Red Shirts Mimic Village Tactics Used By Rebels: Thai Opinion

[Siam Simon]

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 ?

It makes the current government illegal, just like the last one, uncle. The difference being that the last government was installed by arm-twisting by the military, as opposed to the current government being installed outright through a general election in which the current government's allegiances were laid out in the hustings for the electorate in the clearest possible way. I call the first example a coup, and the second example democracy. No doubt, you have a more complicated interpretation.

[Phuket Stan]

Did anyone ever find out what was in the unusual 38 boxes that were loaded into the plane that Thaksin used to take him on his last ride as acting PM to the UN conferance which he was going to address as the puported PM of Thailand whereas his right to claim so had been nullified by the constitution that was in place at that time

[BuckarooBanzai]

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

Thank you for the link. I still question how grass roots the "village" movement really is. One news source seems to report about it much more than another. If the red shirt organizers want to shoot themselves in the foot that is one thing but they don't have to drag the rest of the centrist reds down with them.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking that there is a large body of people who want democratic reform but do not want K T back in government. The clone label gets tiresome and I guess well see over time if it is accurate. There always seems to be to much smoke in the air to make an accurate assessment.

If it is true that there are really no centrists left on either side then the future indeed looks bleak.

Edited October 16, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[OzMick]

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?

Am I supposed to be from the Ozarks? <deleted>!

I sent you the link and the quote - commissioned officers are promoted via their superiors and promotion boards - which does NOT equate to control by civilians. Your 100% is crap.

And again, that is EXACTLY what the red-shirts are asking here, the right to control promotions, and will lead to dictatorship (down a long road!) I'll ask you again. DO YOU THINK THE CoP GOT TO HIS POSITION THROUGH MERIT? If not, why would you advocate the same system for the military?

[OzMick]

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.

Keep up the straw arguments. there was no "seem," I quoted that phrase specifically.

"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."

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? Your version seems to leave out a number of pertinent facts such as mandate expiry, elections, bribery..................are the distasteful to you?You also don't seem to accept the quantity of violence, a bit too true perhaps.

[OzMick]

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?

".........being controlled by a banned politician (which made said government illegal)."

Please apply this logic to the current government, and get back to me with your thoughts.

[whybother]

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

Thaksin is still a Thai citizen. Calling in to cabinet meetings is certainly being "involved in Thai politics".

[OzMick]

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 ?

It makes the current government illegal, just like the last one, uncle. The difference being that the last government was installed by arm-twisting by the military, as opposed to the current government being installed outright through a general election in which the current government's allegiances were laid out in the hustings for the electorate in the clearest possible way. I call the first example a coup, and the second example democracy. No doubt, you have a more complicated interpretation.

Found your thoughts ! The current government is ILLEGAL but they have a mandate, so that's all right with me. Because they said they were going to form an illegal government.........

Could you now explain why the Constitution Court shouldn't disband the party and bar it's leadership? Perhaps because they have found a way to subvert the normal justice system?

[rixalex]

I was here in those days. If there were any anti-coup protests, they were minuscule, and at a time, when they should have been at their largest and most vehement - that is if the feeling was genuine and spontaneous.

But hey, if you find nothing suspicious in the time it took for protests to happen - put it all down to time for planning - and see no connection between Thaksin's frozen assets and the timing of the protests, then carry on in your belief.

That is historically quite wrong. I have not been only around, but took pictures as well back then (as well as taking pics before that of the PAD in 2006, and pro Thaksin groups camping out in Chatuchak part).

The anti- coup protesters started off quite miniscule, but very soon reached several thousand, and later ten thousand and more protesters. The first groups were the "Anti 19th September Coup network", the "Saturday Voice", "Nocpilap Khao", "24th of June Group", also several groups centering around Community Radio Stations, followed by PTV - the first groups with a large following due to their TRT networks, leading to the founding of the UDD, etc. Some of the groups still exist, other disbanded, but its members still part of the Red Shirts.

As soon as the after coup elections were announced in 2007, the protests ceased, and the UDD, after People Power Party won, ceased protesting. They came out only after the PAD began protesting against the People Power Party government. With brief interuptions they have protested continuously for 5 years now (if you do not count the Thaksin support groups in 2006 camping out in Chatuchak Park).

Initially it took quite some time to build their organization and momentum as the mass of what are today Red Shirts came from non-protest backgrounds, and pre-Thaksin mosty political disinterested sectors of society. Only in late 2008 they began to build a more sophisticated organization, and only after the crackdown in 2009 their organization started to take the shape we see now.

Anyhow, just a small historical correction, i will leave you to further fear and loathing...

I can't see anything in your post that contradicts what i said. At the time of the coup, and the weeks and months that followed - the time when public outrage, if it existed, should have been at its height - protests up and down the country either simply did not happen, or if they did, were minuscule.

On a previous thread, some time ago, you conceded this point but explained it away by your reasoning that protests take a lot of time and money to organise - a point i disagreed with and countered with examples around the world of times when the state pisses the public off, and the very next day the state sees a backlash in terms of people coming out of their homes, without instruction or organising, to congregate on the streets and put pressure on the state. This is what would have happened, were the feelings about the coup, that you and the red shirts now claim existed from day one, really did.

[tlansford]

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.

Keep up the straw arguments. there was no "seem," I quoted that phrase specifically.

"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."

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? Your version seems to leave out a number of pertinent facts such as mandate expiry, elections, bribery..................are the distasteful to you?You also don't seem to accept the quantity of violence, a bit too true perhaps.

no straw arguments. We just disagree. That's not unusual. But we're also quite off topic.

[tlansford]

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

Thank you for the link. I still question how grass roots the "village" movement really is. One news source seems to report about it much more than another. If the red shirt organizers want to shoot themselves in the foot that is one thing but they don't have to drag the rest of the centrist reds down with them.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking that there is a large body of people who want democratic reform but do not want K T back in government. The clone label gets tiresome and I guess well see over time if it is accurate. There always seems to be to much smoke in the air to make an accurate assessment.

If it is true that there are really no centrists left on either side then the future indeed looks bleak.

It is possible to find a couple of articles from journalists who have gone to the red villages to report (in English at least).

As for grassroots, these villages are pretty small, and there are 4,000 of them. That has all the qualities of "grassroots" to me. I believe that Hammered has made some reasonable arguments here about a large portion of the Thai population being agnostic to Thaksin's return but supportive of reform. That is not quite the same thing as you stated, but in any case I agree with you about the wishful thinking and also about seeing over time how the current PM performs her duties.

Centrists or not, IMO the key is when politicians with opposing views can still come together and govern. That's a problem for a lot of countries, not just Thailand. But it is currently a chronic problem in Thailand. And the current political situation in Thailand is not only divisive, it is also complex, and we (as foreigners) have very little access and ability to understand it. In spite of that, it does appear to me that currently the PTP and the Democrats have little incentive, much less willingness, to come together and to try to govern.

[siampolee]

Tiansford. # 131

Centrists or not, IMO the key is when politicians with opposing views can still come together and govern. That's a problem for a lot of countries, not just Thailand. But it is currently a chronic problem in Thailand. And the current political situation in Thailand is not only divisive, it is also complex, and we (as foreigners) have very little access and ability to understand it. In spite of that, it does appear to me that currently the PTP and the Democrats have little incentive, much less willingness, to come together and to try to govern.

Then pray good sir that by your own admission you are ignorant of the complexities of the political situation, why therefore are you passing comments upon that situation, who is your mentor ?

Edited October 16, 2011 by siampolee

[tlansford]

Tiansford. # 131

Centrists or not, IMO the key is when politicians with opposing views can still come together and govern. That's a problem for a lot of countries, not just Thailand. But it is currently a chronic problem in Thailand. And the current political situation in Thailand is not only divisive, it is also complex, and we (as foreigners) have very little access and ability to understand it. In spite of that, it does appear to me that currently the PTP and the Democrats have little incentive, much less willingness, to come together and to try to govern.

Then pray good sir that by your own admission you are ignorant of the complexities of the political situation, why therefore are you passing comments upon that situation, who is your mentor ?

Nice to see you out trolling this morning siampolee. Do you have something to add to the discussion?

[siampolee]

Thank you for your comments, indeed you're proving your self confessed ignorance by not answering the question posed.

Edited October 16, 2011 by siampolee

[BuckarooBanzai]

As for grassroots, these villages are pretty small, and there are 4,000 of them. That has all the qualities of "grassroots" to me.

Fully agree that this is a grass roots level but I am just curious if organizers are speaking for villagers with or without villager input. Like anything else it probably varies from village to village.

[OzMick]

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.

Keep up the straw arguments. there was no "seem," I quoted that phrase specifically.

"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."

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? Your version seems to leave out a number of pertinent facts such as mandate expiry, elections, bribery..................are the distasteful to you?You also don't seem to accept the quantity of violence, a bit too true perhaps.

no straw arguments. We just disagree. That's not unusual. But we're also quite off topic.

Which part of my statement do you disagree with?

[backtonormal]

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

Indeed - I pity the poster that doesn't understand that *any* existing village declaring themselves 100% of *any* political leaning is a step back in a process towards democracy and respect for free speech.

So the 18 occasions of military rules and there is no guarantee it wont hit 19

[TAWP]

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

Indeed - I pity the poster that doesn't understand that *any* existing village declaring themselves 100% of *any* political leaning is a step back in a process towards democracy and respect for free speech.

So the 18 occasions of military rules and there is no guarantee it wont hit 19

Ah, aiming for dictatorship so the military cannot have a coup and install a dictator, eh?

Talk about killing the cat to save it.

[hammered]

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!

Whether people like it or not Thaksin has become a symbol for the poor. Maybe they dont really care about his monet etc but a victory for Thaksin is a victory against those powwrplayers from BKK the poor see as repeatedly keeping them down, never giving them anything, not caring for them and kicking them while down there.

[pimay11]

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.

I live in Udon Thani. Yesterday I was discussing the reds with the maid. She knows my disgust with them. She told me to be very careful and never speak such things outside my house because if I did bad things may happen to my house, car, motorbike and family. Her brother is a vehement red supporter and she knows the truth.

For all you red supporters and apologists that say anyone in a declared "red village" has the freedom to speak opposing views openly I beg to differ.

[OzMick]

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

Indeed - I pity the poster that doesn't understand that *any* existing village declaring themselves 100% of *any* political leaning is a step back in a process towards democracy and respect for free speech.

So the 18 occasions of military rules and there is no guarantee it wont hit 19

Ah, aiming for dictatorship so the military cannot have a coup and install a dictator, eh?

Talk about killing the cat to save it.

It should be noted that elections are as a rule called quite rapidly after coups in Thailand, and there has been no attempt to remove the King as head of state. While emetics and laxatives are not the nicest medicine, they do tend to serve their purpose.

Edited October 16, 2011 by OzMick

[OzMick]

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!

Whether people like it or not Thaksin has become a symbol for the poor. Maybe they dont really care about his monet etc but a victory for Thaksin is a victory against those powwrplayers from BKK the poor see as repeatedly keeping them down, never giving them anything, not caring for them and kicking them while down there.

OTOH Thaksin has promised to make them rich in 6 months. Tick, tick, tick, tick............................................

[OzMick]

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.

I live in Udon Thani. Yesterday I was discussing the reds with the maid. She knows my disgust with them. She told me to be very careful and never speak such things outside my house because if I did bad things may happen to my house, car, motorbike and family. Her brother is a vehement red supporter and she knows the truth.

For all you red supporters and apologists that say anyone in a declared "red village" has the freedom to speak opposing views openly I beg to differ.

Too bloody true! I discuss politics with the g/f''s family in Nakhon Phanom. some of the younger guys agree with me, but they tell me that stating such views is for "in family" only, and that it would be dangerous to do so, for them or me, outside.

There are also a couple of fellows that stop at their noodle shop - and all political conversation stops dead as soon as they pull up.

[tlansford]

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!

Whether people like it or not Thaksin has become a symbol for the poor. Maybe they dont really care about his monet etc but a victory for Thaksin is a victory against those powwrplayers from BKK the poor see as repeatedly keeping them down, never giving them anything, not caring for them and kicking them while down there.

good point. Born out from these same Thais acknowledging that he, like other politicians, played the system, but that he also did something for them.

And whether we, from our vantage point, want to argue these issues is irrelevant, as it is their perspective which provides their motivation for voting, organizing, protesting or turning to violence.

[serenitynow]

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!

Whether people like it or not Thaksin has become a symbol for the poor. Maybe they dont really care about his monet etc but a victory for Thaksin is a victory against those powwrplayers from BKK the poor see as repeatedly keeping them down, never giving them anything, not caring for them and kicking them while down there.

good point. Born out from these same Thais acknowledging that he, like other politicians, played the system, but that he also did something for them.

And whether we, from our vantage point, want to argue these issues is irrelevant, as it is their perspective which provides their motivation for voting, organizing, protesting or turning to violence.

But he didn't do something for them. He put them in debt. His continued support rests mainly on the expectation he will now forgive that debt.

[tlansford]

Keep up the straw arguments. there was no "seem," I quoted that phrase specifically.

"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."

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? Your version seems to leave out a number of pertinent facts such as mandate expiry, elections, bribery..................are the distasteful to you?You also don't seem to accept the quantity of violence, a bit too true perhaps.

no straw arguments. We just disagree. That's not unusual. But we're also quite off topic.

Which part of my statement do you disagree with?

This part, Goodbye.

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

[animatic]

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.

Keep up the straw arguments. there was no "seem," I quoted that phrase specifically.

"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."

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? Your version seems to leave out a number of pertinent facts such as mandate expiry, elections, bribery..................are the distasteful to you?You also don't seem to accept the quantity of violence, a bit too true perhaps.

no straw arguments. We just disagree. That's not unusual. But we're also quite off topic.

"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."

Hard to disagree over facts,

just your personal interpretation of facts is in dispute.

Problem is facts are facts and not personal opinion,

presenting opinions on reinterpretation of facts, as facts, for profit,

turns to propaganda with lightning speed.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I think most would agree that facts are whatever certain people want them to be.

Edited October 16, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[animatic]

I think most would agree that facts are whatever certain people want them to be.

Facts are facts, can't change that a jot.

But popular understanding of what is and isn't FACT,

can be and is regularly manipulated.

Doesn't change the facts though.

Edited October 16, 2011 by animatic

[BuckarooBanzai]

I think most would agree that facts are whatever certain people want them to be.

Facts are facts, can't change that a jot.

But popular understanding of what is and isn't FACT,

can be and is regularly manipulated.

Doesn't change the facts though.

Can't argue with your logic animatic but would point out another old saying "perception is reality".

Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality.