The First Red Shirt District Officially Opened And Recognized Today

[tlansford]

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Ignoring the false statement that Red Shirts is anything but a astroturfed movement, I would like to point out one important oversight in your praise for the Red's new-found love for democracy.

We are not arguing against any-one buying up land and setting up a collective, a new housing, declaring it to be a 'Red Village' and inviting anyone that feels the same to move there.

However, to declare a Red Shirt village for an existing village, where anything from [presumably] 49% to 1% of the inhabitants are NOT Red Shirt allies, is a direct violation on their basic human rights.

I do hope you take note of the difference and understand what the argument is about.

TAWP - "Ignoring the false statement that Red Shirts is anything but a astroturfed movement,"

OK - so you are stating as fact that the UDD is an "astroturfed movement".

Fine, end of discussion.

[tlansford]

Anyone that thinks declaring an *existing* village or district as a strict adherent to any political view is a good idea has a very loose grasp of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom from oppression.

What strikes me in your comment about the red shirt villages is the parallel I see with so many counties in West Texas.

There, in accordance with the prevailing religious views that alcohol is evil, the local governments of many counties outlaw the sale of alcohol.

That is not a political view, that is a religious view - in a country with strict separation of church and state.

That is not a simple declaration of a political position, that is the law as applied by the official organs of gov't.

( And Some people call it oppressive. )

It is in the heart of one of the most well-known "democracies" in the world.

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Anyway, I would not agree with your assertion about not having a grasp of these ideals.

As this Red Shirt Village movement is apparently a grassroots phenomena, it indicates to me that these Thai citizens are exercising their rights and learning more and more about what it means to take responsibility in a democracy. If you take a viewpoint that the Thai people still need to learn about democracy (as some here seem to express), then you could call it on-the-job training.

Recognizing this in no way means you need to agree with the movement or its objectives. Again, in the USA, you will find active, powerful grassroots organizations concerned with many different issues and reflecting many different political, social, and religious views.

Coming back to the thread, I found some of the incites and perspectives regarding the raison d'être behind the red shirt villages very interesting.

Wow, that's what I call a bunch of random synapse firings masquarading as rational thought. Good on ya there.

In case you aren't aware, alcohol is controlled to some extent nearly everywhere.

No problem... If you are having comprehension issues, then feel free to re-read it and come back with a valid point.

[tlansford]

Villages don't really declare themselves anything, it's the people in a village. That means probably a majority of people in a village elect to declare themselves a 'red-shirt village'. The declaration 'out-of-the-blue' raises questions:

- even if at this moment it's merely symbolic, what is the purpose?

- what does it mean to be declared a red-shirt village?

- how does it effect daily life?

- how does it effect those who opposed to the declaration?

Your 4 questions are good questions, and others have addressed them to some extent in this thread and in other threads.

[rubl]

Villages don't really declare themselves anything, it's the people in a village. That means probably a majority of people in a village elect to declare themselves a 'red-shirt village'. The declaration 'out-of-the-blue' raises questions:

- even if at this moment it's merely symbolic, what is the purpose?

- what does it mean to be declared a red-shirt village?

- how does it effect daily life?

- how does it effect those who opposed to the declaration?

Your 4 questions are good questions, and others have addressed them to some extent in this thread and in other threads.

I may have missed some, but IMHO I haven't seen real answers.

BTW I think the remainder of my post which you choose to remove is just as relevant.

If this 'red-shirt village' movement is a grass-root phenomena, and some Thai citizens exercise their rights and learn about responsibility, how come main agenda point is 'bring back Thaksin'?

What about self-reliance, self-entitlement, free of dictate by any type of elite? Democracy, brough to you by "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"? "one man, one party, no compromise"? Please reming me, tomorrow belong to whom?

Edited October 14, 2011 by rubl

[tlansford]

Villages don't really declare themselves anything, it's the people in a village. That means probably a majority of people in a village elect to declare themselves a 'red-shirt village'. The declaration 'out-of-the-blue' raises questions:

- even if at this moment it's merely symbolic, what is the purpose?

- what does it mean to be declared a red-shirt village?

- how does it effect daily life?

- how does it effect those who opposed to the declaration?

Your 4 questions are good questions, and others have addressed them to some extent in this thread and in other threads.

I may have missed some, but IMHO I haven't seen real answers.

BTW I think the remainder of my post which you choose to remove is just as relevant.

If this 'red-shirt village' movement is a grass-root phenomena, and some Thai citizens exercise their rights and learn about responsibility, how come main agenda point is 'bring back Thaksin'?

What about self-reliance, self-entitlement, free of dictate by any type of elite? Democracy, brough to you by "Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts"? "one man, one party, no compromise"? Please reming me, tomorrow belong to whom?

Hi Rubl -

The purpose of the RS villages - a couple of points made here - lateral communication structure not dependent on the hierarchy, local organizations for people to be active in their home districts without needing to go to BKK, and a protective reaction against the attempts at repression in the villages after the protests last year as well as a counter balance to the ISOC.

To be declared a red shirt village - seems like that was pretty well covered here and in a few threads over the last months. Some serious answers and some not so serious answers. But there have also been some news articles on the red shirt villages and a couple of people here who are familiar with the villages.

How does it affect daily life - so far, the answer seems to be 'not too much'. In spite of the rhetoric, no one has posted any evidence or reports of widespread repression, abuse of freedom of speech, etc.

point 4, also, no actual information has been presented here, nor has anyone referenced other reports. There's been some reasonable and not so reasonable speculation. I've lived in 4 countries & cultures, and in each I have found that the local community tends to like conformity. I would guess, just guess, that it applies here too.

Regarding the Thaksin / Red Shirt connection, I am not going to get into that beyond to say that t is clear that there are dependencies between Thaksin and the Red Shirts (which is natural as the movement grew out of resistance to the coup). IMO, that is the situation today. So what? And tomorrow? Does anyone know for sure what will happen in 6 months, 12 months, another 5 years? Besides, I have said elsewhere that i am not a Thaksin fan in spite of the labels that get thrown around here.

As for the self-reliance, I am not certain that I understood the question correctly. However, my experience in the villages indicates that people are pretty self-reliant. And just as a note regarding the red-yellow politics, my Thai skills are not such as to get deeply involved in this with the locals, but honestly, the people in the villages who I know are like those everywhere, much more worried about day-to-day life than politics - and as you probably know, in the last 2 months, if they haven't been concerned about their own daily affairs, then they've been talking about the flooding.

[serenitynow]

Wow, that's what I call a bunch of random synapse firings masquarading as rational thought. Good on ya there.

Sometimes one almost feels sorry for the red sympathisers who at times, really have their work cut out trying to give rational and reasonable explanations to the most ridiculous things.

Case in point here, where we have witnessed the declaration of entire villages as being of one political colour, described as a move forward for democracy and free speech. Amazing.

There's a word for it; "doublethink" !

[tlansford]

Wow, that's what I call a bunch of random synapse firings masquarading as rational thought. Good on ya there.

Sometimes one almost feels sorry for the red sympathisers who at times, really have their work cut out trying to give rational and reasonable explanations to the most ridiculous things.

Case in point here, where we have witnessed the declaration of entire villages as being of one political colour, described as a move forward for democracy and free speech. Amazing.

regarding democracy and freedom of speech, there is no color involved here - could be any colored village.

More to your post - Are you saying that the red shirt villages are not an example of people exercising their democratic rights to organize politically? It does sound like it and if so, please do elaborate.

Democracy (feel free to disagree with me here) - it is one person, one vote and universal suffrage (and not always the latter). It is a system of representation. Democracy is majority rule & majority rule is not always fair (remember slavery, segregation, discrimination based on sex, religion, skin color?). This is why all of the major democracies are extended with constitutions that guarantee certain rights - there is a general uniformity of human rights included in democratic constitutions. Democracy is not about justice for everyone. It is the human rights contained within a constitution that addresses this. Free speech is a human right, not a democratic right.

Organizing red villages is a political act and at the same time an act that is legal exercise of people's right to free speech. Whether I agree with their objectives or not, I support their right to organize.

You (and others) argue that it is infringing on the rights of others - specifically their freedom of speech. Maybe so. That is completely possible. And I don't disagree that it is possible.

(So far that has been alleged here on the forum, but not demonstrated) (And, BTW, AFAIK, none of the TVF-labeled "red-sympathizers" have come out in favor of one group violating the rights of another group)

But how is that different from anywhere else in the world? Think about it seriously ... it is part of the democratic process. In every democracy where one group is actively exercising its rights there is a potential that they could actually, or at least in the opinion of another group of people, be violating someone else's rights. Example : the pro-life / pro-choice conflict in the US - Since Roe v Wade, pro-life organizations have mobilized, pro-choice groups have mobilized. One groups feels they are protecting innocent lives, the other group feels they are protecting individual rights. No matter which side you are on, people on one side of the issue feel that the other side is infringing on their rights. That has been going on for nearly 40 years. Think that is an exception? What about capital punishment, what about gun control? etc, etc, ...

(and my favorite - what about dry counties in Texas ? )

And regarding red-sympathizers, remember that it is possible to be anti-coup and anti-thaksin. It is possible to see that more than one side violates the principles of human rights and democracy. It is possible to understand some objectives of a movement (red or yellow) and disagree with other objectives.

As for politicians, Thaksin and Abhisit both were dishonest, lacked integrity, violated human rights, and were undemocratic. The past is water under the bridge and as for the future, both men are still players on the stage, so let's see what happens. I throw my hat in with some others who hope that the political disagreements stay in the government house and don't spread to the streets again.

Edited October 14, 2011 by tlansford

[TAWP]

By contrast, one could argue that the villages declaring themselves as red shirt villages - looking specifically at what we have been able to learn & share about this process here and elsewhere - one could argue, that these people are exercising their right to freedom of speech. Perhaps then they actually are demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the concept of democracy?

Ignoring the false statement that Red Shirts is anything but a astroturfed movement, I would like to point out one important oversight in your praise for the Red's new-found love for democracy.

We are not arguing against any-one buying up land and setting up a collective, a new housing, declaring it to be a 'Red Village' and inviting anyone that feels the same to move there.

However, to declare a Red Shirt village for an existing village, where anything from [presumably] 49% to 1% of the inhabitants are NOT Red Shirt allies, is a direct violation on their basic human rights.

I do hope you take note of the difference and understand what the argument is about.

TAWP - "Ignoring the false statement that Red Shirts is anything but a astroturfed movement,"

OK - so you are stating as fact that the UDD is an "astroturfed movement".

Fine, end of discussion.

Yes, we are fully aware that you came here after Thaksin's rule, his outing etc - but even you should be able to read back on the history since.

Anyway, I accept that you run away, unable to respond to the main point of my post.

[TAWP]

You (and others) argue that it is infringing on the rights of others - specifically their freedom of speech. Maybe so. That is completely possible. And I don't disagree that it is possible.

(So far that has been alleged here on the forum, but not demonstrated) (And, BTW, AFAIK, none of the TVF-labeled "red-sympathizers" have come out in favor of one group violating the rights of another group)

Could I humbly ask you to read the posts already posted in this thread explaining how declaring, without proper mandate, a village as 'Red village' is infringing on peoples rights to not have to be oppressed or pressured to have political views they might not share?

[Siam Simon]

Yes, we are fully aware that ///cut

There's that word "we" again from one of the Team AntiThaksinista regs .

[rixalex]

Well, yes, that is what is so wrong, in your opinion. It seems to me that you are forcing the issue through a western prism. In the US during elections, for example, people throughout a city will post signs for their preferred candidates, and no, they don't declare the entire town red or blue (the US version of colors...). On the other hand, this does not eliminate the pressure to conform in the USA.

What pressure to conform in the USA? Can you not see the difference between putting up a sign on your own property, declaring political allegiance, and putting up a sign that straddles over into your neighbours property. That is effectively what is happening here. A section of a village are making an arbitrary decision on behalf of everyone there, and even if there is only one person out of a thousand who doesn't agree with that decision, that is enough for it to be wrong and undemocratic. As someone, i think it might have been TAWP, said earlier, fine, if you want to go and buy a bit of land, put up a sign, and then invite people who share your belief to come and live on that land, great. Power to you.

Secondly, you don't provide any support for your opinion that this is "an attempt to stamp out freedom of speech". As has been noted already in this thread, in spite of a large number of red shirt villages, there is not a widespread reporting of this phenomena to justify your opinion. Certainly if there were, then that would be a problem.

The evidence is in the act. If you can't see that, i really can't help you i'm afraid.

This is not a defense of red villages. We could be talking about yellow villages.

Were we i would find the idea equally wrong.

[rixalex]

More to your post - Are you saying that the red shirt villages are not an example of people exercising their democratic rights to organize politically? It does sound like it and if so, please do elaborate.

For goodness sake, just how much more elaboration can you possibly need? If you don't get it, perhaps you never will?

Organizing red villages is a political act and at the same time an act that is legal exercise of people's right to free speech. Whether I agree with their objectives or not, I support their right to organize.

How much exercising of your right to free speech would you feel it to be for me to come to the area in which you live and tell you that your home is now in a red shirt zone, or a yellow shirt zone, and that i have made that decision on your behalf? You don't like that decision. OK. Fair enough. Come to the next village meet and you can explain to all the red shirts/yellow shirts there why it is you disagree. Yeah right. Like that is going to happen. Keep your mouth shut, and keep your head down, if you know what is good for you.

And regarding red-sympathizers, remember that it is possible to be anti-coup and anti-thaksin.

I agree. What it is not possible to be is pro red shirt but anti Thaksin. Not until the red shirt movement ceases to be all about him. Sure, you can talk about what will happen in the future, but that is all unknown ifs and maybes. You don't lend support to a group for what you think they will become, because you don't know what they will become.

As for politicians, Thaksin and Abhisit both were dishonest, lacked integrity, violated human rights, and were undemocratic.

For you to put these two men on the same ethical par, you really need to have lived through it all, to have seen it first hand. Had you, i can't help but think you would think differently, but i could be wrong.

Edited October 15, 2011 by rixalex

[otherstuff1957]

The Reds, just like their opponents, are an extremely varied group. Some are members of the Thaksin Personality Cult, others are old-fashioned leftists, others are disenchanted rural activists who oppose the old power structure, some a just mercenaries who are in it for Thaksin's paycheck and quite a few have a political agenda which cannot be discussed here.

It is unlikely that the Redshirt movement would really have gotten off the ground without Thaksin's money & support, but I think that a lot of the Red Cheerleaders here hope that the movement is growing beyond him. In other words, now that the upcountry people have gained some experience in political activism and organization, they will take it to the next step and begin acting as an independent social activist movement.

Such a development would probably be opposed by Thaksin just as much as by his opponents! Which goes along with statements that I have read that Thaksin does not approve of the Red Village movement. However, if he cannot squelch this movement, he must control it, which is why Jatuporn and others were up there inaugurating the Red District and why an old TRT building was donated as the Red Village Group Headquarters.

It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. I see four possibilities:

1. The Red Villages become an independent political force that serves as a check on PT when they act selfishly & stupidly.

2. Thaksin succeeds in controlling the Red Villages & keeps them ready to be mobilized as a threat against Bangkok.

3. The movement dies out through lack of interest.

4. The movement becomes disillusioned with conventional politics and becomes a radicalized leftist revolutionary front.

Number 4 is not very likely, but if PT are incompetent and corrupt enough, then it is a possibility.

[Siam Simon]

The Reds, just like their opponents, are an extremely varied group. Some are members of the Thaksin Personality Cult, others are old-fashioned leftists, others are disenchanted rural activists who oppose the old power structure, some a just mercenaries who are in it for Thaksin's paycheck and quite a few have a political agenda which cannot be discussed here.

It is unlikely that the Redshirt movement would really have gotten off the ground without Thaksin's money & support, but I think that a lot of the Red Cheerleaders here hope that the movement is growing beyond him. In other words, now that the upcountry people have gained some experience in political activism and organization, they will take it to the next step and begin acting as an independent social activist movement.

Such a development would probably be opposed by Thaksin just as much as by his opponents! Which goes along with statements that I have read that Thaksin does not approve of the Red Village movement. However, if he cannot squelch this movement, he must control it, which is why Jatuporn and others were up there inaugurating the Red District and why an old TRT building was donated as the Red Village Group Headquarters.

It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. I see four possibilities:

1. The Red Villages become an independent political force that serves as a check on PT when they act selfishly & stupidly.

2. Thaksin succeeds in controlling the Red Villages & keeps them ready to be mobilized as a threat against Bangkok.

3. The movement dies out through lack of interest.

4. The movement becomes disillusioned with conventional politics and becomes a radicalized leftist revolutionary front.

Number 4 is not very likely, but if PT are incompetent and corrupt enough, then it is a possibility.

That's a pretty good assessment.

One should also consider the army in the long term picture. At the moment, they're quiet. But their involvement with local power structures should not be underestimated. I remember during the extended period of martial law after the 2006 coup, the local TRT activists became very inactive[. I'm not sure how well these political villages would stand up to a bit of combined extended pressure from the local military and puu yais.

[whybother]

...

One should also consider the army in the long term picture. At the moment, they're quiet. But their involvement with local power structures should not be underestimated. I remember during the extended period of martial law after the 2006 coup, the local TRT activists became very inactive[. I'm not sure how well these political villages would stand up to a bit of combined extended pressure from the local military and puu yais.

Are you suggesting that puu yais would be against the setting up of the red shirt villages, or that there would be opposing pressure with the local military on one side and the puu yais on they other?

[JAG]

Yes, we are fully aware that ///cut

There's that word "we" again from one of the Team AntiThaksinista regs .

maybe it's The Royal We?

[TAWP]

Yes, we are fully aware that ///cut

There's that word "we" again from one of the Team AntiThaksinista regs .

You are saying that Red Shirt apologists are unable to receive and retain new information?

Since by 'we' in that sentence I clearly meant 'the majority of the posters here' as he has written openly and clearly - several times - that he arrived here after 2006 etc and has no comparable experience how the place was under Thaksin's rule.

I do hope you will recover from your medical condition soon.

Edited October 15, 2011 by TAWP

[otherstuff1957]

Well, the location and nature of the Red District was finally mentioned in another thread. Here it is:

It's Amphur Prachaksinlapakhom (ประจักษ์ศิลปาคม) right in the center of Udon Thani.

Given that this thread has had tons of opinions posted, but very few facts, I thought that I would do my best to add one!

[Buchholz]

Yes, we are fully aware that ///cut

There's that word "we" again from one of the Team AntiThaksinista regs .

You are saying that Red Shirt apologists are unable to receive and retain new information?

Since by 'we' in that sentence I clearly meant 'the majority of the posters here' as he has written openly and clearly - several times - that he arrived here after 2006 etc and has no comparable experience how the place was under Thaksin's rule.

I do hope you will recover from your medical condition soon.

Incurable, I'm afraid.

.

[Siam Simon]

Yes, we are fully aware that ///cut

There's that word "we" again from one of the Team AntiThaksinista regs .

You are saying that Red Shirt apologists are unable to receive and retain new information?

Since by 'we' in that sentence I clearly meant 'the majority of the posters here' as he has written openly and clearly - several times - that he arrived here after 2006 etc and has no comparable experience how the place was under Thaksin's rule.

I do hope you will recover from your medical condition soon.

Frankly, TAWP, the only posters here (on TVF) of which you are part of a majority is the loud-mouthed bullying ones who drive the vast majority of TVF members away from the political discussions. The rest of your response doesn't reference anything in my post that you quoted, so I'll leave you to argue with yourself on that stuff.

Meanwhile, back ontopic, thanks for that info otherstuff1957. It adds another angle for Googling info on this subject matter, which I'm about to do.

[tlansford]

Well, the location and nature of the Red District was finally mentioned in another thread. Here it is:

It's Amphur Prachaksinlapakhom (ประจักษ์ศิลปาคม) right in the center of Udon Thani.

Given that this thread has had tons of opinions posted, but very few facts, I thought that I would do my best to add one!

Thanks for the post. Appreciated !

Was just there last week. Glad I went before it was declared a red district.

It's obviously a very dangerous place now.

[AleG]

Just a few weeks ago "Reconciliation" was the Red Shirt Apologists Brigade mantra, "we must forget the past and bring in unity and reconciliation to all Thais" or something like that. Now it's not only proper, but apparently necessary to carve up the country into Red Shirt Districts and non-Red Shirt Districts.

I remember them at the election time "Reconciliation!" was the war... ehh... peace cry. Did I dream about the long arguments about how Abhisit and the Democrats campaign caused divisions in society with their annoying insistence on pointing who did what during the turmoils of the last few years? How Yingluck came along with her message of unity and reconciliation. How, I ask, dividing the country like this furthers any sort of reconciliation?

(Expects no answer)

It's also not about Thaksin even though the man at the front of the movement states that this villages should have a crimson fringed effigy of the Dear Leader at the town's gate (I wonder if it goes side by side or replacing the golden rimmed one found usually there).

Principles, what principles? Say Y today, and it's X tomorrow, whatever it is that makes the movement look better.

If there's bile in this post is because it offends me a great deal to see a country slowly but steadily circling down the drain and some people, either doggedly unable or willfully aware of the motion, cheer on the sidelines.

Empires have fallen on the hubris of a single man, but they don't do it alone, they need acolytes to push the thing along and while history is bound to place the burden of their guilt on this notable men (for certain acceptions of "notable") the enablers usually scurry away from the book's pages.

[koosdeboer]

Just a few weeks ago "Reconciliation" was the Red Shirt Apologists Brigade mantra, "we must forget the past and bring in unity and reconciliation to all Thais" or something like that. Now it's not only proper, but apparently necessary to carve up the country into Red Shirt Districts and non-Red Shirt Districts.

I remember them at the election time "Reconciliation!" was the war... ehh... peace cry. Did I dream about the long arguments about how Abhisit and the Democrats campaign caused divisions in society with their annoying insistence on pointing who did what during the turmoils of the last few years? How Yingluck came along with her message of unity and reconciliation. How, I ask, dividing the country like this furthers any sort of reconciliation?

(Expects no answer)

It's also not about Thaksin even though the man at the front of the movement states that this villages should have a crimson fringed effigy of the Dear Leader at the town's gate (I wonder if it goes side by side or replacing the golden rimmed one found usually there).

Principles, what principles? Say Y today, and it's X tomorrow, whatever it is that makes the movement look better.

If there's bile in this post is because it offends me a great deal to see a country slowly but steadily circling down the drain and some people, either doggedly unable or willfully aware of the motion, cheer on the sidelines.

Empires have fallen on the hubris of a single man, but they don't do it alone, they need acolytes to push the thing along and while history is bound to place the burden of their guilt on this notable men (for certain acceptions of "notable") the enablers usually scurry away from the book's pages.

great post, I agree

[gl555]

Just a few weeks ago "Reconciliation" was the Red Shirt Apologists Brigade mantra, "we must forget the past and bring in unity and reconciliation to all Thais" or something like that. Now it's not only proper, but apparently necessary to carve up the country into Red Shirt Districts and non-Red Shirt Districts.

I remember them at the election time "Reconciliation!" was the war... ehh... peace cry. Did I dream about the long arguments about how Abhisit and the Democrats campaign caused divisions in society with their annoying insistence on pointing who did what during the turmoils of the last few years? How Yingluck came along with her message of unity and reconciliation. How, I ask, dividing the country like this furthers any sort of reconciliation?

(Expects no answer)

It's also not about Thaksin even though the man at the front of the movement states that this villages should have a crimson fringed effigy of the Dear Leader at the town's gate (I wonder if it goes side by side or replacing the golden rimmed one found usually there).

Principles, what principles? Say Y today, and it's X tomorrow, whatever it is that makes the movement look better.

If there's bile in this post is because it offends me a great deal to see a country slowly but steadily circling down the drain and some people, either doggedly unable or willfully aware of the motion, cheer on the sidelines.

Empires have fallen on the hubris of a single man, but they don't do it alone, they need acolytes to push the thing along and while history is bound to place the burden of their guilt on this notable men (for certain acceptions of "notable") the enablers usually scurry away from the book's pages.

Well written.

Like everything about the Reds, their organisation, their promises, their mantras and their slogans are just outright lies. Reconcillation? From these people? Pui!

[TAWP]

Yes, we are fully aware that ///cut

There's that word "we" again from one of the Team AntiThaksinista regs .

You are saying that Red Shirt apologists are unable to receive and retain new information?

Since by 'we' in that sentence I clearly meant 'the majority of the posters here' as he has written openly and clearly - several times - that he arrived here after 2006 etc and has no comparable experience how the place was under Thaksin's rule.

I do hope you will recover from your medical condition soon.

Frankly, TAWP, the only posters here (on TVF) of which you are part of a majority is the loud-mouthed bullying ones who drive the vast majority of TVF members away from the political discussions. The rest of your response doesn't reference anything in my post that you quoted, so I'll leave you to argue with yourself on that stuff.

Here is a tip: Don't edit other posters quote and try to incorrectly represent what they wrote and people might be less hostile.

[TAWP]

Thanks for the post. Appreciated !

Was just there last week. Glad I went before it was declared a red district.

It's obviously a very dangerous place now.

I hope it is not. You are welcome to dress in yellow and test the theory out.

[tlansford]

Thanks for the post. Appreciated !

Was just there last week. Glad I went before it was declared a red district.

It's obviously a very dangerous place now.

I hope it is not. You are welcome to dress in yellow and test the theory out.

You know, that IS the funny part about the paranoia expressed on this forum.

My mother-in-law is a gentle, religious woman who loves the King. She goes to the temple every day to help the monks and on Mondays she wears a bright, bright yellow shirt. She lives in the neighboring district to the one in this article.

She is not purposefully making a political statement, she is just living her life like she always has. She's not being repressed. Her rights aren't being violated. No one is infringing on her liberties. In fact, like most everyone else in her town, they are just worried about their day-to-day lives.

So the little slice of real-life that I experience doesn't reflect the hyperbole I read here.

[TAWP]

Thanks for the post. Appreciated !

Was just there last week. Glad I went before it was declared a red district.

It's obviously a very dangerous place now.

I hope it is not. You are welcome to dress in yellow and test the theory out.

You know, that IS the funny part about the paranoia expressed on this forum.

My mother-in-law is a gentle, religious woman who loves the King. She goes to the temple every day to help the monks and on Mondays she wears a bright, bright yellow shirt. She lives in the neighboring district to the one in this article.

She is not purposefully making a political statement, she is just living her life like she always has. She's not being repressed. Her rights aren't being violated. No one is infringing on her liberties. In fact, like most everyone else in her town, they are just worried about their day-to-day lives.

So the little slice of real-life that I experience doesn't reflect the hyperbole I read here.

Are you saying that she lives in a Red Village and openly proclaim that she is not a Red Shirt?

[serenitynow]

Thanks for the post. Appreciated !

Was just there last week. Glad I went before it was declared a red district.

It's obviously a very dangerous place now.

I hope it is not. You are welcome to dress in yellow and test the theory out.

You know, that IS the funny part about the paranoia expressed on this forum.

My mother-in-law is a gentle, religious woman who loves the King. She goes to the temple every day to help the monks and on Mondays she wears a bright, bright yellow shirt. She lives in the neighboring district to the one in this article.

She is not purposefully making a political statement, she is just living her life like she always has. She's not being repressed. Her rights aren't being violated. No one is infringing on her liberties. In fact, like most everyone else in her town, they are just worried about their day-to-day lives.

So the little slice of real-life that I experience doesn't reflect the hyperbole I read here.

It doesn't seem to reflect the hyperbole you write here either.

[plumeria]

So much hatred for the redshirts and the way thai's are trying to live thier lives in thier country. What have the thais done to you people personally to breed such hatred? If you have such destest and hatred of the country and the people why are you here?

Probably cos they love this country and find it quite disheartening the direction things are going.

Good point. Although I have to agree criticism of actions and policies does not = hate.

And plenty of TVF posters don't live in Thailand for various reasons.

Any Thai not focused on minimizing damage from the floods deserves to be criticized.

The fact they were RED shirts or any other color shirt is not the point. They have completely screwed up priorities and values.

There are enough crazies in both groups of the main colors that I no longer dare to wear any of my red shirts nor any of my yellow shirts.

I do not feel free to express my opinion publicly or even to have an opinion because of the reactionary nature of so many Thais these days.