study the mass psychology of fascism, then you may understand that this is not a joke. Sadly some people are so gullible and that allows this type of Sh** to happen.

[Buchholz]

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it.

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

an interesting observation. Could that be an indication that the rabidly conservative TVF posters are effective at driving people away from this forum, or maybe just proof that open-minded, intelligent, tolerant people don't suffer fools and move on after 2 months?

They aren't driven away. They just cycle through their ID's on a every 2 or 3 week basis.

None of them move on as they continually return with the same distortion of history, thread after thread, with their continually disproved rhetoric.

.

[Buchholz]

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

Aren't suspicions about returning banned posters supposed to be reported to the mods? Thats's what I and many others were told when we all spotted the return of the infamous sriracha john.

If that's the case, then why do you continually go against what you were told?

.

[Buchholz]

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

I read Thaivisa a bit during the time of the coup (but didn't post), IIRC there were at least a couple of regular posters who were fairly pro-Thaksin

For example?

[Emptyset]

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

I read Thaivisa a bit during the time of the coup (but didn't post), IIRC there were at least a couple of regular posters who were fairly pro-Thaksin

For example?

ColPyat sticks out in memory.

[Siam Simon]

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

Aren't suspicions about returning banned posters supposed to be reported to the mods? Thats's what I and many others were told when we all spotted the return of the infamous sriracha john.

If that's the case, then why do you continually go against what you were told?

.

I don't. I was just making the point that you continue to do it.

[Buchholz]

I read Thaivisa a bit during the time of the coup (but didn't post), IIRC there were at least a couple of regular posters who were fairly pro-Thaksin

For example?

ColPyat sticks out in memory.

He'd probably dispute that if he could...

ColPyat:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

ColPyat, again in another thread:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

[Buchholz]

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

Aren't suspicions about returning banned posters supposed to be reported to the mods? Thats's what I and many others were told when we all spotted the return of the infamous sriracha john.

If that's the case, then why do you continually go against what you were told?

I don't.

Your multiple deleted posts dispute your claim.

[Siam Simon]

I read Thaivisa a bit during the time of the coup (but didn't post), IIRC there were at least a couple of regular posters who were fairly pro-Thaksin

For example?

ColPyat sticks out in memory.

He'd probably dispute that if he could...

ColPyat:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

ColPyat, again in another thread:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

That's pretty speedy work: It took you six minutes to read Emptyset's reply, search through about five months of ColPyat's extensive posting history to find some posts that suited your purpose, and finally to write your own post with inserted links. Well done! And all that about a poster who was banned a couple of years before you joined.

[scotbeve]

My friend "Billy' was visiting me when the earthquake struck. My house was destroyed so I started hating 'Billy'.

'Billy' and I got picked on by 'Jack' at school. He also hated 'Billy', so I did my best to become 'Jack's friend. It paid off, because just as Jack and I became friends, a funny movie came out in the cinema. Thanks Jack.

When the police arrested Jack for murder, I knew it couldn't be true. Someone else must have put all those bodies in Jack's house. I know, I hate Billy so it must have been him.

I also hate whoever made this dam_n Sudoku. Obviously they messed up, because it says easy but it's not.

A good analogy....

[Buchholz]

For example?

ColPyat sticks out in memory.

He'd probably dispute that if he could...

ColPyat:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

ColPyat, again in another thread:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

That's pretty speedy work: It took you six minutes to read Emptyset's reply, search through about five months of ColPyat's extensive posting history to find some posts that suited your purpose, and finally to write your own post with inserted links. Well done! And all that about a poster who was banned a couple of years before you joined.

Yes, the search function on Thaivisa works extremely well.

With a little bit of effort, it can find just about anything from anytime in seconds.

[scotbeve]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

Thank you Ober, you beat me to it.... Oh! And the pillaging of: sensitive paperwork/computers in the Govt. House, WEAPONS, and personal effects. Airport: pillaging the stores and shops, etc.

[scotbeve]

So none of the governments after the coup were legitimate? Were you here for that election - Samak won for PPP, Then was replaced (unnecessarily) by Somchai, who lost majority when some MPs decided that they were unwilling to form a coalition with electoral cheats. This is a legitimate democratic process, forming an armed militia to overthrow the government is not "fighting for democracy," but he, and others, fail to see that.

Were the blockades of Government House and the country's airports part of this "legitimate democratic process?"

As they are facing jail time over it, I would say not. But your attempt to link PAD and democrats fails badly when you remember that their court cases were initiated under the Dem govt.

Just a bit different to the present situation, where the criminals are invited to be part of the govt, thus preventing any further legal proceedings (for the moment).

Oz,

Wasn't FM Kasit (that lurverly gent who doesn't like Cambodia) up in the front of the Yellows line at the airport.... hmmmmmmm.? I do believe he was a dem....

[Emptyset]

He'd probably dispute that if he could...

ColPyat:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__1326447

ColPyat, again in another thread:

I am not a Thaksin fan at all

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__1597484

Re-reading some of his posts, I suppose it's more accurate to say he was a defender of some TRT policies rather than a Thaksin supporter per se. I'm pretty sure there were some people on here that really admired him though. But I can't remember their names.

[lannarebirth]

Good point...

Ozmick is looking at the world through his sun-flower-coloured glasses, or just talking out his @rse... Oh, but wait a minute, that is just how he likes to put words in others' mouths, "Ozmick, are you looking at the world through sunflower-coloured glasses or just talking out of your @rse?"

No one except ozmick ever said that the governments after the coup were not legitimate, nor even came close to implying it.

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

an interesting observation. Could that be an indication that the rabidly conservative TVF posters are effective at driving people away from this forum, or maybe just proof that open-minded, intelligent, tolerant people don't suffer fools and move on after 2 months?

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

That's because 90% of his defenders didn't even live in Thailand under the Thaksin regime. They don't know the first thing about this place and don't want to know. The other 10% are so bereft of a moral compass they'd be defending Tony Montana if he'd been deposed for creating the nearly failed state Thaksin did..

[Buchholz]

Ozmick probably got caught with the previous hundred posters who have said precisely that.

Remarkably those posters who rotate through on a bi-monthly basis share so many other similarities with your posts, it's understandable he might been mistaken.

an interesting observation. Could that be an indication that the rabidly conservative TVF posters are effective at driving people away from this forum, or maybe just proof that open-minded, intelligent, tolerant people don't suffer fools and move on after 2 months?

It is also true that the "defenders of Thaksin" are a relatively recent phenomenon. There weren't too many people complaining when he got chucked out.

That's because 90% of his defenders didn't even live in Thailand under the Thaksin regime. They don't know the first thing about this place and don't want to know. The other 10% are so bereft of a moral compass they'd be defending Tony Montana if he'd been deposed for creating the nearly failed state Thaksin did..

That seems to be a pretty fair explanation of the misguided.

It's always strange to see what is written sometimes by the recent arrivals.

[Siam Simon]

I don't.

Your multiple deleted posts dispute your claim.

Yet another neat little edit of someone else's post without any indication of editing. Well done!