The First Red Shirt District Officially Opened And Recognized Today

[nicknostitz]

That's a great speech. I'm pretty sure Nattuwut and the other Red Shirt leaders have made many more inspiring speeches. You could make a 100 inspiring speeches but people are always going to remember the one where you incited your followers to burn the city to the ground. And that's just what they tried to do.

People will remember what they want to remember.

But for me, as outside observer, i have to judge objectively, and that includes taking into account speeches such as this one.

Here is another very inspiring piece of art that came out of the Red Shirt movement.

The Song is titled in English "Warriors of the Dust", and commemorates their fallen.

Basically, i am trying to show here that there are many sides to the Red Shirts.

Edited October 11, 2011 by nicknostitz

[gl555]

That's a great speech. I'm pretty sure Nattuwut and the other Red Shirt leaders have made many more inspiring speeches. You could make a 100 inspiring speeches but people are always going to remember the one where you incited your followers to burn the city to the ground. And that's just what they tried to do.

People will remember what they want to remember.

But for me, as outside observer, i have to judge objectively, and that includes taking into account speeches such as this one.

Here is another very inspiring piece of art that came out of the Red Shirt movement.

The Song is titled in English "Warriors of the Dust", and commemorates their fallen.

Basically, i am try to show here that there are many sides to the Red Shirts.

Oh but I think this speech was even better. I mean Red Shirts were so inspired, they actually took action and did what he said. Awesome!

[hanuman1]

That's a great speech. I'm pretty sure Nattuwut and the other Red Shirt leaders have made many more inspiring speeches. You could make a 100 inspiring speeches but people are always going to remember the one where you incited your followers to burn the city to the ground. And that's just what they tried to do.

People will remember what they want to remember.

But for me, as outside observer, i have to judge objectively, and that includes taking into account speeches such as this one.

Here is another very inspiring piece of art that came out of the Red Shirt movement.

The Song is titled in English "Warriors of the Dust", and commemorates their fallen.

Basically, i am trying to show here that there are many sides to the Red Shirts.

Quick Nick, put up a link to a Yellow song too, otherwise they might not take you seriously

[rubl]

That's a great speech. I'm pretty sure Nattuwut and the other Red Shirt leaders have made many more inspiring speeches. You could make a 100 inspiring speeches but people are always going to remember the one where you incited your followers to burn the city to the ground. And that's just what they tried to do.

People will remember what they want to remember.

But for me, as outside observer, i have to judge objectively, and that includes taking into account speeches such as this one.

Here is another very inspiring piece of art that came out of the Red Shirt movement.

The Song is titled in English "Warriors of the Dust", and commemorates their fallen.

Basically, i am trying to show here that there are many sides to the Red Shirts.

Here I can agree. There are many sides to the red-shirts. I mostly like those who are not aligned to the UDD / Pheu Thai / Thaksin. The real grass-root people who want a decent living, self-reliance, self-entitlement without the traditional middlemen dictating what needs to be thought and done. Call me a dreamer if you want.

Regarding 'warriors in the dust' I'm afraid personally I think more of 'cannon fodder mislead', but that's my personal opinion.

Edited October 11, 2011 by rubl

[nicknostitz]

Oh but I think this speech was even better. I mean Red Shirts were so inspired, they actually took action and did what he said. Awesome!

Better in which way?

Because it confirms your stereotype of the Red Shirts, or because you find it indeed better. Which i personally don't.

[nicknostitz]

Quick Nick, put up a link to a Yellow song too, otherwise they might not take you seriously

I have seen the old song for life band Hammer performing quite a few very nice songs on the Yellow stages, and had some good conversions with their singer as well. I have not seen him expressing any hate for the Red Shirts at all, by the way, on the opposite - he was very compassionate towards the killed Red Shirts.

Sorry, no link.

[gl555]

Oh but I think this speech was even better. I mean Red Shirts were so inspired, they actually took action and did what he said. Awesome!

Better in which way?

Because it confirms your stereotype of the Red Shirts, or because you find it indeed better. Which i personally don't.

It's okay. I understand English isn't your first language so sarcasm is lost on you. No worries there.

As long as Red Shirts are lead by people like that who advocate violence, as long as Red Shirts cheer when someone on stage tells them to do violence and as long as Red Shirts actually do the violence they're asked to do, you're God dam_n right it confirms my stereotype of these people.

[nicknostitz]

[

It's okay. I understand English isn't your first language so sarcasm is lost on you. No worries there.

As long as Red Shirts are lead by people like that who advocate violence, as long as Red Shirts cheer when someone on stage tells them to do violence and as long as Red Shirts actually do the violence they're asked to do, you're God dam_n right it confirms my stereotype of these people.

So for you only the negative aspects of the Red Shirts count, and the positive aspects are just to be swiped under the table and ignored? Isn't that a tad bit biased?

[gl555]

[

It's okay. I understand English isn't your first language so sarcasm is lost on you. No worries there.

As long as Red Shirts are lead by people like that who advocate violence, as long as Red Shirts cheer when someone on stage tells them to do violence and as long as Red Shirts actually do the violence they're asked to do, you're God dam_n right it confirms my stereotype of these people.

So for you only the negative aspects of the Red Shirts count, and the positive aspects are just to be swiped under the table and ignored? Isn't that a tad bit biased?

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

[rubl]

Quick Nick, put up a link to a Yellow song too, otherwise they might not take you seriously

I have seen the old song for life band Hammer performing quite a few very nice songs on the Yellow stages, and had some good conversions with their singer as well. I have not seen him expressing any hate for the Red Shirts at all, by the way, on the opposite - he was very compassionate towards the killed Red Shirts.

Sorry, no link.

Hammer, yeah! One of my favorite bands, together with Carawan and Carabao. Some from the 1990s or earlier, good music

[nicknostitz]

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

Forgive me my bad English, please, but i get the impression that you have performed an almost perfect oxymoron right now.

[nicknostitz]

Hammer, yeah! One of my favorite bands, together with Carawan and Carabao. Some from the 1990s or earlier, good music

I personally do not like Carabao, i find some of their texts are quite racist. And Aed Carabao is very good in opportunistically switching sides to whoever pays him most. He has done many strange U-turns.

Carawan is in a difficult situation, as its former members are split between Red and Yellow. Visa Kanthap, for example is a UDD leader.

One of the reasons why the lead singer of Hammer is not a Red Shirt hater is because many of his friends from the turbulent times of the 70's and 80's are Red Shirts.

[serenitynow]

[

It's okay. I understand English isn't your first language so sarcasm is lost on you. No worries there.

As long as Red Shirts are lead by people like that who advocate violence, as long as Red Shirts cheer when someone on stage tells them to do violence and as long as Red Shirts actually do the violence they're asked to do, you're God dam_n right it confirms my stereotype of these people.

So for you only the negative aspects of the Red Shirts count, and the positive aspects are just to be swiped under the table and ignored? Isn't that a tad bit biased?

It is not biased to give greater gravity to an organization's actions than you would to their rhetoric.

“As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.”

-- Andrew Carnegie

[rubl]

Hammer, yeah! One of my favorite bands, together with Carawan and Carabao. Some from the 1990s or earlier, good music

I personally do not like Carabao, i find some of their texts are quite racist. And Aed Carabao is very good in opportunistically switching sides to whoever pays him most. He has done many strange U-turns.

Carawan is in a difficult situation, as its former members are split between Red and Yellow. Visa Kanthap, for example is a UDD leader.

One of the reasons why the lead singer of Hammer is not a Red Shirt hater is because many of his friends from the turbulent times of the 70's and 80's are Red Shirts.

Nick, you spoil the fun here. For me those three bands have good music and since they don't sing in Dutch I'm able to ignore the Thai text. Good music! Haven't seen either Hammer or Carawan perform, but I've been at Tawadaeng, RamaIII with Carabao performing. Again, GOOD MUSIC!

(time to search for the CD I bought in PanthipPlaza more than a decade ago. Lots of albums in MP3 format )

Edited October 11, 2011 by rubl

[gl555]

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

Forgive me my bad English, please, but i get the impression that you have performed an almost perfect oxymoron right now.

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

[nicknostitz]

It is not biased to give greater gravity to an organization's actions than you would to their rhetoric.

"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."

-- Andrew Carnegie

Of course.

But which action do we talk about now?

The almost daily peaceful gatherings all over the country, going on for years, and hardly reported about by the media. Or the burning of the buildings which occurred after 6 days of warfare, costing dozens of unarmed protesters their lifes, wounding almost 2000 protesters? Are the burning of the buildings directly connected to the leaders of the organization (which would need more proof than these two speeches), or did they occur by individual groups of protesters going mad? There is more evidence for the latter than the former, especially when seeing how little control the leadership had over their protesters towards the end.

In dubio pro rei is another principle in law. But that does not seem to count here.

But lets also look at the actions of their opponents, starting from 2006, staging a military coup. The use of the military to crack down Red Shirts both in 2009, and in 2010. The use of a militia that until today remains completely un-ivestigated - the Blue Shirts.

It's a bit more complex that Red Shirts burning down buildings, i am afraid.

Edited October 11, 2011 by nicknostitz

[nurofiend]

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

Forgive me my bad English, please, but i get the impression that you have performed an almost perfect oxymoron right now.

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

adjustment

it still doesn't change the fact that - an extremely small, even microscopic minority by comparison to it's total following of - red shirts burned down buildings

Edited October 11, 2011 by nurofiend

[gl555]

When the negative aspects of an organisation includes burning down buildings, I really don't think it's biased to ignore their positive ones.

Forgive me my bad English, please, but i get the impression that you have performed an almost perfect oxymoron right now.

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

adjustment

it still doesn't change the fact that - an extremely small, even microscopic minority by comparison to it's total following of - red shirts burned down buildings

And yet the certain leaders who incited the "small, even microscopic minority" to burn Bangkok are still around "leading". If the leadership is rotten and yet are still embraced by the followers then the whole organisation can't be any good can it?

[nicknostitz]

[

Nick, you spoil the fun here. For me those three bands have good music and since they don't sing in Dutch I'm able to ignore the Thai text. Good music! Haven't seen either Hammer or Carawan perform, but I've been at Tawadaeng, RamaIII with Carabao performing. Again, GOOD MUSIC!

(time to search for the CD I bought in PanthipPlaza more than a decade ago. Lots of albums in MP3 format )

Off topic

...but, lyrics in Thai Music especially are of essential importance, especially because music is often the only channel in the rather rigid society to give expression to people's emotions. hence the enormous amount of concerts by both groups. Especially important in the Red Shirts - no stage nowadays in which a speaker does not perform a few songs before holding his speech.

Especially strong were the concerts right after last year's crackdown, in which the Red Shirts in this way overcame their sorrow and shock of what happened in April and May.

[serenitynow]

It is not biased to give greater gravity to an organization's actions than you would to their rhetoric.

"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."

-- Andrew Carnegie

Of course.

But which action do we talk about now?

The almost daily peaceful gatherings all over the country, going on for years, and hardly reported about by the media. Or the burning of the buildings which occurred after 6 days of warfare, costing dozens of unarmed protesters their lifes, wounding almost 2000 protesters? Are the burning of the buildings directly connected to the leaders of the organization (which would need more proof than these two speeches), or did they occur by individual groups of protesters going mad? There is more evidence for the latter than the former, especially when seeing how little control the leadership had over their protesters towards the end.

In dubio pro rei is another principle in law. But that does not seem to count here.

But lets also look at the actions of their opponents, starting from 2006, staging a military coup. The use of the military to crack down Red Shirts both in 2009, and in 2010. The use of a militia that until today remains completely un-ivestigated - the Blue Shirts.

It's a bit more complex that Red Shirts burning down buildings, i am afraid.

Ok, you don't want to talk about burning down buildings. How about repeated airing of a doctored audio tape to incite hatred and violence? I think that one led back to SC Asset which our current PM headed. I didn't catch your expose on that, maybe you could post a link to it here.

How about attacking the PM's car? How about the gas tanker in Din Daeng? How about invading a city and encircling yourselves with barricades in which explosives were emplaced? Grenade attacks? Bomb factories? The burning of provincial administration centers? The invasion of a hospital? Those are all actions.

Yeah, that was a lovely speech you posted but it's just rhetoric.

Edited October 11, 2011 by serenitynow

[rubl]

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

adjustment

it still doesn't change the fact that - an extremely small, even microscopic minority by comparison to it's total following of - red shirts burned down buildings

Although you're right in numbers, you have to keep in mind the expression of 'earning a reputation'. Those possibly only a few handful of miscreants have spoiled the name of the million of others. A positive reputation is easily lost, a negative one may take a decade to get rid off. Human nature, I'm afraid

[gl555]

It is not biased to give greater gravity to an organization's actions than you would to their rhetoric.

"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."

-- Andrew Carnegie

Of course.

But which action do we talk about now?

The almost daily peaceful gatherings all over the country, going on for years, and hardly reported about by the media. Or the burning of the buildings which occurred after 6 days of warfare, costing dozens of unarmed protesters their lifes, wounding almost 2000 protesters? Are the burning of the buildings directly connected to the leaders of the organization (which would need more proof than these two speeches), or did they occur by individual groups of protesters going mad? There is more evidence for the latter than the former, especially when seeing how little control the leadership had over their protesters towards the end.

In dubio pro rei is another principle in law. But that does not seem to count here.

But lets also look at the actions of their opponents, starting from 2006, staging a military coup. The use of the military to crack down Red Shirts both in 2009, and in 2010. The use of a militia that until today remains completely un-ivestigated - the Blue Shirts.

It's a bit more complex that Red Shirts burning down buildings, i am afraid.

No it's not complex. You want it to be complex because deny it all you want, you're defending the Red Shirts and you're trying to obfuscate the simple truth. The leaders incited the followers to violence. The followers carried out the violence and Bangkok was up in smoke.

[nicknostitz]

Ok, you don't want to talk about burning down buildings. How about repeated airing of a doctored audio tape to incite hatred and vilolence? I think that one led back to SC Asset which our current PM headed. I didn't catch your expose on that, maybe you could post a link to it here.

How about attacking the PM's car? How about the gas tanker in Din Daeng? How about invading a city and encicling yourselves with barricades in which explosives were emplaced? Grenade attacks? Bomb factories, The burning of provincial administration centers? The invasion of a hospital? Those are all actions.

Yeah, that was lovely speech you posted but it's just rhetoric.

I was written about the doctored tape in volume 2 of my book, and to where my own investigations into the origin led to - the barracks.

SC-Asset was not the origin of the tape, and the company has been cleared. The tape was distributed over several channels bypassing the Red Shirt leadership, and made its way to stages and radio stations before investigations over its authenticity could be performed. Quite ingenious.

I have written about all the subject matters you mentioned, i have photographed violence by the Red Shirts, and by all other sides. But replying to all of the subjects you mentioned here would be a bit too time consuming. Some of the subjects you mentioned i have not yet written about, but be assured, i will.

[nurofiend]

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

adjustment

it still doesn't change the fact that - an extremely small, even microscopic minority by comparison to it's total following of - red shirts burned down buildings

And yet the certain leaders who incited the "small, even microscopic minority" to burn Bangkok are still around "leading". If the leadership is rotten and yet are still embraced by the followers then the whole organisation can't be any good can it?

well you've answered my point in your reply...

"certain leaders" of course you say this as you fully well know that not all red shirt leaders told their followers to burn any buildings, otherwise we'd have a lot more youtube clips than 'that famous one'.

my point is that you you shouldn't look at a whole (massive) group of people with an opinion based on the criminal actions of comparatively so few

[nicknostitz]

No it's not complex. You want it to be complex because deny it all you want, you're defending the Red Shirts and you're trying to obfuscate the simple truth. The leaders incited the followers to violence. The followers carried out the violence and Bangkok was up in smoke.

Quite funny how people that have never really observed any Red Shirt rally are suddenly in possession of "the truth", and simple it is as well. And i wasted years of my life (and at times risking it as well) researching, investigating and observing, traveling all over the country, to get an idea what this is all about. I should just have asked you, and instead of going through the pains of writing a series of books, taking ten thousands of photos, and writing dozens of articles. I could have just written one line on Thaivisa: The Red Shirts burned down building and that is the simple truth!

[nurofiend]

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

adjustment

it still doesn't change the fact that - an extremely small, even microscopic minority by comparison to it's total following of - red shirts burned down buildings

Although you're right in numbers, you have to keep in mind the expression of 'earning a reputation'. Those possibly only a few handful of miscreants have spoiled the name of the million of others. A positive reputation is easily lost, a negative one may take a decade to get rid off. Human nature, I'm afraid

well there you have it, and i fully agree

that's the point i'm trying to make to certain people who judge such a huge population of the country based on the actions of a few cronies and some street level thugs

[gl555]

It still doesn't change the fact that Red Shirts burn down buildings.

adjustment

it still doesn't change the fact that - an extremely small, even microscopic minority by comparison to it's total following of - red shirts burned down buildings

And yet the certain leaders who incited the "small, even microscopic minority" to burn Bangkok are still around "leading". If the leadership is rotten and yet are still embraced by the followers then the whole organisation can't be any good can it?

well you've answered my point in your reply...

"certain leaders" of course you say this as you fully well know that not all red shirt leaders told their followers to burn any buildings, otherwise we'd have a lot more youtube clips than 'that famous one'.

my point is that you you shouldn't look at a whole (massive) group of people with an opinion based on the criminal actions of comparatively so few

If the Red Shirt movement wes so peaceful and only a few were criminal, why is it these 'certain' leaders who incited violence haven't been expelled yet? Why hasn't the movement distanced themselves from these people and their speeches? Yeah it's only the few who advocate violence, with a few carrying it out while the majority look on and silently approving. Such good people!

[gl555]

No it's not complex. You want it to be complex because deny it all you want, you're defending the Red Shirts and you're trying to obfuscate the simple truth. The leaders incited the followers to violence. The followers carried out the violence and Bangkok was up in smoke.

Quite funny how people that have never really observed any Red Shirt rally are suddenly in possession of "the truth", and simple it is as well. And i wasted years of my life (and at times risking it as well) researching, investigating and observing, traveling all over the country, to get an idea what this is all about. I should just have asked you, and instead of going through the pains of writing a series of books, taking ten thousands of photos, and writing dozens of articles. I could have just written one line on Thaivisa: The Red Shirts burned down building and that is the simple truth!

No it's not funny. It's only funny because you want it to be. The Red Shirts were incited by their leaders and they tried to burn Bangkok down. The proof is there. Simple as that.

And yes, you have wasted your life researching fiction.

[nurofiend]

And yet the certain leaders who incited the "small, even microscopic minority" to burn Bangkok are still around "leading". If the leadership is rotten and yet are still embraced by the followers then the whole organisation can't be any good can it?

well you've answered my point in your reply...

"certain leaders" of course you say this as you fully well know that not all red shirt leaders told their followers to burn any buildings, otherwise we'd have a lot more youtube clips than 'that famous one'.

my point is that you you shouldn't look at a whole (massive) group of people with an opinion based on the criminal actions of comparatively so few

If the Red Shirt movement wes so peaceful and only a few were criminal, why is it these 'certain' leaders who incited violence haven't been expelled yet? Why hasn't the movement distanced themselves from these people and their speeches? Yeah it's only the few who advocate violence, with a few carrying it out while the majority look on and silently approving. Such good people!

i'm not saying they're all "such good people"..... i'm saying they are not all bad people

and not to confuse the negative agenda's of some of the leadership with the mindset of 'all' of it's followers

[nicknostitz]

No it's not funny. It's only funny because you want it to be. The Red Shirts were incited by their leaders and they tried to burn Bangkok down. The proof is there. Simple as that.

And yes, you have wasted your life researching fiction.

Well, thanks for your sage advice, and good night.