Thaksin Supporters Mark Thai Coup Anniversary

[rubl]

Just cleaning up my PC, found the "Preliminary Report into the Situation of the Kingdom of Thailand With Regard to the Commission of Crimes Against Humanity" from October 2010.

May I suggest we plan for one more anniversary, in October it's also less likely to rain

[nurofiend]

And what is the alternative way of removing a PM who's term has expired, has given his resignation to the head of state, and then decides he isn't going? should we have waited for a few years as it was dragged through the courts, allowing him to cement his dictatorial ambitions?

No, they could have waited a whole month or two and had a legal general election that was scheduled... maybe?

Thaksin resigns 5 April - only duty as caretaker PM is to arrange an election within the next 6 months.

Coup 19 September - no election had been announced or even suggested. As there is a minimum lead time before an election is held (1 month ??) thaksin had failed to carry out his ONLY duty. Abhisit gave nearly 2 months lead into the last election.

ahem... the election was scheduled for 15 October

Edited September 20, 2011 by nurofiend

[MAJIC]

The 2006 coup was disgraceful and i don't mean because they got rid of Thaksin

Why was it disgraceful....? Pray explain... words are cheap..!

very cheap indeed.... and i still won't waste them explaining it to you

do a bit of reading on it, and then do a bit more..... if you think it was a righteous act and done solely with good intentions and all actions taken were valid and legal, then that's your issue.

And what is the alternative way of removing a PM who's term has expired, has given his resignation to the head of state, and then decides he isn't going? should we have waited for a few years as it was dragged through the courts, allowing him to cement his dictatorial ambitions?

Absolutely Correct.

And not forgetting the Coup was Bloodless,and ordinary Citizens were queing up to have their photos taken with the Troops and Tanks in Bangkok,hardly in fear of their lives eh? or believing anything disgraceful had just taken place!

The Generals went on to form a Government,and promised to resign within a year,and hand the Country back to the wishes of the people,which is what they did in a honest, controlled, gentlemanly manner.

Having first cleaned up the Constitution,so that the likes of Thaksin and Cohorts,could not get away with Looting Thailand any more,I also didn't see any people living in fear of the Military,I guess nurofiend doesnt have much to complain about,so he's hiding behind an untrue statement. "The 2006 coup was disgraceful and i don't mean because they got rid of Thaksin"

I don't think they were in the same Country when the Coupmakers were in power,(that is to say) Thaksin or Neurofen, everything carried on as normal, and I can't see anything disgraceful in their actioning a Coup,in fact if the next one is done with the same aplomb, it may very well be needed once again.

And at that time (Pre Coup) Thaksin had stepped down,and called a General Election,in the event leading up to the Coup,he was an inactive Caretaker PM,and nothing more!

Of course the PTP need to blacken the present Constitution,to have an excuse to change it so that Thaksin can come back, without fear of being hampered by the Constitution,which is most certainly not to his liking.

Edited September 20, 2011 by MAJIC

[nurofiend]

And what is the alternative way of removing a PM who's term has expired, has given his resignation to the head of state, and then decides he isn't going? should we have waited for a few years as it was dragged through the courts, allowing him to cement his dictatorial ambitions?

Absolutely Correct.

And not forgetting the Coup was Bloodless,and ordinary Citizens were queing up to have their photos taken with the Troops and Tanks in Bangkok,hardly in fear of their lives eh? or believing anything disgraceful had just taken place!

The Generals went on to form a Government,and promised to resign within a year,and hand the Country back to the wishes of the people,which is what they did in a honest, controlled, gentlemanly manner.

Having first cleaned up the Constitution,so that the likes of Thaksin and Cohorts,could not get away with Looting Thailand any more,I also didn't see any people living in fear of the Military,I guess nurofiend doesnt have much to complain about,so he's hiding behind an untrue statement. "The 2006 coup was disgraceful and i don't mean because they got rid of Thaksin"

I dont think he was in the same Country when the Coupmakers were in power,everything carried on as normal, and I can't see anything disgraceful in their actioning a Coup,in fact if the next one is done with the same aplomb, it may be needed once again.

And at that time (Pre Coup) Thaksin had stepped down,and called a General Election,in the event leading up to the Coup,he was an inactive Caretaker PM,and nothing more!

Of course the PTP need to blacken the present Constitution,to have an excuse to change it so that Thaksin can come back, without fear of being hampered by the Constitution,which is most certainly not to his liking.

i don't 'hide' behind statements... in fact what i should of said is the coup was disgraceful and not just because they got rid of thaksin

"I dont think he was in the same Country when the Coupmakers were in power,everything carried on as normal, and I can't see anything disgraceful in their actioning a Coup"

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts, and i'm just guessing here, you wouldn't be a big fan of them would you?

you think that just because nothing happened straight away has to mean that most people took it in good humour and it was a good move? firstly, the junta censored public opinion polls only a couple of days after it... there were protests, there was discontent.

and secondly, everything since the coup, were the protests that have occured since what you would call 'everything carrying on as normal'? or was that just good for a year and then to hell with the country?

Edited September 20, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

Thaksin resigns 5 April - only duty as caretaker PM is to arrange an election within the next 6 months.

Coup 19 September - no election had been announced or even suggested. As there is a minimum lead time before an election is held (1 month ??) thaksin had failed to carry out his ONLY duty. Abhisit gave nearly 2 months lead into the last election.

ahem... the election was scheduled for 15 October

Ozmick, i'd like to hear your response to the claim you've made. as you seem to be ignoring it

and a fellow anti-PTP poster quoted you as :

40 love

advantage Ozmick

neurofen.......no return

game to Ozmick

it seems the no return is coming from your side...

Edited September 21, 2011 by nurofiend

[whybother]

Thaksin resigns 5 April - only duty as caretaker PM is to arrange an election within the next 6 months.

Coup 19 September - no election had been announced or even suggested. As there is a minimum lead time before an election is held (1 month ??) thaksin had failed to carry out his ONLY duty. Abhisit gave nearly 2 months lead into the last election.

ahem... the election was scheduled for 15 October

...

There are 2 things to note about this date.

1) A new election was required by the constitution within 6 months of the failed April 2 election. October 15 is after that.

2) In early Sept 2006 there was already talk about it being delayed until late November because of problems with selecting a new election commission.

[nurofiend]

Thaksin resigns 5 April - only duty as caretaker PM is to arrange an election within the next 6 months.

Coup 19 September - no election had been announced or even suggested. As there is a minimum lead time before an election is held (1 month ??) thaksin had failed to carry out his ONLY duty. Abhisit gave nearly 2 months lead into the last election.

ahem... the election was scheduled for 15 October

...

There are 2 things to note about this date.

1) A new election was required by the constitution within 6 months of the failed April 2 election. October 15 is after that.

2) In early Sept 2006 there was already talk about it being delayed until late November because of problems with selecting a new election commission.

i know about point 2 but that doesn't invalidate the retaliation i was making to ozmick's claim now does it? - as in him saying nothing had been scheduled or announced

and to point 1.... the elections weren't declared unconstitutional until May, so it wasn't from april 2nd for them to schedule a new election

and a decree was endorsed confirming that the new election would take place on October 15, 2006.

so i reiterate my point to ozmick, how had no election been announced or even suggested?

Edited September 22, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

hey ozmick, have you an answer for me mate.... i'm interested in this discussion

[rixalex]

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts,

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

[Babcock]

hey ozmick, have you an answer for me mate.... i'm interested in this discussion

They have no real answer when really tested.

There was martial law in the northeast during and after the coup. Roads to Bangkok were blocked.

But the yellowshirts partied in Bangkok. Now they're discredited (the Pad).

[rixalex]

Roads to Bangkok were blocked.

Road checks yes. Road blocks no. Made up nonsense.

[MAJIC]

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts,

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

Perfectly correct,but dont expect neurofiend to agree with you.

He hasn't agreed that Thaksin was not in the country at the time of the coup,and no longer the PM of Thailand, or indeed whether he was (neurofiend) in the country at the coup date either?

and so to reiterate, in spite of what he believes, it was an entirely peaceful coup,and accepted by the people,at that time! and performed in an unusually (for coups) honorable manner!

Edit by MAJIC

for typo.

Edited September 22, 2011 by MAJIC

[nurofiend]

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts,

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

Perfectly correct,but dont expect neurofiend to agree with you.

He hasn't agreed that Thaksin was not in the country at the time of the coup,and no longer the PM of Thailand, or indeed whether he was (neurofiend) in the country at the coup date either?

and so to reiterate, in spite of what he believes, it was an entirely peaceful coup,and accepted by the people,at that time! and performed in an unusually (for coups) honorable manner!

Edit by MAJIC

for typo.

please take the time to spell my name correctly

i don't need to agree with a point that the dogs on the street know about just to prove to you that i was aware of it and whether i was in the country at the time is absolutely none of your business whatsoever.

my point was and still is, because of the coup the UDD were born... I am correct.

thank you.

[nurofiend]

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts,

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

OK, let me rephrase that nice and simply for you, just so you can understand it's meaning.... as a result of the coup, the UDD were founded

[nurofiend]

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts,

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

Perfectly correct,but dont expect nurofiend to agree with you.

He hasn't agreed that Thaksin was not in the country at the time of the coup,and no longer the PM of Thailand, or indeed whether he was (neurofiend) in the country at the coup date either?

and so to reiterate, in spite of what he believes, it was an entirely peaceful coup,and accepted by the people,at that time! and performed in an unusually (for coups) honorable manner!

Edit by MAJIC

for typo.

also, does an entirely peaceful coup mean no protests to you? because there was....

or does it mean there were no pre-protests and clashes as it took place? because they'd be pretty good to organize a large scale protest to take on the military when they were still denying any plan of a coup as late as august

also, 'accepted by the people at the time', says who? the junta censored public opinion polls after 2 days, they banned any form of protest.

show me your non-bias media information for this acceptance by the thai population please

of course the protests that did occur were small during a year living under martial law, but what would you expect????

Edited September 22, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

hey ozmick, have you an answer for me mate.... i'm interested in this discussion

They have no real answer when really tested.

yeah he seems to be willfully ignoring his 'little hiccup'

"if i pretend i don't see it, it never happened" lol

i'd still really appreciate some clarification on his claim though, hey Ozmick are you around mate, i see you've been posting in other threads?

[Siam Simon]

hey ozmick, have you an answer for me mate.... i'm interested in this discussion

They have no real answer when really tested.

yeah he seems to be willfully ignoring his 'little hiccup'

"if i pretend i don't see it, it never happened" lol

i'd still really appreciate some clarification on his claim though, hey Ozmick are you around mate, i see you've been posting in other threads?

They're sidetracking you. That's what they do when you raise a valid point. Mister Semantics will argue the point (or try to drift it offtopic) until it's been split into ten pieces of a hair if you allow him to.

[MAJIC]

everything carried on as normal did it? was it not the coup that gave birth to the UDD/red shirts,

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

Perfectly correct,but dont expect neurofiend to agree with you.

He hasn't agreed that Thaksin was not in the country at the time of the coup,and no longer the PM of Thailand, or indeed whether he was (neurofiend) in the country at the coup date either?

and so to reiterate, in spite of what he believes, it was an entirely peaceful coup,and accepted by the people,at that time! and performed in an unusually (for coups) honorable manner!

Edit by MAJIC

for typo.

please take the time to spell my name correctly

i don't need to agree with a point that the dogs on the street know about just to prove to you that i was aware of it and whether i was in the country at the time is absolutely none of your business whatsoever.

my point was and still is, because of the coup the UDD were born... I am correct.

thank you.

Oh! so you want answers to your questions but don't give out any yourself,so I take it you was not in the Country when the Coup took place,and you didn't know Thaksin was in America,at that time. Which mean't the Coupmakers,took over running the Country in the absense of a Government!. Actually at the time it was quite amusing,the only man to come to a International meeting to mix with World leaders without being leader of a Country himself, meanwhile back home the Generals were deftly and swiftly pulling the plugs on him.

Believe what you like if you don't know the real reason the UDD was formed,which was:...... it was paid for,quite simple,and no need to seek out non existant higher moral grounds,there was none.

But do carry on thinking you are correct, just don't make such an abysmal fuss about it,theres a good chap! and just to make you happy I shall sportingly leave you with the last word.

[nurofiend]

Perfectly correct,but dont expect neurofiend to agree with you.

He hasn't agreed that Thaksin was not in the country at the time of the coup,and no longer the PM of Thailand, or indeed whether he was (neurofiend) in the country at the coup date either?

and so to reiterate, in spite of what he believes, it was an entirely peaceful coup,and accepted by the people,at that time! and performed in an unusually (for coups) honorable manner!

Edit by MAJIC

for typo.

please take the time to spell my name correctly

i don't need to agree with a point that the dogs on the street know about just to prove to you that i was aware of it and whether i was in the country at the time is absolutely none of your business whatsoever.

my point was and still is, because of the coup the UDD were born... I am correct.

thank you.

Oh! so you want answers to your questions but don't give out any yourself,so I take it you was not in the Country when the Coup took place,and you didn't know Thaksin was in America,at that time. Which mean't the Coupmakers,took over running the Country in the absense of a Government!. Actually at the time it was quite amusing,the only man to come to a International meeting to mix with World leaders without being leader of a Country himself, meanwhile back home the Generals were deftly and swiftly pulling the plugs on him.

Believe what you like if you don't know the real reason the UDD was formed,which was:...... it was paid for,quite simple,and no need to seek out non existant higher moral grounds,there was none.

But do carry on thinking you are correct, just don't make such an abysmal fuss about it,theres a good chap! and just to make you happy I shall sportingly leave you with the last word.

haha, you didn't even ask me a single question... bahaha!!! oh mercy

you just spoke with rhetoric to someone else that i never agreed to the (false) statements, not questions, you made in your earlier post...

usually asking someone a question means....wait for it, asking someone a question - everyday's a schoolday old chap, i'm here to help.

i never went into 'WHY' the UDD was formed, i spoke of the event that caused the UDD to be formed... again, i am correct....you are counter-arguing a point i wasn't making, standard procedure of course.

so please carry on deluding yourself, just don't make such yawn inducing posts about it, there's a good old lad!

and thanks, you're leaving me with the last word... people should draw their own conclusion on that.

all i know is, i sure am happy about it!

[rubl]

begin removed

...

and thanks, you're leaving me with the last word... people should draw their own conclusion on that.

all i know is, i sure am happy about it!

Although not addressed to me, may I just remark that in discussions here in this forum, the wise tend to give up in disgust, rather than try to get the last (non-sensible) word in. IMHO of course, if I may please, that is, without trying to offend

Edited September 23, 2011 by rubl

[Pi Sek]

I hope you all don't mind if I chip in.

Actually, nurofiend is right - the UDD was formed as a direct result of the 2006 coup. The pro-Thaksin militia, which happened to sport red shirts (which is NOT the same as the present Red Shirt movement) was formed prior to that, I think... that's the basis of why Sae Daeng was one of their heroes. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Nonetheless, the UDD is just a medium which Peua Thai use and Thaksin funds. That's why almost all of their leaders are Thaksin-affiliated. It's also why Thida isn't allowed any real publicity. The Red Shirt movement overall, which literally grew out of the UDD, lacks the funding and so has been pushed to the side a bit, which is truly a shame. The non-UDD Red Shirts are on a much higher ethical platform, but they are not as controllable by Peua Thai as the UDD is.

It's a bit of a shame that Thaksin and his brigade have used the illegal (but, I believe, entirely necessary) coup as a way to spin that Thaksin is pro-democracy, which is of course the opposite of the truth... but what might one expect from a charlatan and demagogue? To elaborate, I believe the coup was necessary because Thaksin believed his own opinion to be of higher significance than the Law by which he was bound to abide. It is of course a shame that the coupmakers felt the same and I will agree that two wrongs don't make a right... but then, neither does one.

I see you talk about the proposed 15 October election. That was an illegal call, as the incorrect notice was given. What's more, the last election he called was boycotted, for good reason although I'll stop short of calling it a rightful boycott. The simple fact is that this election would not have healed the division in the country.

Was the coup popular? Yes, it was. It also was unpopular. That is the division I am talking about.

Please feel free to chastise me for my honest opinion.

[nurofiend]

begin removed

...

and thanks, you're leaving me with the last word... people should draw their own conclusion on that.

all i know is, i sure am happy about it!

Although not addressed to me, may I just remark that in discussions here in this forum, the wise tend to give up in disgust, rather than try to get the last (non-sensible) word in. IMHO of course, if I may please, that is, without trying to offend

"the wise tend to give up in disgust"

will you go away and pull the other one,

he made no valid point contrary to anything i said... none of my words were non-sensible, he tried to call me out on unfounded judgements.

people who make a big long counter point/post and then finish it with a "i won't respond to your reply" type conclusion means something completely different to me than "the wise giving up in disgust" .... it's laughable, is what it is.

but keep sticking together like birds of a feather

Edited September 23, 2011 by nurofiend

[Siam Simon]

I hope you all don't mind if I chip in.

Actually, nurofiend is right - the UDD was formed as a direct result of the 2006 coup. The pro-Thaksin militia, which happened to sport red shirts (which is NOT the same as the present Red Shirt movement) was formed prior to that, I think... that's the basis of why Sae Daeng was one of their heroes. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Nonetheless, the UDD is just a medium which Peua Thai use and Thaksin funds. That's why almost all of their leaders are Thaksin-affiliated. It's also why Thida isn't allowed any real publicity. The Red Shirt movement overall, which literally grew out of the UDD, lacks the funding and so has been pushed to the side a bit, which is truly a shame. The non-UDD Red Shirts are on a much higher ethical platform, but they are not as controllable by Peua Thai as the UDD is.

It's a bit of a shame that Thaksin and his brigade have used the illegal (but, I believe, entirely necessary) coup as a way to spin that Thaksin is pro-democracy, which is of course the opposite of the truth... but what might one expect from a charlatan and demagogue? To elaborate, I believe the coup was necessary because Thaksin believed his own opinion to be of higher significance than the Law by which he was bound to abide. It is of course a shame that the coupmakers felt the same and I will agree that two wrongs don't make a right... but then, neither does one.

I see you talk about the proposed 15 October election. That was an illegal call, as the incorrect notice was given. What's more, the last election he called was boycotted, for good reason although I'll stop short of calling it a rightful boycott. The simple fact is that this election would not have healed the division in the country.

Was the coup popular? Yes, it was. It also was unpopular. That is the division I am talking about.

Please feel free to chastise me for my honest opinion.

Your opinion is always welcome from me, Pi Sek, because it is always an oasis of honesty in a desert of rant and propaganda on here . Why do you think the coup was better than a general election in 2006? Look at all the problems created by the coup, and compare them to where things are now, with another Thaksin government. Imagine if Thaksin had been allowed to lead the country through a world recession, with food prices going through the roof. Instead, he is, incredibly, the subject of folklore.

[nurofiend]

I hope you all don't mind if I chip in.

Actually, nurofiend is right - the UDD was formed as a direct result of the 2006 coup. The pro-Thaksin militia, which happened to sport red shirts (which is NOT the same as the present Red Shirt movement) was formed prior to that, I think... that's the basis of why Sae Daeng was one of their heroes. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Nonetheless, the UDD is just a medium which Peua Thai use and Thaksin funds. That's why almost all of their leaders are Thaksin-affiliated. It's also why Thida isn't allowed any real publicity. The Red Shirt movement overall, which literally grew out of the UDD, lacks the funding and so has been pushed to the side a bit, which is truly a shame. The non-UDD Red Shirts are on a much higher ethical platform, but they are not as controllable by Peua Thai as the UDD is.

It's a bit of a shame that Thaksin and his brigade have used the illegal (but, I believe, entirely necessary) coup as a way to spin that Thaksin is pro-democracy, which is of course the opposite of the truth... but what might one expect from a charlatan and demagogue? To elaborate, I believe the coup was necessary because Thaksin believed his own opinion to be of higher significance than the Law by which he was bound to abide. It is of course a shame that the coupmakers felt the same and I will agree that two wrongs don't make a right... but then, neither does one.

I see you talk about the proposed 15 October election. That was an illegal call, as the incorrect notice was given. What's more, the last election he called was boycotted, for good reason although I'll stop short of calling it a rightful boycott. The simple fact is that this election would not have healed the division in the country.

Was the coup popular? Yes, it was. It also was unpopular. That is the division I am talking about.

Please feel free to chastise me for my honest opinion.

i respect a post like this, you seem willing to view things with an open mind from both sides of the coin, unlike many others here.

i just have to ask you, as you say "The simple fact is that this election would not have healed the division in the country."

would you agree that - the simple fact is that the coup did not heal the division in the country?

[nurofiend]

Thaksin resigns 5 April - only duty as caretaker PM is to arrange an election within the next 6 months.

Coup 19 September - no election had been announced or even suggested. As there is a minimum lead time before an election is held (1 month ??) thaksin had failed to carry out his ONLY duty. Abhisit gave nearly 2 months lead into the last election.

Hey Ozmick, ready to clarify your highlighted claim?

[rubl]

Your opinion is always welcome from me, Pi Sek, because it is always an oasis of honesty in a desert of rant and propaganda on here . Why do you think the coup was better than a general election in 2006? Look at all the problems created by the coup, and compare them to where things are now, with another Thaksin government. Imagine if Thaksin had been allowed to lead the country through a world recession, with food prices going through the roof. Instead, he is, incredibly, the subject of folklore.

With k. Thaksin stacking the deck a fair, honest election was becoming increasingly impossible. Family members and close friends moved to 'delicate' positions, anyone commenting sued for billions. The coup was unavoidable with Thailand's power hierarchies and emerging democracy. An election with a result as in 2005 would have given the 'rule for twenty years' with nepotism, corruption and handouts for the poor (bread and games?).

The coup has created problems, maybe because some power groups mobilizes their serfs to protest? Do you really think k. Thaksin is totally innocent in UDD and militants activities? The main problem was k. Thaksin having too much money allowing him to play his games for the ownership of Thailand.

Folklore? That reminds me that there are still people who think Che Guevara was a swell fellow

Edited September 24, 2011 by rubl

[Pi Sek]

Cool , this is getting civil again!

Your opinion is always welcome from me, Pi Sek, because it is always an oasis of honesty in a desert of rant and propaganda on here Why do you think the coup was better than a general election in 2006? Look at all the problems created by the coup, and compare them to where things are now, with another Thaksin government. Imagine if Thaksin had been allowed to lead the country through a world recession, with food prices going through the roof. Instead, he is, incredibly, the subject of folklore.

I never said I thought it was better - I said I thought it was necessary; and I still do, for much the same reasons as rubl has posted above. With regards to "if Thaksin had been allowed to lead the country through a world recession, with food prices going through the roof"; I that that, if Thaksin had been left to his own devices, he would have made it constitutionally very difficult for him to be voted out or impeached or whatever. I think that a bloodless coup in 2006 was a much better choice than a bloody coup later on, which may or may not have happened. I suspect a coup would have come at some point because Thaksin would have refused to leave office, but that's merely my opinion of his personal nature (which may or may not be a fair opinion).

I hope that Thailand never again sees the dark days of an autocratic leader whose sole motivation is "winning votes" to improve their own political standing. Typically all over the world such leaders make decisions that benefit their country in the immediate short-term but will inevitably damage it, and especially the distribution of wealth, in the medium- and long-terms.

I also hope that Thailand doesn't see any more military coups and, if future governments work within the rules to which they are bound, there will be no reason to do so. If the rules need changing, then change them - but there's no justification for breaking them before they are changed in a way that is decided by the correct channels (which isn't necessarily the majority - I think I've said on a few occasions that true democracy is more about making noone unhappy rather than making most happy), but that's possibly just the fascist in me coming out!

Both of these hopes are rather... well, hopeful.

And thank you for your kind words about my honest opinion

<snip>

would you agree that - the simple fact is that the coup did not heal the division in the country?

Yes I would agree with with that. I would even say it accentuated it. But I'll follow to say that this is a case of "things had to get worse before they got better", and it's getting better right now.

Another coup would accentuate it again, possibly to the point of civil war. I hope for everyone I know and everyone on here that that does not happen. And this is why I hope that Peua Thai does nothing to offer the slightest justification for another coup, but their present actions specifically regarding Thaksin are not helping.

[Pi Sek]

With k. Thaksin stacking the deck a fair, honest election was becoming increasingly impossible. Family members and close friends moved to 'delicate' positions, anyone commenting sued for billions. The coup was unavoidable with Thailand's power hierarchies and emerging democracy. An election with a result as in 2005 would have given the 'rule for twenty years' with nepotism, corruption and handouts for the poor (bread and games?).

Indeed, as I allude to in my previous post. The only thing I'd change in this post is the term "emerging democracy" - I'd change it to "emerging autocracy". The justification for the 2006 coup was "protection of democracy" and, as I saw Thailand was becoming an autocracy, I agreed that it was necessary (you use a similar, but possibly less stark, term - "unavoidable").

The coup has created problems, maybe because some power groups mobilizes their serfs to protest? Do you really think k. Thaksin is totally innocent in UDD and militants activities? The main problem was k. Thaksin having too much money allowing him to play his games for the ownership of Thailand.

I think everyone was playing games for the ownership of Thailand, and the main problem is they all had too much money to push their own individual and spearate elitist interests! The election results did, I believe, allow these games to subside, as quite a few players got well and truly called and put in their places. (Not all of them, though!)

Folklore? That reminds me that there are still people who think Che Guevara was a swell fellow

Che Guevara is still considered a "swell fellow" by a LOT of people. I think if you took an ABAC poll on whether or not he was a "good man", we'd probably see a majority say he was a righteous freedom fighter, a few say he was not a good man and the remaining few (correctly) saying they don't know. If everyone actually read up on what they say they believe, the results of such a poll would change dramatically... but again, I'm calling the masses ignorant, which I agree is both crass and unreconciliatory.

Siam Simon did say "incredibly, the subject of folklore". The addition of the word "incredibly" adds an insinuation that his folklore status is more of a slur on those that ousted him than praise of the man himself. That's a fair comment in my view - noone likes being told they're wrong, and I think that was a huge factor in Yinglak's recent poll victory.

What I find a little scary is that many Red Shirts don the Che Guevara red T-shirts, even the more politically aware ones (like Sombat Boonngamanong, whom I admire) who are both standing up for reasonable changes and quite aware of the darker side of his history. The message this sends to me is that the ends are more important than the means, which is something with which I strongly disagree.

[rubl]

begin removed

...

What I find a little scary is that many Red Shirts don the Che Guevara red T-shirts, even the more politically aware ones (like Sombat Boonngamanong, whom I admire) who are both standing up for reasonable changes and quite aware of the darker side of his history. The message this sends to me is that the ends are more important than the means, which is something with which I strongly disagree.

K. Jatuporn was walking around the Ratchaprasong main stage with a Ghandi T-shirt, below the famous banner 'peaceful protesters, not terrorists' and talking (shouting actually) about 'we fight till the last drop of our blood'. I find that really disgusting. Staged in English as pure propaganda and shouting in Thai about fighting and blood.

[lannarebirth]

If the coup gave birth to them, there would have been some sort, any sort, of a reaction on September 19th, or at the very least, a few days later. There was none. It was peacefully accepted by all.

What gave birth to them was Thaksin deciding to lead and fund a movement so as to whitewash himself of crimes and return to power. The coup, democracy, helping the poor, these are all just false justifications that try to make this battle of the elites into some sort of a noble fight for some greater good.

Perfectly correct,but dont expect neurofiend to agree with you.

He hasn't agreed that Thaksin was not in the country at the time of the coup,and no longer the PM of Thailand, or indeed whether he was (neurofiend) in the country at the coup date either?

and so to reiterate, in spite of what he believes, it was an entirely peaceful coup,and accepted by the people,at that time! and performed in an unusually (for coups) honorable manner!

Edit by MAJIC

for typo.

please take the time to spell my name correctly

i don't need to agree with a point that the dogs on the street know about just to prove to you that i was aware of it and whether i was in the country at the time is absolutely none of your business whatsoever.

my point was and still is, because of the coup the UDD were born... I am correct.

thank you.

Oh! so you want answers to your questions but don't give out any yourself,so I take it you was not in the Country when the Coup took place,and you didn't know Thaksin was in America,at that time. Which mean't the Coupmakers,took over running the Country in the absense of a Government!. Actually at the time it was quite amusing,the only man to come to a International meeting to mix with World leaders without being leader of a Country himself, meanwhile back home the Generals were deftly and swiftly pulling the plugs on him.

Believe what you like if you don't know the real reason the UDD was formed,which was:...... it was paid for,quite simple,and no need to seek out non existant higher moral grounds,there was none.

But do carry on thinking you are correct, just don't make such an abysmal fuss about it,theres a good chap! and just to make you happy I shall sportingly leave you with the last word.

To clarify, Thaksin leaving for America isn't what signified the "absence of a government". What made for a power vaccum which justified the coup is that Thaksin "went on holiday" causing serious doubts as to the legitimacy of the caretaker government.

http://www.nationmul...es_30004491.php