Red Shirts Mimic Village Tactics Used By Rebels: Thai Opinion

[volk666]

First anti-coup demonstrations were counted in hundreds and they were held regularly on Saturdays. The biggest one, on Constitution day, was five thousand men strong, and their preferred color was black, red shirts didn't exist then. That demonstration, less than three months after the coup, was also the last. Afaik none of the protesters cared about Thaksin one way or another, those were genuine anti-coup demonstrations.

First time protesters appeared as Reds was almost a year after the coup (nine months?) when Thaksin scheduled a video phone- in and his supporters finally found a compelling reason to leave their homes. Twenty thousand of them came out and that's when they also learned their movement was against the coup.

The original protesters joined in and their association with clearly pro-Thaksin movement was held against them ever since. They are the ones that still hope that one day pro-Thaksin movement will evolve into something truly democratic but non-reds never take their dreams seriously. Note how bringing back Thaksin is one of the stated goals of this Federation of Red Villagers, if anything, Thaksin's hold over red minds is only getting worse - we never had any organization openly dedicated to his well-being before and now there are thousands of villages to bring Thaksin back and they aim to grow to hundreds of thousands.

Thaksin's "democracy is not the goal" quotes:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

"Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."

That speech was given to commemorate Constitution Day.

There might be different translation, this one is from The Nation and was reposted on this forum eight years ago:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/4293-thaksin-democracy-is-not-my-goal/

[h90]

By the way I recall in the Austrian military we got told again and again that it is our duty to refuse unlawful orders and law also includes international laws, Geneva convention (spelling???). Based on Austrian laws a military commander would have to refuse an order to conquer Iraq, for example.

And unfortunately the idea of unlawful orders or adherence to the the Geneva Convention are a almost completely foreign concept in the Thai military, which anybody who has ever been with the Thai military, especially with combat units, will be aware off.

Actually in every army....

[gl555]

Hi Ozmick, no problem to answer questions. I try to avoid trolling responses which occur often enough.

as for the protests, there is plenty of information on the internet. 15 seconds with google and people will find more links than I can post. - one reason why it surprises me when people claim there were no protests after the coup.

as for military control, look at any other major democracy. I'm familiar with the US, France, and Germany - then the question is "what part of the military is NOT under civilian control?". In all 3 of these cases, it is 100%.

In the USA, if a military commander refused a direct order from the president, he would be court-martialed and thrown in the clink - Americans call it "treason". I am pretty certain that you are also aware of the reports that exactly that happened during the PAD protests under the PPP government.

And finally, no emotional disturbance here... but thanks for the concern.

In the US, France and Germany, if their Prime Minister or President pulled half the shit some of our Prime Ministers have, they would have been impeached and thrown in jail. In the US, France and Germany, when they say they have checks and balances, they have checks and balances. Their judiciary and house of representatives are not filled with cronies and family members, Over here, I am glad the Army more or less does its own thing because this country is damned if we have a Prime Minister who fully controls parliament, the judiciary and the military. One asshol_e tried to do that and the military pulled a coup on him. I can only imagine how screwed up this country would be right now if the military here was truly controlled by him.

[473geo]

Strange I could have sworn the checks and balances had gone a little awry in the wests financial institutions of late....

[nicknostitz]

First anti-coup demonstrations were counted in hundreds and they were held regularly on Saturdays. The biggest one, on Constitution day, was five thousand men strong, and their preferred color was black, red shirts didn't exist then. That demonstration, less than three months after the coup, was also the last. Afaik none of the protesters cared about Thaksin one way or another, those were genuine anti-coup demonstrations.

First time protesters appeared as Reds was almost a year after the coup (nine months?) when Thaksin scheduled a video phone- in and his supporters finally found a compelling reason to leave their homes. Twenty thousand of them came out and that's when they also learned their movement was against the coup.

The original protesters joined in and their association with clearly pro-Thaksin movement was held against them ever since. They are the ones that still hope that one day pro-Thaksin movement will evolve into something truly democratic but non-reds never take their dreams seriously. Note how bringing back Thaksin is one of the stated goals of this Federation of Red Villagers, if anything, Thaksin's hold over red minds is only getting worse - we never had any organization openly dedicated to his well-being before and now there are thousands of villages to bring Thaksin back and they aim to grow to hundreds of thousands.

Thaksin's "democracy is not the goal" quotes:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

"Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."

That speech was given to commemorate Constitution Day.

There might be different translation, this one is from The Nation and was reposted on this forum eight years ago:

http://www.thaivisa....is-not-my-goal/

That is quite wrong.

Only one of the groups - the Saturday Voice - only protested on Saturdays at Sanam Luang, and that group was always very pro-Thaksin. Two other groups - the Anti-19 September Coup network and the 24th of June Group were not allied with Thaksin. PTV - the first larger scale protest group - was founded by TRT politicians: Veera, Jatuporn, Jakrapob and Nattawut.

And no - the protests never ceased. There were many marches to Democracy Monument, Army headquarters, stages at Sanam Luang, etc. The peak were the Prem Compound clashes on July 22, 2007, the second attempt to reach Prem's residence. I was regularly observing the protests then. And no, it was only on particular occasions the protesters wore black, on many other occasions the protesters wore many colors, including the Royal Yellow T-Shirts (at some events they were even asked by leaders to wear Royal Yellow shirts, to show that they were only protesting against Prem, and not against higher up).

And no, the first time protesters appeared in Red Color T-Shirts was after Sombat (now of Red Sunday fame) founded a group - the Thai Vote No Group (or similar) - agitating against the military sponsored 2007 constitution - which used red as an identification color. In 2008 more and more UDD protesters began using the color Red as an identification color, and only after the restructuring of the UDD following the disastrous battle at Makkhawan the UDD began using Red as an identification color, and were called the Red Shirts.

And no, when you base you ideas on what goes on today in the very thin and superficial media reporting, than you assume that the Red Shirt movement is getting dominated increasingly by Thaksin. To get an idea what really goes on, and which topics are discussed, i am afraid that you will have to get your feet dirty, and personally observe on local level.

[h90]

First anti-coup demonstrations were counted in hundreds and they were held regularly on Saturdays. The biggest one, on Constitution day, was five thousand men strong, and their preferred color was black, red shirts didn't exist then. That demonstration, less than three months after the coup, was also the last. Afaik none of the protesters cared about Thaksin one way or another, those were genuine anti-coup demonstrations.

First time protesters appeared as Reds was almost a year after the coup (nine months?) when Thaksin scheduled a video phone- in and his supporters finally found a compelling reason to leave their homes. Twenty thousand of them came out and that's when they also learned their movement was against the coup.

The original protesters joined in and their association with clearly pro-Thaksin movement was held against them ever since. They are the ones that still hope that one day pro-Thaksin movement will evolve into something truly democratic but non-reds never take their dreams seriously. Note how bringing back Thaksin is one of the stated goals of this Federation of Red Villagers, if anything, Thaksin's hold over red minds is only getting worse - we never had any organization openly dedicated to his well-being before and now there are thousands of villages to bring Thaksin back and they aim to grow to hundreds of thousands.

Thaksin's "democracy is not the goal" quotes:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

"Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."

That speech was given to commemorate Constitution Day.

There might be different translation, this one is from The Nation and was reposted on this forum eight years ago:

http://www.thaivisa....is-not-my-goal/

That is quite wrong.

Only one of the groups - the Saturday Voice - only protested on Saturdays at Sanam Luang, and that group was always very pro-Thaksin. Two other groups - the Anti-19 September Coup network and the 24th of June Group were not allied with Thaksin. PTV - the first larger scale protest group - was founded by TRT politicians: Veera, Jatuporn, Jakrapob and Nattawut.

And no - the protests never ceased. There were many marches to Democracy Monument, Army headquarters, stages at Sanam Luang, etc. The peak were the Prem Compound clashes on July 22, 2007, the second attempt to reach Prem's residence. I was regularly observing the protests then. And no, it was only on particular occasions the protesters wore black, on many other occasions the protesters wore many colors, including the Royal Yellow T-Shirts (at some events they were even asked by leaders to wear Royal Yellow shirts, to show that they were only protesting against Prem, and not against higher up).

And no, the first time protesters appeared in Red Color T-Shirts was after Sombat (now of Red Sunday fame) founded a group - the Thai Vote No Group (or similar) - agitating against the military sponsored 2007 constitution - which used red as an identification color. In 2008 more and more UDD protesters began using the color Red as an identification color, and only after the restructuring of the UDD following the disastrous battle at Makkhawan the UDD began using Red as an identification color, and were called the Red Shirts.

And no, when you base you ideas on what goes on today in the very thin and superficial media reporting, than you assume that the Red Shirt movement is getting dominated increasingly by Thaksin. To get an idea what really goes on, and which topics are discussed, i am afraid that you will have to get your feet dirty, and personally observe on local level.

I recall them all with a red Thaksin TShirt....

[ginjag]

As long as the Red Shirts cannot accept a different opinion in their own villages, there will never be true democracy.

And if that is not the whole point in one sentence, I don't know what is...

With you on that----------and it's a pity most are not working hard enough, maybe that's why they play these kids games they have too much time on their hands-it proved it with the Bkk siege. Now is the time when most of the gang members use their spare time to HELP the army shore up the sand bags--YES get out of your village DENS mobilise yourselves -call Dubai-for funds and get down to the stricken areas - apologise if some have but I have not heard of a mass movement to the south of Issan. SICK of hearing about their antics, now I'm beginning to feel sorry for their stupidity. You lot for all your efforts have got bugger all-serves you lot right.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Is the creation of a red shirt village something that is done by a legal registration process or is it simply the result of some overzealous chap sticking a signpost in the ground. If the former is true then clarification of the legality of such a claim should be made clear. If it is the latter than likely this is being used by one side or another as political disinformation and divisive in purpose.

[OzMick]

Is the creation of a red shirt village something that is done by a legal registration process or is it simply the result of some overzealous chap sticking a signpost in the ground. If the former is true then clarification of the legality of such a claim should be made clear. If it is the latter than likely this is being used by one side or another as political disinformation and divisive in purpose.

Well that was good for a giggle! They can't / won't lodge an appeal against an acquittal of a woman who stole 50 odd billion baht, and you want them to investigate the legality of putting up a picture of the PM's brother / puppet master and a sign saying "We're on your side."

You have to understand the new rules - Shinawatras, PTP and the Red-shirts do NOTHING wrong.

[Buchholz]

First anti-coup demonstrations were counted in hundreds and they were held regularly on Saturdays. The biggest one, on Constitution day, was five thousand men strong, and their preferred color was black, red shirts didn't exist then. That demonstration, less than three months after the coup, was also the last. Afaik none of the protesters cared about Thaksin one way or another, those were genuine anti-coup demonstrations.

First time protesters appeared as Reds was almost a year after the coup (nine months?) when Thaksin scheduled a video phone- in and his supporters finally found a compelling reason to leave their homes. Twenty thousand of them came out and that's when they also learned their movement was against the coup.

The original protesters joined in and their association with clearly pro-Thaksin movement was held against them ever since. They are the ones that still hope that one day pro-Thaksin movement will evolve into something truly democratic but non-reds never take their dreams seriously. Note how bringing back Thaksin is one of the stated goals of this Federation of Red Villagers, if anything, Thaksin's hold over red minds is only getting worse - we never had any organization openly dedicated to his well-being before and now there are thousands of villages to bring Thaksin back and they aim to grow to hundreds of thousands.

Thaksin's "democracy is not the goal" quotes:

"Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it's not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned," "Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress."

"Democracy is a vehicle," Thaksin said. "We can't drive a Rolls-Royce to a rural village and solve people's problems. A pickup truck or good off-road car will do. We just need to think carefully and make the right choices."

That speech was given to commemorate Constitution Day.

There might be different translation, this one is from The Nation and was reposted on this forum eight years ago:

http://www.thaivisa....is-not-my-goal/

That is quite wrong.

Only one of the groups - the Saturday Voice - only protested on Saturdays at Sanam Luang, and that group was always very pro-Thaksin. Two other groups - the Anti-19 September Coup network and the 24th of June Group were not allied with Thaksin. PTV - the first larger scale protest group - was founded by TRT politicians: Veera, Jatuporn, Jakrapob and Nattawut.

And no - the protests never ceased. There were many marches to Democracy Monument, Army headquarters, stages at Sanam Luang, etc. The peak were the Prem Compound clashes on July 22, 2007, the second attempt to reach Prem's residence. I was regularly observing the protests then. And no, it was only on particular occasions the protesters wore black, on many other occasions the protesters wore many colors, including the Royal Yellow T-Shirts (at some events they were even asked by leaders to wear Royal Yellow shirts, to show that they were only protesting against Prem, and not against higher up).

And no, the first time protesters appeared in Red Color T-Shirts was after Sombat (now of Red Sunday fame) founded a group - the Thai Vote No Group (or similar) - agitating against the military sponsored 2007 constitution - which used red as an identification color. In 2008 more and more UDD protesters began using the color Red as an identification color, and only after the restructuring of the UDD following the disastrous battle at Makkhawan the UDD began using Red as an identification color, and were called the Red Shirts.

And no, when you base you ideas on what goes on today in the very thin and superficial media reporting, than you assume that the Red Shirt movement is getting dominated increasingly by Thaksin. To get an idea what really goes on, and which topics are discussed, i am afraid that you will have to get your feet dirty, and personally observe on local level.

The debacle by the pre-Red Shirt's Red Shirts is still waiting adjudication.

It's a shame that those Red Shirts have thus far escaped prosecution as they were the first large-scale violence way back in July 2007. One can only imagine how if they had been properly dealt with at the time that the Black Songkran 2009 and May Mayhem 2010 could have possibly been avoided as it was the same Red Shirts involved on all 3 occasions.

[rubl]

From the OP:

Phetchasak Kittidussadeekul, president of Red-Shirt Villages of Thailand, said: "Red-shirt villages are the heart of the campaign to fight for the return of democracy for the people. We will increase the number of red-shirt villages from dozens to hundreds and to thousands, and eventually to hundreds of thousands. Each red-shirt village will have a sign with picture of [former prime minister] Thaksin Shinawatra. Each sign will be painted red."

"Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts". With Pheu Thai UDD leader MP Jatuporn agreeing and having k. Thaksin's picture prominently displayed, I really get this warm, red-gloss feeling about democracy and freedom of speech, multi-party political systems. Tomorrow belongs to me!

[animatic]

From the OP:

Phetchasak Kittidussadeekul, president of Red-Shirt Villages of Thailand, said: "Red-shirt villages are the heart of the campaign to fight for the return of democracy for the people. We will increase the number of red-shirt villages from dozens to hundreds and to thousands, and eventually to hundreds of thousands. Each red-shirt village will have a sign with picture of [former prime minister] Thaksin Shinawatra. Each sign will be painted red."

"Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts". With Pheu Thai UDD leader MP Jatuporn agreeing and having k. Thaksin's picture prominently displayed, I really get this warm, red-gloss feeling about democracy and freedom of speech, multi-party political systems. Tomorrow belongs to me!

They have their Godhead to rally around.

A cult of personality run by un-reconstructed 60-70s Communist Ideologues

glorifying an uber capitalist, because he has, the national image, political network, and available cash to back their play, for his own reasons.

They of course have different end goals, but need the figurehead to go against another figurehead, and even if he 'gets martyred' he was just a capitalist and their network is in place, and their zealots trained, and ready to fight for the martyred godhead.

Some of these guys must be really drooling to see their life's work coming together. Revolution by what ever means, is just another step in the path to true socialist enlightenment, they just had missteps back in the 70's, now it moves forward again. Thaksin the dear leader & potential patsy rolled into one.

Edited October 15, 2011 by animatic

[volk666]

Anti-Prem protests happened after Thaksin's "second coming" via video link. There were no demos to speak of between Dec 2006 and that first big red shirt protest when UDD/DADD was born, sometimes in July 2007. That's the period Nick referred to what he said there was a lull in protests after the announcement of new elections or something.

Even if we assume that reds came out in mass because yellows started harassing the government first, it still not a valid reason - to demonstrate against another demonstration. It just gives more credence to the argument that reds are just Thaksin's terrorist arm put in charge of dominating the streets.

Who donned a red shirt first is not important, what's important is which group made it mainstream, and it wasn't Sombat, it was Thaksin supporters. Some people might successfully trace red color back to Sombat and that maybe technically true but I bet there are millions of red shirts now who would go "Sombat who?"

My point being that genuine anti-coup protests attracted only about 1% of what Thaksin did with his phone-in and despite being there first the original protesters can never claim red shirt movement as their own, it's a pipe dream that they don't want to let go.

Right after the coup Isanese might have been afraid of openly protesting but Bangkok was a fair game, the future Bangkok "reds" just didn't care enough, not without Thaksin leading them.

[tlansford]

Hi Ozmick, no problem to answer questions. I try to avoid trolling responses which occur often enough.

as for the protests, there is plenty of information on the internet. 15 seconds with google and people will find more links than I can post. - one reason why it surprises me when people claim there were no protests after the coup.

as for military control, look at any other major democracy. I'm familiar with the US, France, and Germany - then the question is "what part of the military is NOT under civilian control?". In all 3 of these cases, it is 100%.

In the USA, if a military commander refused a direct order from the president, he would be court-martialed and thrown in the clink - Americans call it "treason". I am pretty certain that you are also aware of the reports that exactly that happened during the PAD protests under the PPP government.

And finally, no emotional disturbance here... but thanks for the concern.

You are singularly misinformed.

"Commissioned officers are recommended for promotion by their commanders, and are selected by centralize (service-wide) promotion boards, who make promotion determinations based upon the officers' promotion records." http://usmilitary.ab...officerprom.htm

Without going to europe, in the US politicians have no control over military promotions - which makes 100% look pretty shaky. This is the main concern in Thailand, or did you think the BIL got to be CoP by his outstanding merit.

In the US, the Pres is CIC. That is NOT the case in most countries, and in Thailand the military swears allegiance to King and Nation, not some petty politician who may well be gone in a few years.

It might also surprise you to learn that career military officers consider themselves to be men of honour; it is quite possible they are offended to see their country being pillaged by criminals who don't even bother to conceal their criminal actions, and refuse to act when civilians similarly outraged engage in peaceful protest. They will however respond if "peaceful protesters" decide to bring their weapons to town.

I am quite familiar with the Pavlovian dog twitches that some people display in regard to anything military, usually without logical basis.

Given Nick's numbers, I understand why I missed them. Chiang Mai, I'd guess.

US politicians have no control over military promotions

Why should it even be necessary to say that this is 100% incorrect?

So, I am sorry, but I am not misinformed at all. Even without my father serving in the air force, I would be well enough informed about the US military. But somehow you seem to think that because the management of the US military is done by the military that somehow means that the military is not under the direct control of the civilian government?

Surely you don't mean to state such an obvious falsehood.

The president appoints generals and admirals, the president selects the joint chiefs of staff. Military officer nominations are confirmed by the Senate. All commissioned officers are nominated by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate. I could go into a lot more detail, but ... For being such an ardent defender of the military, you don't seem to be so informed. I was under the impression that you were from the States?

I'm well aware of the military's situation in Thailand.

As to your other point, no surprise to me - I have seen the pride many military personnel have regarding their duty and responsibilities (such as my father). It is admirable and they deserve a great deal of respect for their effort and commitments.

Anyway, I hope that I answered your question regarding my opinion of civilian control of the military. 100% is normal in a modern democracy like the USA.

and seriously ozmick, emotional disturbances and Pavlovian dog twitches. Really, now?

[animatic]

While the 'Red Shirts' didn't become a group under one name,

the component parts were in existence in most cases while Thaksin was still in office.

He had his street branch even then the names and top leadership has changed somewhat,but these thug and bodies in the streets groups used to back Thaksin's plays were part of the scene for 10 years now. This time post coup he built from needing a force against PAD and built a larger and larger coalition from when Samak didn't get his SOE and PAD was attacked, Sae Dang came out as a rally focus and dirty tricks were the order of the day, with plausible deniability at the top of course.

Remember one guy at Pantip Plaza protests Thaksin and gets a beating in public. No fear or shame shown.

The Nation offices invaded by Caravan of the Poor and held hostage for a day.

Those cats are still in the heart of Red Land under a different banner.

Democrats trying to campaign up north beaten and driven from towns

by Thaksin backing groups of thugs, canvassers.

2005 re-election in Chaingmai I saw campaign violence from my balcony

the landlady explained the players and why.

Red Shirts: new name on a large coalition of the same old players.

But some very odd bedfellows brought together because bigger numbers

and hardcore zealots of any stripe were needed to fill the pews in the church of Thaksin.

Edited October 15, 2011 by animatic

[tlansford]

Thanks for this. May I suggest your relative was a bit weak-minded and naive...there are thugs like this in every political crowd, even the government and the military.

Your relative should have moved on up the line in order to get the ID returned, rather than staying on for additional weeks or months. I sympathize with this scenario but somehow I find it hard to believe in full.

Perhaps I'm being naive but I also doubt that staying and participating for an extended period was the only option remaining for your relative.

In the grander scheme, yes, there are thugs like this in every crowd - even the US has them now during "Occupy Wall Street". There are lots of people who go to those things with the primary purpose of venting their cruelty, with the political ideas being secondary or simply the 'kindling wood' for inflaming their cruelty. Sounds like your relative met some of those folks.

This is hardly a good reason, though, to demonize an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup.

- snip -

"......... an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup."

I hate to tell you this, but there was once a man named Samak. There is also a lady named yingluk. Both were elected since the coup. But at the time of the coup, the PM's mandate had expired. Please take this into consideration before making remarks like the above.

And there was also a man named abhisit, etc, etc, I suspect that most are aware of the post-coup political timeline of events. But how does that change Jawnie's point?

He makes a point so often overlooked by those who want to demon-ize groups they don't agree with. It's a valid point (IMO). So far in the Red/Yellow/Blue/Pink shirt panorama, there's been violence coming from every side. There has been violence propagated by the sitting gov'ts as well. Does that nullify the politics proposed by these groups & govts? Not in my opinion.

Because it is simply not true, a falsification, a distortion of truth, a bloody LIE.

A government with an expired mandate was ejected by the coup, they were re-elected and lost power by a parliamentary vote after they were convicted of offering bribes.

You might also wish to consider the QUANTITY of violence. With PAD it existed but minimally. The UDD came to BKK preaching violence, M-79 attacks preceded any military involvement, and the military confrontation was initiated by them in a manner sure to get a violent response.

OK, Jawnie's original point had to do with demonizing an entire movement based on the actions of segment of that movement. He had already stated that well, and I agree with it.

He added to to the end of that statement the part you quoted, "......... an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup." which is what you seem to be calling a lie. To me (I could just be imagining this ) it seems like there was a military coup, a civilian govt was overthrown, and a constitution torn up. As this is the information that I have at hand, I'll disagree with you.

[serenitynow]

Hi Ozmick, no problem to answer questions. I try to avoid trolling responses which occur often enough.

as for the protests, there is plenty of information on the internet. 15 seconds with google and people will find more links than I can post. - one reason why it surprises me when people claim there were no protests after the coup.

as for military control, look at any other major democracy. I'm familiar with the US, France, and Germany - then the question is "what part of the military is NOT under civilian control?". In all 3 of these cases, it is 100%.

In the USA, if a military commander refused a direct order from the president, he would be court-martialed and thrown in the clink - Americans call it "treason". I am pretty certain that you are also aware of the reports that exactly that happened during the PAD protests under the PPP government.

And finally, no emotional disturbance here... but thanks for the concern.

You are singularly misinformed.

"Commissioned officers are recommended for promotion by their commanders, and are selected by centralize (service-wide) promotion boards, who make promotion determinations based upon the officers' promotion records." http://usmilitary.ab...officerprom.htm

Without going to europe, in the US politicians have no control over military promotions - which makes 100% look pretty shaky. This is the main concern in Thailand, or did you think the BIL got to be CoP by his outstanding merit.

In the US, the Pres is CIC. That is NOT the case in most countries, and in Thailand the military swears allegiance to King and Nation, not some petty politician who may well be gone in a few years.

It might also surprise you to learn that career military officers consider themselves to be men of honour; it is quite possible they are offended to see their country being pillaged by criminals who don't even bother to conceal their criminal actions, and refuse to act when civilians similarly outraged engage in peaceful protest. They will however respond if "peaceful protesters" decide to bring their weapons to town.

I am quite familiar with the Pavlovian dog twitches that some people display in regard to anything military, usually without logical basis.

Given Nick's numbers, I understand why I missed them. Chiang Mai, I'd guess.

US politicians have no control over military promotions

Why should it even be necessary to say that this is 100% incorrect?

So, I am sorry, but I am not misinformed at all. Even without my father serving in the air force, I would be well enough informed about the US military. But somehow you seem to think that because the management of the US military is done by the military that somehow means that the military is not under the direct control of the civilian government?

Surely you don't mean to state such an obvious falsehood.

The president appoints generals and admirals, the president selects the joint chiefs of staff. Military officer nominations are confirmed by the Senate. All commissioned officers are nominated by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate. I could go into a lot more detail, but ... For being such an ardent defender of the military, you don't seem to be so informed. I was under the impression that you were from the States?

I'm well aware of the military's situation in Thailand.

As to your other point, no surprise to me - I have seen the pride many military personnel have regarding their duty and responsibilities (such as my father). It is admirable and they deserve a great deal of respect for their effort and commitments.

Anyway, I hope that I answered your question regarding my opinion of civilian control of the military. 100% is normal in a modern democracy like the USA.

and seriously ozmick, emotional disturbances and Pavlovian dog twitches. Really, now?

Absolutely correct, but how does that apply to Thailand? I would be reluctant to call Thailand a developing democracy or a burgeoning democracy. It is a false democracy, a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, but primarily an ochlocracy (sponsored). The military , with all its faults, at least for now, provides the only countervailing force against a host of criminal interests, some of which have a totalitarianist bent. The military at least knows they can't govern.

Edited October 15, 2011 by serenitynow

[tlansford]

US politicians have no control over military promotions

Why should it even be necessary to say that this is 100% incorrect?

So, I am sorry, but I am not misinformed at all. Even without my father serving in the air force, I would be well enough informed about the US military. But somehow you seem to think that because the management of the US military is done by the military that somehow means that the military is not under the direct control of the civilian government?

Surely you don't mean to state such an obvious falsehood.

The president appoints generals and admirals, the president selects the joint chiefs of staff. Military officer nominations are confirmed by the Senate. All commissioned officers are nominated by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate. I could go into a lot more detail, but ... For being such an ardent defender of the military, you don't seem to be so informed. I was under the impression that you were from the States?

I'm well aware of the military's situation in Thailand.

As to your other point, no surprise to me - I have seen the pride many military personnel have regarding their duty and responsibilities (such as my father). It is admirable and they deserve a great deal of respect for their effort and commitments.

Anyway, I hope that I answered your question regarding my opinion of civilian control of the military. 100% is normal in a modern democracy like the USA.

and seriously ozmick, emotional disturbances and Pavlovian dog twitches. Really, now?

Absolutely correct, but how does that apply to Thailand? I would be reluctant to call Thailand a developing democracy or a burgeoning democracy. It is a false democracy, a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, but primarily an ochlocracy (sponsored). The military , with all its faults, at least for now, provides the only countervailing force against a host of criminal interests, some of which have a totalitarianist bent. The military at least knows they can't govern.

Sorry it was an off-topic follow up question from Ozmick from someplace else.

I understand your points about Thai "democracy".

[volk666]

demonizing an entire movement based on the actions of segment of that movement

Technically, TRT was dissolved for having full knowledge of the fake party scandal and not doing anything about it for a year, no internal investigation, not punished parties, nothing. That was specifically addressed to Chaturon Chaisaeng, their democratic poster boy who became TRT leader after Thakisn. He knew of the fraud, it was all over the media, and he didn't think there was anything warranting any actions.

Similarly, we can judge the entire movement by their indifference (read silent approval) to things that are democratically and morally abhorring. In 2008 Udon reds led by Kwanchai brutally attacked unsuspecting PAD rally, dozens of people were beaten unconscious while Kwanchai was promising money for the heads of the leaders. They stopped paying him government salary but he is still a red shirt leader and a hero. A month or so later red mob in Chiang Mai drew a father of PAD radio dj out of his car, beaten him and then shot him in the cold blood right there on the street. Some of the perpetrators were eventually sentenced but no red leader has ever publicly apologized and admitted it was wrong.

I prefer to judge a social movement not by how sweet they are to their friends but by how respectful they are to their enemies and in this regard red shirts fail big time.

[gl555]

demonizing an entire movement based on the actions of segment of that movement

Technically, TRT was dissolved for having full knowledge of the fake party scandal and not doing anything about it for a year, no internal investigation, not punished parties, nothing. That was specifically addressed to Chaturon Chaisaeng, their democratic poster boy who became TRT leader after Thakisn. He knew of the fraud, it was all over the media, and he didn't think there was anything warranting any actions.

Similarly, we can judge the entire movement by their indifference (read silent approval) to things that are democratically and morally abhorring. In 2008 Udon reds led by Kwanchai brutally attacked unsuspecting PAD rally, dozens of people were beaten unconscious while Kwanchai was promising money for the heads of the leaders. They stopped paying him government salary but he is still a red shirt leader and a hero. A month or so later red mob in Chiang Mai drew a father of PAD radio dj out of his car, beaten him and then shot him in the cold blood right there on the street. Some of the perpetrators were eventually sentenced but no red leader has ever publicly apologized and admitted it was wrong.

I prefer to judge a social movement not by how sweet they are to their friends but by how respectful they are to their enemies and in this regard red shirts fail big time.

Red apologists will just say these actions were either taken out of context or will justify their actions by saying the PAD are just as bad. It's typical of these losers.

[rvbello]

Democracy is really messy but it's the best one we've got.

[MAJIC]

Thanks for this. May I suggest your relative was a bit weak-minded and naive...there are thugs like this in every political crowd, even the government and the military.

Your relative should have moved on up the line in order to get the ID returned, rather than staying on for additional weeks or months. I sympathize with this scenario but somehow I find it hard to believe in full.

Perhaps I'm being naive but I also doubt that staying and participating for an extended period was the only option remaining for your relative.

In the grander scheme, yes, there are thugs like this in every crowd - even the US has them now during "Occupy Wall Street". There are lots of people who go to those things with the primary purpose of venting their cruelty, with the political ideas being secondary or simply the 'kindling wood' for inflaming their cruelty. Sounds like your relative met some of those folks.

This is hardly a good reason, though, to demonize an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup.

It is possible to be intolerant and right, but it is not possible to be intolerant and a democracy.

Red shirt villages are a living oxymoron the same as "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" are verbal oxymorons. This government sactioned and increasing polarization is scary. I fear for the country and I fear for the very people whose niavete is being used to enslave themselves.

This can only happen because there's a huge difference between what is being said and what is being done. If I could rely on the words alone, I, too would be a staunch Red Shirt. But I have been here long enough to see the actions. I was there when things happened, and I am now listening to the reports of those events and I can see that there is very little connection. The Red Shirt leaders talk a good story, but they live a different one.

I have a relative who joined the red shirt Bangkok rallies. He was politically disinterested, but temporarily unemployed due to the season. He planned on taking the free bus to Bangkok, spending a few days having a good time, and making some money. What could be wrong with that? Weeks later when he asked for his identity card back so he could go home to his family, he was told that if he failed to show up for his daily pay in the evening, his family would all be killed. The red leaders were convincing enough that my relative continued with them and was still there when the army arrived. The leaders, however, were not.

Talk is cheap, and the political leaders evidently feel the gullible are worth about the same. Organizing into permanent polarized settlements is a dangerous escalation.

"......... an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup."

I hate to tell you this, but there was once a man named Samak. There is also a lady named yingluk. Both were elected since the coup. But at the time of the coup, the PM's mandate had expired. Please take this into consideration before making remarks like the above.

Yes that was perfectly true,he was merely the Caretaker PM, and it must have been said a Thousand times on tv,but Thaksin Supporters have no wish to hear the truth,it weakens their cause somewhat!

[Siam Simon]

Thanks for this. May I suggest your relative was a bit weak-minded and naive...there are thugs like this in every political crowd, even the government and the military.

Your relative should have moved on up the line in order to get the ID returned, rather than staying on for additional weeks or months. I sympathize with this scenario but somehow I find it hard to believe in full.

Perhaps I'm being naive but I also doubt that staying and participating for an extended period was the only option remaining for your relative.

In the grander scheme, yes, there are thugs like this in every crowd - even the US has them now during "Occupy Wall Street". There are lots of people who go to those things with the primary purpose of venting their cruelty, with the political ideas being secondary or simply the 'kindling wood' for inflaming their cruelty. Sounds like your relative met some of those folks.

This is hardly a good reason, though, to demonize an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup.

It is possible to be intolerant and right, but it is not possible to be intolerant and a democracy.

Red shirt villages are a living oxymoron the same as "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" are verbal oxymorons. This government sactioned and increasing polarization is scary. I fear for the country and I fear for the very people whose niavete is being used to enslave themselves.

This can only happen because there's a huge difference between what is being said and what is being done. If I could rely on the words alone, I, too would be a staunch Red Shirt. But I have been here long enough to see the actions. I was there when things happened, and I am now listening to the reports of those events and I can see that there is very little connection. The Red Shirt leaders talk a good story, but they live a different one.

I have a relative who joined the red shirt Bangkok rallies. He was politically disinterested, but temporarily unemployed due to the season. He planned on taking the free bus to Bangkok, spending a few days having a good time, and making some money. What could be wrong with that? Weeks later when he asked for his identity card back so he could go home to his family, he was told that if he failed to show up for his daily pay in the evening, his family would all be killed. The red leaders were convincing enough that my relative continued with them and was still there when the army arrived. The leaders, however, were not.

Talk is cheap, and the political leaders evidently feel the gullible are worth about the same. Organizing into permanent polarized settlements is a dangerous escalation.

"......... an opposition group whose elected government was stolen by a military coup."

I hate to tell you this, but there was once a man named Samak. There is also a lady named yingluk. Both were elected since the coup. But at the time of the coup, the PM's mandate had expired. Please take this into consideration before making remarks like the above.

Yes that was perfectly true,he was merely the Caretaker PM, and it must have been said a Thousand times on tv,but Thaksin Supporters have no wish to hear the truth,it weakens their cause somewhat!

Well, at least Thaksin was caretaking in continuance of his popular mandate. As opposed to Abhisit (nice guy that he is) who governed (after a fashion) from a coalition formed by military arm-twisting, with it's biggest coalition partner being controlled by a banned politician (which made said government illegal).

But all this is common knowledge amongst Thais. Quite what the propagandists on TVF are trying to achieve is.....well.....hello?

[MAJIC]

Judging by the First 3 Stages, the follow up Possibilities ,may not be so far fetched?

After the 2006 "Coup" whilst Caretaker PM Thaksin was out of the Country,having relinquished his Mandate,it probably would not be surprising,that the thing most likely to be a hindrance,to his quest to a return, to Absolute Power,would be the Military,a unpredictable element! at the very least.

Stage 1.Having bought a Party (PTP) and the voters at the last Election,the Party was duly Elected,with a fairly modest majority.

Stage 2. It was then simple to install a Puppet PM (as named by Thaksin),and a close Family Member in Yingluck,together with, alledgedly hand picked MP Cronies in Parliament.

Stage 3. Create Red Villages of Supporters the length and Bredth of Thailand,and install a large Picture of self at every village entrance (Chairman Mao style)

Stage 4. No Villages to tolerate Dissenters,with other Polititical Allegiances or leanings ????

Stage 5. Install Ammunition Arsenal in every Red Village????

Stage 6. Obtain Amnesty????

Stage 7. Return to said Homeland in a Blaze of Glory, with no possible repeat Coup potential.

,

Welcome to Democracy,

Red Style!

Edited October 15, 2011 by MAJIC

[473geo]

I guess the democrats didn't get to past stage one

and you show respect to Thaksin by intimating he can achieve 6 further stages.....

Maybe he should be running the country

[rubl]

Well, at least Thaksin was caretaking in continuance of his popular mandate. As opposed to Abhisit (nice guy that he is) who governed (after a fashion) from a coalition formed by military arm-twisting, with it's biggest coalition partner being controlled by a banned politician (which made said government illegal).

But all this is common knowledge amongst Thais. Quite what the propagandists on TVF are trying to achieve is.....well.....hello?

Well at least the governments under PM Samak and PM Somchai only had a handful of banned politicians helping and k. Thaksin was only accused and therefor should be assumed innocent for the time being.

Now if the Abhisit government was illegal because of their coalition partner being controlled by a banned politician, what does that make the current government with majority party 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' and paid for, controlled by a fugitive criminal ?

But this is common knowledge to Thai and foreigners alike. Quite what the propagandists on TVF are trying to achieve ... ah, well ... hello? Anybody out there ?

Edited October 15, 2011 by rubl

[473geo]

It's been said before Rubl........

How can Thaksin as a montenegran citizen, outside Thailand......be accused of taking part in Thai politics inside Thailand......he surely cannot be involved in Thai politics.......he may be offering advice but as a foreigner he has no say in Thai politics.....right?

You may wish to check the actual wording on the 'ban' from politics and let me know if all the above is taken into account?

Just wondering if something like this may be allowing his 'interference' without any repercussions

[BuckarooBanzai]

Is the creation of a red shirt village something that is done by a legal registration process or is it simply the result of some overzealous chap sticking a signpost in the ground. If the former is true then clarification of the legality of such a claim should be made clear. If it is the latter than likely this is being used by one side or another as political disinformation and divisive in purpose.

Well that was good for a giggle! They can't / won't lodge an appeal against an acquittal of a woman who stole 50 odd billion baht, and you want them to investigate the legality of putting up a picture of the PM's brother / puppet master and a sign saying "We're on your side."

You have to understand the new rules - Shinawatras, PTP and the Red-shirts do NOTHING wrong.

I asked a specific set of questions and appear to have gotton back an ineffective parinoid diatribe.

My question was are these "red shirt villages" actual centers of organized yellow shirt opposition or are they just someones attempt to stir the pot and draw contempt for an individuals democratic rights.

I think people should maintain a very clear awareness of what is fact and what is crap be they of either red or yellow persuasion.

[tlansford]

Is the creation of a red shirt village something that is done by a legal registration process or is it simply the result of some overzealous chap sticking a signpost in the ground. If the former is true then clarification of the legality of such a claim should be made clear. If it is the latter than likely this is being used by one side or another as political disinformation and divisive in purpose.

Well that was good for a giggle! They can't / won't lodge an appeal against an acquittal of a woman who stole 50 odd billion baht, and you want them to investigate the legality of putting up a picture of the PM's brother / puppet master and a sign saying "We're on your side."

You have to understand the new rules - Shinawatras, PTP and the Red-shirts do NOTHING wrong.

I asked a specific set of questions and appear to have gotton back an ineffective parinoid diatribe.

My question was are these "red shirt villages" actual centers of organized yellow shirt opposition or are they just someones attempt to stir the pot and draw contempt for an individuals democratic rights.

I think people should maintain a very clear awareness of what is fact and what is crap be they of either red or yellow persuasion.

There is no legal change of statute etc in the declaration of a red village. It is not an action that has a legal standing. It is apparently just a declaration the village makes to the UDD.

a Reuters report

[volk666]

Thaksin was caretaking in continuance of his popular mandate

Or in defiance of his public declaration not to take Premiership again and subsequently taking a leave of absence.

He returned with the vengeance three weeks later and started with declaring a war on Prem which was understood as nothing less than an actual declaration of war on the president of the privy council. Whatever it means to the readers but for the military it means a war on the institution most closely associated with the monarchy and thus an intervention was morally justified from their POV. It wasn't about violating people's choice or democracy ideals - those concepts are subservient according to the Thai Constitution, any version you wish to consider, not only 1997 one.

The military acted in the spirit of Thai constitution and that's why the coup was largely welcomed by the population, the same segment that enthusiastically embraced it less than ten years earlier. Was it a smart move? I'm afraid it can be decided with any certainty only after Thaksin, being the youngest of the major players, finally leaves the stage.

Bottom line, Thaksin's right to the post was very shaky (interim PMship was supposed to last only three months, never mind the legally questionable return from his leave of absence) and morally he was not allowed to claim it anymore after positioning himself as an enemy of the Privy Council. The constitution itself didn't have proper legal instruments to deal with this kind of problem and so the military stepped in. The rest is the history, as they say, but we haven't seen the end of it yet, it might go either way despite of our preferences.