Thaksin Supporters Mark Thai Coup Anniversary

[Buchholz]

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.

As the t-shirt attests, he's "Cool like Gandi"

Jatuporn, the Gandhi-loving non-violent promoter, has been charged with crimes for the Riot of July 2007, the ASEAN Summit 2009, and for May Mayhem 2010.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[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

"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

I was referring to "you're leaving me with the last word... people should draw their own conclusion on that.". Maybe I shouldn't have replied with "the wise tend to give up in disgust", but rather with "some know when to discontinue a discussion which start to get off-topic and meaningless, without being bothered with some getting the last word". It was much more a general observation than directed at anyone in particular.

[tlansford]

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.

Nick Nostitz does a nice resume of the anti-coup groups and how they formed initially and later came under the UDD umbrella. A couple of points (from memory) include (1) the early protests were small and not coordinated between the different anti-coup groups, (2) one of the first public demonstrations against the coup was by a Thaksin opponent, (3) the first group to use red shirts, which gave the movement its name, was formed by a student activist - and I forget the groups exact name, but it included "September 19" in the name, and (4) the UDD was originally and still is an umbrella organization. The red shirts are not a homogenous, monolithic organization.

So the red shirts did not exist prior to the coup, and existence of the red shirt movement is indeed a reaction to the coup. As it is a movement of many groups, it will not be a surprise to see actions from "the red shirts" which at times are not consistent.

[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

I was referring to "you're leaving me with the last word... people should draw their own conclusion on that.". Maybe I shouldn't have replied with "the wise tend to give up in disgust", but rather with "some know when to discontinue a discussion which start to get off-topic and meaningless, without being bothered with some getting the last word". It was much more a general observation than directed at anyone in particular.

fair enough, but the discussion was neither "off-topic" nor "meaningless"

[rixalex]

So the red shirts did not exist prior to the coup, and existence of the red shirt movement is indeed a reaction to the coup.

The red shirts didn't exist before 9/11 either. Doesn't make their existence a reaction to that. When people are genuinely outraged and disgusted by an event such as a coup, they don't wait years to come out onto the streets, they do it immediately and instinctively and based on raw emotion. There are many examples of this throughout history, when the state pisses the people off, and the unrest that follows does not take funding, it does not take organisation or preparation, it is not contrived, it happens spontaneously. It's what would have happened on September 19th 2006, had people genuinely been angry or moved by the military's actions.

The coup is simply used by Thaksin and his supporting elite to give credibility and noble reasoning to the fight they are waging against the old elite. If Thaksin and his supporting elite relied upon people genuinely being up in arms and upset about his downfall and the coup, to the point of them taking to the streets without being told to, they would have been sadly disappointed because absolutely nothing would have happened.... and nothing did.

As it is a movement of many groups, it will not be a surprise to see actions from "the red shirts" which at times are not consistent.

This old chestnut is used so often by the reds, to try and distance themselves from certain actions when it is convenient to do so. Much like the way we hear when a red shirt does something bad, they suddenly become "fake" red shirts. Every time i hear this type of excuse i think to myself, "ok then, so go ahead and condemn the action of that fake red shirt, or the action of the red shirt splinter group that isn't acting for all red shirts, or that red leader who doesn't speak for all red leaders, or that black shirt sniper who doesn't have anything to do with red shirts"... but the condemnation never comes. Just a meek and pathetic attempt to try to gain political mileage without taking any blame or responsibility.

Edited September 25, 2011 by rixalex

[Buchholz]

So the red shirts did not exist prior to the coup, and existence of the red shirt movement is indeed a reaction to the coup.

The red shirts didn't exist before 9/11 either. Doesn't make their existence a reaction to that. When people are genuinely outraged and disgusted by an event such as a coup, they don't wait years to come out onto the streets, they do it immediately and instinctively and based on raw emotion. There are many examples of this throughout history, when the state pisses the people off, and the unrest that follows does not take funding, it does not take organisation or preparation, it is not contrived, it happens spontaneously. It's what would have happened on September 19th 2006, had people genuinely been angry or moved by the military's actions.

The coup is simply used by Thaksin and his supporting elite to give credibility and noble reasoning to the fight they are waging against the old elite. If Thaksin and his supporting elite relied upon people genuinely being up in arms and upset about his downfall and the coup, to the point of them taking to the streets without being told to, they would have been sadly disappointed because absolutely nothing would have happened.... and nothing did.

As it is a movement of many groups, it will not be a surprise to see actions from "the red shirts" which at times are not consistent.

This old chestnut is used so often by the reds, to try and distance themselves from certain actions when it is convenient to do so. Much like the way we hear when a red shirt does something bad, they suddenly become "fake" red shirts. Every time i hear this type of excuse i think to myself, "ok then, so go ahead and condemn the action of that fake red shirt, or the action of the red shirt splinter group that isn't acting for all red shirts, or that red leader who doesn't speak for all red leaders, or that black shirt sniper who doesn't have anything to do with red shirts"... but the condemnation never comes. Just a meek and pathetic attempt to try to gain political mileage without taking any blame or responsibility.

Excellent summation of two important aspects, which seemingly all got left out of

the nice resume

Nick Nostitz does a nice resume of the anti-coup groups

Edited September 25, 2011 by Buchholz

[Siam Simon]

cut///When people are genuinely outraged and disgusted by an event such as a coup, they don't wait years to come out onto the streets, they do it immediately and instinctively and based on raw emotion. There are many examples of this throughout history, when the state pisses the people off, and the unrest that follows does not take funding, it does not take organisation or preparation, it is not contrived, it happens spontaneously. It's what would have happened on September 19th 2006, had people genuinely been angry or moved by the military's actions.///cut

You keep peddling this piece of nonsense. Demos require organisation. Always have, always will.

[Siam Simon]

As it is a movement of many groups, it will not be a surprise to see actions from "the red shirts" which at times are not consistent.

This old chestnut is used so often by the reds, to try and distance themselves from certain actions when it is convenient to do so. Much like the way we hear when a red shirt does something bad, they suddenly become "fake" red shirts. Every time i hear this type of excuse i think to myself, "ok then, so go ahead and condemn the action of that fake red shirt, or the action of the red shirt splinter group that isn't acting for all red shirts, or that red leader who doesn't speak for all red leaders, or that black shirt sniper who doesn't have anything to do with red shirts"... but the condemnation never comes. Just a meek and pathetic attempt to try to gain political mileage without taking any blame or responsibility.

Don't the Thais have a saying for people who go off on one reading far too much into something?

[tlansford]

So the red shirts did not exist prior to the coup, and existence of the red shirt movement is indeed a reaction to the coup.

The red shirts didn't exist before 9/11 either. Doesn't make their existence a reaction to that. When people are genuinely outraged and disgusted by an event such as a coup, they don't wait years to come out onto the streets, they do it immediately and instinctively and based on raw emotion. There are many examples of this throughout history, when the state pisses the people off, and the unrest that follows does not take funding, it does not take organisation or preparation, it is not contrived, it happens spontaneously. It's what would have happened on September 19th 2006, had people genuinely been angry or moved by the military's actions.

The coup is simply used by Thaksin and his supporting elite to give credibility and noble reasoning to the fight they are waging against the old elite. If Thaksin and his supporting elite relied upon people genuinely being up in arms and upset about his downfall and the coup, to the point of them taking to the streets without being told to, they would have been sadly disappointed because absolutely nothing would have happened.... and nothing did.

As it is a movement of many groups, it will not be a surprise to see actions from "the red shirts" which at times are not consistent.

This old chestnut is used so often by the reds, to try and distance themselves from certain actions when it is convenient to do so. Much like the way we hear when a red shirt does something bad, they suddenly become "fake" red shirts. Every time i hear this type of excuse i think to myself, "ok then, so go ahead and condemn the action of that fake red shirt, or the action of the red shirt splinter group that isn't acting for all red shirts, or that red leader who doesn't speak for all red leaders, or that black shirt sniper who doesn't have anything to do with red shirts"... but the condemnation never comes. Just a meek and pathetic attempt to try to gain political mileage without taking any blame or responsibility.

With all due respect Rixalex, your 2 points are BS. The example with 9/11 is stupid. Additionally, he first protests after the coup did occur, and within days AND that was under martial law making it ILLEGAL for a political gathering of more than 5 people...

And your second "old chestnut" is either just a disingenuous lie, or you are completely misinformed about the red shirts. I have the feeling that you are not completely misinformed.

I am not here to apologize for or defend any particular group, but discounting well-documented, established facts the way that you attempt to do so here is ... well, ... BS

Regards,

Tom

Edited September 25, 2011 by tlansford

[rixalex]

cut///When people are genuinely outraged and disgusted by an event such as a coup, they don't wait years to come out onto the streets, they do it immediately and instinctively and based on raw emotion. There are many examples of this throughout history, when the state pisses the people off, and the unrest that follows does not take funding, it does not take organisation or preparation, it is not contrived, it happens spontaneously. It's what would have happened on September 19th 2006, had people genuinely been angry or moved by the military's actions.///cut

You keep peddling this piece of nonsense. Demos require organisation. Always have, always will.

Sometimes i agree yes, they do, but they don't require months, if not years of planning. Have a look in your history books. When coups are not accepted by the general populous, the reaction is usually pretty much instantaneous.

[rixalex]

With all due respect Rixalex, your 2 points are BS. The example with 9/11 is stupid. Additionally, he first protests after the coup did occur, and within days AND that was under martial law making it ILLEGAL for a political gathering of more than 5 people...

Thanks for the respect. The 9/11 example was just to show that simply because the red shirts existed after an event, it is not conclusive proof that they exist because of it.

The coup itself is not what brought about the red shirts. Were it, as i say, there would have been a reaction either on the 19th or very shortly after. There was not. I was here. Forget about martial law. If people are genuinely outraged, they don't care about such laws. The gather en masse. Surely you've seen that before in other countries? Who is going to arrest thousands of people? And don't say they were too afraid. If they were too afraid, how do you explain what happened in 2009 and 2010. They weren't too afraid. What they were, is too indifferent. They really didn't care. Thaksin did. Not about coups. He's personally benefited from them in the past and it didn't bother him then, so why now? Why, well because it was him being ejected and him losing power. That was what his fight was about. Getting back his power and money. And hence, the red shirts were born. No other reason.

And your second "old chestnut" is either just a disingenuous lie, or you are completely misinformed about the red shirts. I have the feeling that you are not completely misinformed.

I am not here to apologize for or defend any particular group, but discounting well-documented, established facts the way that you attempt to do so here is ... well, ... BS

Regards,

Tom

Can you please tell me in what way you think i have lied or in what way i am misinformed? What part of what i said about the red shirts conveniently distancing themselves from certain words spoken or acts taken, but not being able to bring themselves to condemn those words or actions, was a lie or misinformed?

[TAWP]

Is a coup worse than an armed revolution that ends up killing way more people than the coup?

Now that they have tanks on the streets, it is time for the people to come out in revolution,” he [Thaksin] told the crowd of supporters from the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). “And when it is necessary, I will come back to the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6080866.ece

[tlansford]

With all due respect Rixalex, your 2 points are BS. The example with 9/11 is stupid. Additionally, he first protests after the coup did occur, and within days AND that was under martial law making it ILLEGAL for a political gathering of more than 5 people...

Thanks for the respect. The 9/11 example was just to show that simply because the red shirts existed after an event, it is not conclusive proof that they exist because of it.

The coup itself is not what brought about the red shirts. Were it, as i say, there would have been a reaction either on the 19th or very shortly after. There was not. I was here. Forget about martial law. If people are genuinely outraged, they don't care about such laws. The gather en masse. Surely you've seen that before in other countries? Who is going to arrest thousands of people? And don't say they were too afraid. If they were too afraid, how do you explain what happened in 2009 and 2010. They weren't too afraid. What they were, is too indifferent. They really didn't care. Thaksin did. Not about coups. He's personally benefited from them in the past and it didn't bother him then, so why now? Why, well because it was him being ejected and him losing power. That was what his fight was about. Getting back his power and money. And hence, the red shirts were born. No other reason.

And your second "old chestnut" is either just a disingenuous lie, or you are completely misinformed about the red shirts. I have the feeling that you are not completely misinformed.

I am not here to apologize for or defend any particular group, but discounting well-documented, established facts the way that you attempt to do so here is ... well, ... BS

Regards,

Tom

Can you please tell me in what way you think i have lied or in what way i am misinformed? What part of what i said about the red shirts conveniently distancing themselves from certain words spoken or acts taken, but not being able to bring themselves to condemn those words or actions, was a lie or misinformed?

you're welcome.

Once again: ...

The anti-coup reaction mobilizes people to form a range of groups, beginning within days of the coup, and the UDD eventually became the umbrella organization. The UDD consists even today of a range of groups and their actions have not always been coordinated in the past, and it would be normal to expect to see "uncoordinated" action in the future given the non-homogeneous nature of the groups.

When and how these groups formed and how they turned into a movement called the "red shirts" is documented. Your statements/insinuations that they are not a result of the coup and that they are not a diverse grouping of organizations is, ... er, ... inaccurate, shall we say...

[TAWP]

tlansford>> What you are missing is that the organizations in large isn't some grassrots movement in reaction to the coup but an astroturfed one in reaction to Thaksin losing his power. Small but important difference, even if the time-schedule on the surface looks the same.

If they where indeed anti-coup they would have seen the election after 1 year as a step forward and in large dismantled themselves. They did not and have since then argued for Thaksin being brought back and whitewashed.

[rixalex]

you're welcome.

Once again: ...

The anti-coup reaction mobilizes people to form a range of groups, beginning within days of the coup, and the UDD eventually became the umbrella organization. The UDD consists even today of a range of groups and their actions have not always been coordinated in the past, and it would be normal to expect to see "uncoordinated" action in the future given the non-homogeneous nature of the groups.

When and how these groups formed and how they turned into a movement called the "red shirts" is documented. Your statements/insinuations that they are not a result of the coup and that they are not a diverse grouping of organizations is, ... er, ... inaccurate, shall we say...

With regard the UDD's formation and it being related to the coup, TAWP sums it up excellently above. Thaksin's brainwave was to trick those who hadn't been following along that closely, that this was some sort of a noble fight for democracy. I forgive those outside the country for falling for this, as it can be hard to know what is really going when you are at a distance and just getting snippets of news, but for anyone living here to have been sucked in, there really is little hope for them.

And with regards there being a diverse grouping of organisations, i don't disagree that there are, but i do think they all share the same common goal, and this is why they are unable to condemn the acts of members under their umbrella, when stupid stuff is committed.

Reminds me of the relationship between IRA and Sinn Fein. IRA would blow someone to smithereens and Sinn Fein would be asked if they condemned it and they never could - not outright - always had to give some sort of a justification or reasoning to try and shift the blame.

[Ricardo]

Sometimes i agree yes, they do, but they don't require months, if not years of planning. Have a look in your history books. When coups are not accepted by the general populous, the reaction is usually pretty much instantaneous.

I seem to recall that the instantaneous reaction in my area, was to visit the local army-roadblock with flowers & food, to thank them. We got some good photos of the kids, up on the APC behind the machine-gun, and the squaddies even had a Visitors-Book !