Pardon For Thaksin: Thai Govt Takes Dangerous Path

[garrfeild]

I personally like Mr. Thaksin, it was under his leadership Thailand looked to be going forward with a lot of farangs ploughing money into Thailand, i know for a fact the tourism industry went through a 'Boom' time whilst he was in power and i was never short of work here (i work within the travel and tourism industry) but now for the past 3/4 years i have struggled to find any work, and tourism no matter which figures you read, is definitely down and i mean way down !

So Thaksin was slightly corrupt....erm excuse me, but which government is not? Someone on TV.com quoted 'he stole the Thai's money' isn't that what all governments do?

I for one look forward to his return to his beloved country, it wasn't so long ago he returned to an absolute heroes welcome with the media and the people cheering him as he walked out of the airport? it was live on most tv channels here as well.

Good luck Thailand **Comments removed**

The lack of tourists has more to do with the global recession, rather than anything the Thai government did or didn't do. But the yellow and red shirts did not help matters when the took over the Airport and central world! If you work in the Industry you should Know that!

Though Thaksin did help farangs, when he wanted western English teachers in all the schools. The problem was most of those claiming to be English teachers did so with forged diplomas etc. Which they bought in BKK. There by creating another route for scams and graft.

good to see all the farangs jumping in to a political frenzy of Thaksin hatred, but really it isn't our country and remember we are only guests here, so keep your heads down or get out !

now Garfield my friend, remember when there's a global recession people will holiday still ! you know that having worked in the Tourism trade, all they do is look for cheaper more affordable holidays and Thailand was very high on that list. Now since Thaksin left ! Thailand's baht has grown stronger,(without Thaksin!) how is that possible? this has stopped many westerners coming to Thailand and quite a few leaving!

So how has the Thai baht stayed so strong, during Riots, floods, coups, bombs going off in the far south and Bangkok, western women getting raped and killed, etc...? that is my question !

awaiting replies !

Others have given you an answer, But also one of the reasons is that the baht is pegged to the Dollar, and also because up until recently the Asian markets have been relatively unaffected by the global meltdown. But that is about to change. As said by another poster, Thailand is about to spend more than it's tax revenues on recovering from the floods, subsidising a higher price for rice, and payments to gas stations over the fuel subsidies, etc. You could also argue that the higher value of the Baht, be it artificial or real actually raises the cost for tourists to come to Thailand. Which again would suggest it is more to to with global recession than anything Thaksin did!

When I first moved to Thailand I was getting 63 Baht to 1 GDP now it is around 48 baht. It has been as low as 45 That is quite a difference percentage wise. Enough to make people think twice about coming here for a holiday.

Also what you may not realise is that the Asian economies will get stronger (if it weren't for the flooding) Thailand will eventually have a first world economy, it may take 20+ years but you won't be getting so many tourists from the west, when that happens. the past couple years on a certain level are a fore taste of what will be.

Please note I am not defending Thaksin or attacking him, or getting involved in Thai politics. Just giving my view as an outsider. Besides if anything you should be happy that the dregs of western society (single white males) aren't coming here in droves at the moment as they give us Farangs who live here a bad name! And wasn't it the stated ambition of TAT to re market Thailand as a family destination, spending millions of baht enticing Asian and Russian tourists to Thailand? "Miracle Thailand"

[lannarebirth]

I personally like Mr. Thaksin, it was under his leadership Thailand looked to be going forward with a lot of farangs ploughing money into Thailand, i know for a fact the tourism industry went through a 'Boom' time whilst he was in power and i was never short of work here (i work within the travel and tourism industry) but now for the past 3/4 years i have struggled to find any work, and tourism no matter which figures you read, is definitely down and i mean way down !

So Thaksin was slightly corrupt....erm excuse me, but which government is not? Someone on TV.com quoted 'he stole the Thai's money' isn't that what all governments do?

I for one look forward to his return to his beloved country, it wasn't so long ago he returned to an absolute heroes welcome with the media and the people cheering him as he walked out of the airport? it was live on most tv channels here as well.

Good luck Thailand **Comments removed**

The lack of tourists has more to do with the global recession, rather than anything the Thai government did or didn't do. But the yellow and red shirts did not help matters when the took over the Airport and central world! If you work in the Industry you should Know that!

Though Thaksin did help farangs, when he wanted western English teachers in all the schools. The problem was most of those claiming to be English teachers did so with forged diplomas etc. Which they bought in BKK. There by creating another route for scams and graft.

good to see all the farangs jumping in to a political frenzy of Thaksin hatred, but really it isn't our country and remember we are only guests here, so keep your heads down or get out !

now Garfield my friend, remember when there's a global recession people will holiday still ! you know that having worked in the Tourism trade, all they do is look for cheaper more affordable holidays and Thailand was very high on that list. Now since Thaksin left ! Thailand's baht has grown stronger,(without Thaksin!) how is that possible? this has stopped many westerners coming to Thailand and quite a few leaving!

So how has the Thai baht stayed so strong, during Riots, floods, coups, bombs going off in the far south and Bangkok, western women getting raped and killed, etc...? that is my question !

awaiting replies !

Others have given you an answer, But also one of the reasons is that the baht is pegged to the Dollar, and also because up until recently the Asian markets have been relatively unaffected by the global meltdown. But that is about to change. As said by another poster, Thailand is about to spend more than it's tax revenues on recovering from the floods, subsidising a higher price for rice, and payments to gas stations over the fuel subsidies, etc. You could also argue that the higher value of the Baht, be it artificial or real actually raises the cost for tourists to come to Thailand. Which again would suggest it is more to to with global recession than anything Thaksin did!

When I first moved to Thailand I was getting 63 Baht to 1 GDP now it is around 48 baht. It has been as low as 45 That is quite a difference percentage wise. Enough to make people think twice about coming here for a holiday.

Also what you may not realise is that the Asian economies will get stronger (if it weren't for the flooding) Thailand will eventually have a first world economy, it may take 20+ years but you won't be getting so many tourists from the west, when that happens. the past couple years on a certain level are a fore taste of what will be.

Please note I am not defending Thaksin or attacking him, or getting involved in Thai politics. Just giving my view as an outsider. Besides if anything you should be happy that the dregs of western society (single white males) aren't coming here in droves at the moment as they give us Farangs who live here a bad name! And wasn't it the stated ambition of TAT to re market Thailand as a family destination, spending millions of baht enticing Asian and Russian tourists to Thailand? "Miracle Thailand"

The THB IS NOT pegged to the $USD and has not been for many years An additional reason the Baht has been strong has been due to BOT raising borrowing rates (therefore deposit rates). There is a feeling that they may begin to cut again soon to stimulate the economy. It will no doubt be inflationary.

[garrfeild]

The THB IS NOT pegged to the $USD and has not been for many years An additional reason the Baht has been strong has been due to BOT raising borrowing rates (therefore deposit rates). There is a feeling that they may begin to cut again soon to stimulate the economy. It will no doubt be inflationary.

I stand corrected :jap:

[animatic]

The THB IS NOT pegged to the $USD and has not been for many years An additional reason the Baht has been strong has been due to BOT raising borrowing rates (therefore deposit rates). There is a feeling that they may begin to cut again soon to stimulate the economy. It will no doubt be inflationary.

I stand corrected :jap:

Hasn't been pegged in a decade at least.

It is artificially high, thought they keep trying to convince us

it is ' in line with regional currencies' etc etc.

To me it is just supported to the nth degree and over due for a tumble.

We need to think for ourselves here, and not be lead on by public relations trolls filling out heads with bull poop for their client.

Edited November 22, 2011 by animatic

[nurofiend]

The point your missing is it is the Red Shirts that tarred themselves with that brush, not Thai Visa posters. Anyhow, let's move on.

i don't agree with, so therefore didn't miss that point.

i don't think everyone tars them with the 'terrorist' brush tbf...

of course some most definitely do!

but i know a lot of people view it by how it really is and saying that red shirts = rioters and terrorists is simply simplistically simple.

speaking both in general and of attending rallies, i believe there is a sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs within a group of a massive amount of people.

but there are also many many good people who are peaceful who aren't terrorists and who do have good morals and values, and i truly believe they are the majority...

just the same as society in general, that's what i think.

You didn't by any chance happen to go to the rallies at Ratchaprasong and listen to how the red skirt organisers egged the crowd to burn, did you?

Perhaps this is too simple for you but organisers of "peaceful protests" simply do not allow speakers advocate arson and the burning of a capital city

Simply simplistically simple conclusion

again you fail to get my point, i am fully aware of things that were said... am i defending the red shirt leaders who incited violence? anywhere in my post's please show me where i've defended any violence carried out or incited and then you can come back and sell me your "you weren't there man" vietnam-esque speech.

and to answer you for whatever difference it makes.. i was in chiang mai at the time so no, i wasn't there.

but yet again your not making an argument to what i've been saying with your 'too simple for me' point.

[nurofiend]

The point your missing is it is the Red Shirts that tarred themselves with that brush, not Thai Visa posters. Anyhow, let's move on.

i don't agree with, so therefore didn't miss that point.

i don't think everyone tars them with the 'terrorist' brush tbf...

of course some most definitely do!

but i know a lot of people view it by how it really is and saying that red shirts = rioters and terrorists is simply simplistically simple.

speaking both in general and of attending rallies, i believe there is a sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs within a group of a massive amount of people.

but there are also many many good people who are peaceful who aren't terrorists and who do have good morals and values, and i truly believe they are the majority...

just the same as society in general, that's what i think.

That is true, what it's also true is that Red Shirt leaders, instead of dissociating from them, called on those violent elements to "defend" them against the government. These violent elements were by and large part of the "protest" organization not a spontaneous manifestation, as red Shirted guards and less conspicuous black shirted militias.

Do you think there just happened to be an armed militia among the Red Shirts on the night of the 19th of May?, do you think that the bomb attacks around the city (many against banks holding Thaksin's frozen assets) were sporadic acts of violence? Where the gas soaked, sharpened bamboo, propane tank rigged barricades the acts of random thugs? did random thugs among the Red Shirts spontaneously charged into the Chulalongkorn hospital? Do you think that the smoke from the burning barricades and the noise from firecrackers just coincidentally served to conceal the actions of the Black Shirts?

Violence was part of the protests, not an accidental result of it, violence to force political changes. I'll check the dictionary for a definition of that, be back in a minute...

what i meant by sporadic, was within the crowds during rallies and around the country among supporters... it doesn't mean i think they are all unorganized.

so i think that saves me from going through and answering your question's singularly.

can i ask you about the part you didn't underline "there are also many many good people who are peaceful who aren't terrorists and who do have good morals and values, and i truly believe they are the majority"

do you disagree with that sentence?

do you think the majority of red shirt supporters aren't peaceful, are terrorist's and have bad morals and values?

please tell me your view on the red shirt supporters, not about their leaders and organizers and their true intentions etc, but about the people who follow them

Edited November 22, 2011 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

speaking both in general and of attending rallies, i believe there is a sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs within a group of a massive amount of people.

but there are also many many good people who are peaceful who aren't terrorists and who do have good morals and values, and i truly believe they are the majority...

just the same as society in general, that's what i think.

What have these "many many good people" done themselves about the "sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs"?

Have they identified them, denounced them, disassociated from them, decried their actions, assisted police in their apprehension, removed them from their so-called movement, barred their presence?

Anything along those lines?

The sort of things society in general tends to do.

.

first i'll define what i mean by many good people, i mean among the citizens who support the movement.

your questions seem to pose 'they' as the leaders, that's just how it reads to me anyway.

so now that i've defined who i meant, can you answer those questions definitively?

all i can do is answer based on my opinion

and what i think is that from their perspective and of course added propaganda, they would see the violence carried out as 'defending' them..etc etc

you have to be able to put yourself in others shoes to understand how they can see it a certain way.

so the real answer to you is that i don't think these 'many good people' i've mentioned view the violent elements in the same way at all to an outsider like me.... or you

they don't see them as hateful, violent, thugs. so why would they do the things you've said?

an indefensible act by the red shirts was the taking over of chulalongkorn hospital, and that's an example that i can say that they did denounce and decry.

do i think if you scoured the country up and down, well up anyway ... that you'd find a red shirt who would denounce any of the acts carried out? of course i do.

[gregb]

In my opinion the reason why someone would support thugs and terrorists at this stage is largely irrelevant. Whether someone supports the violent element of the red shirts because they believe in the cause, or simply because they are intentionally blinding themselves to the larger moral picture, does not help anyone to reach an agreement with them. At this stage those "peaceful protesters" are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

After Thaksin and the violent element of the reds have been erradicated and sent to prison, then it may make sense to try and distinguish between different people's motivations. But until the threat of Thaksin and his red army is removed, all the reds are equally dangerous and must be dealt with in the same manner. You can't start worrying right now about the motivations of why someone is acting as a human shield for a terrorist with a grenade launcher. You have to do what you must to eliminate the threat first.

[JimsKnight]

I rather let all others murderers and rapist in Thailand walk free than to see this man return to Thailand.

After all those money he stole from us Thais.

Don't forget the two Canadian's as well!

[Buchholz]

speaking both in general and of attending rallies, i believe there is a sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs within a group of a massive amount of people.

but there are also many many good people who are peaceful who aren't terrorists and who do have good morals and values, and i truly believe they are the majority...

just the same as society in general, that's what i think.

What have these "many many good people" done themselves about the "sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs"?

Have they identified them, denounced them, disassociated from them, decried their actions, assisted police in their apprehension, removed them from their so-called movement, barred their presence?

Anything along those lines?

The sort of things society in general tends to do.

first i'll define what i mean by many good people, i mean among the citizens who support the movement.

your questions seem to pose 'they' as the leaders, that's just how it reads to me anyway.

No, it was the rank and file I was asking about, not the leaders.

so now that i've defined who i meant, can you answer those questions definitively?

all i can do is answer based on my opinion

and what i think is that from their perspective and of course added propaganda, they would see the violence carried out as 'defending' them..etc etc

you have to be able to put yourself in others shoes to understand how they can see it a certain way.

so the real answer to you is that i don't think these 'many good people' i've mentioned view the violent elements in the same way at all to an outsider like me.... or you

they don't see them as hateful, violent, thugs. so why would they do the things you've said?

an indefensible act by the red shirts was the taking over of chulalongkorn hospital, and that's an example that i can say that they did denounce and decry.

do i think if you scoured the country up and down, well up anyway ... that you'd find a red shirt who would denounce any of the acts carried out? of course i do.

So your opinion is based only on conjecture and you've not actually encountered Red Shirts that actually did any of actions I suggested?

As for them seeing these many, many violent thuggish actions as defending them, that doesn't follow as many of the actions were not defensive in nature, but offensive.

No public outcry from Red Shirts for splattering HIV contaminated blood about homes and streets, no denigration of Red Shirt bombers blowing themselves (and innocent non-Red Shirts) up in apartment buildings, no assistance provided to police in identifying and apprehending offensive Red Shirt assaults involving automatic weapons, no public condemnation of Red Shirts shouting anti-monarchist rants, no distancing from Red Shirts publishing communistic aspirations, no denouncement of Red Shirts holding up toddlers on the front lines as human shields, no demands that the violent-laden speeches from the Red Shirt leaders cease, and on and on.

It just doesn't wash.

It's ringing up a

.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

What have these "many many good people" done themselves about the "sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs"?

Have they identified them, denounced them, disassociated from them, decried their actions, assisted police in their apprehension, removed them from their so-called movement, barred their presence?

Anything along those lines?

The sort of things society in general tends to do.

first i'll define what i mean by many good people, i mean among the citizens who support the movement.

your questions seem to pose 'they' as the leaders, that's just how it reads to me anyway.

No, it was the rank and file I was asking about, not the leaders.

so now that i've defined who i meant, can you answer those questions definitively?

all i can do is answer based on my opinion

and what i think is that from their perspective and of course added propaganda, they would see the violence carried out as 'defending' them..etc etc

you have to be able to put yourself in others shoes to understand how they can see it a certain way.

so the real answer to you is that i don't think these 'many good people' i've mentioned view the violent elements in the same way at all to an outsider like me.... or you

they don't see them as hateful, violent, thugs. so why would they do the things you've said?

an indefensible act by the red shirts was the taking over of chulalongkorn hospital, and that's an example that i can say that they did denounce and decry.

do i think if you scoured the country up and down, well up anyway ... that you'd find a red shirt who would denounce any of the acts carried out? of course i do.

So your opinion is based only on conjecture and you've not actually encountered Red Shirts that actually did any of actions I suggested?

As for them seeing these many, many violent thuggish actions as defending them, that doesn't follow as many of the actions were not defensive in nature, but offensive.

No public outcry from Red Shirts for splattering HIV contaminated blood about homes and streets, no denigration of Red Shirt bombers blowing themselves (and innocent non-Red Shirts) up in apartment buildings, no assistance provided to police in identifying and apprehending offensive Red Shirt assaults involving automatic weapons, no public condemnation of Red Shirts shouting anti-monarchist rants, no distancing from Red Shirts publishing communistic aspirations, no denouncement of Red Shirts holding up toddlers on the front lines as human shields, no demands that the violent-laden speeches from the Red Shirt leaders cease, and on and on.

It just doesn't wash.

It's ringing up a

.

i'm not trying to sell you anything, just giving my opinion on it...

let me ask you this, how many media stories have you seen based on an interview with a no name red shirt supporter as the interviewee are you aware of? could you count them on one hand?

how many interviews of this kind have you seen?

how do you know that they don't denounce any of these actions? you don't.

"No public outcry from Red Shirts for splattering HIV contaminated blood about homes and streets"

just because there wasn't 'public outcry ' as you put it, doesn't prove that a lot of them would applaud this act either.

"no denigration of Red Shirt bombers blowing themselves (and innocent non-Red Shirts) up in apartment buildings"

i like how you put this in plural, again you don't know this... your basing your opinion on leadership statements and in this case the absence of any but not on fact

"no assistance provided to police in identifying and apprehending offensive Red Shirt assaults involving automatic weapons"

well this goes back to my point of trying to see it beyond an outsiders point of view (this doesn't equate to agreeing with it),

if they've seen fellow supporters killed on the street of course they would see these people as defending them... so why would they then assist in apprehending people who they perceived as standing up for them?

"no public condemnation of Red Shirts shouting anti-monarchist rants, no distancing from Red Shirts publishing communistic aspirations, no denouncement of Red Shirts holding up toddlers on the front lines as human shields"

i like the plural again in that last sentence... was that a part of the modus operandi according to you then yeah?

i'm only aware of one proven instance of this, if you can show me more i'm all eyes, until any evidence to prove otherwise, this was the act of one individual.

and again you cannot prove that the average follower doesn't frown upon this

"So your opinion is based only on conjecture"

yes, which i stated and so is yours, you don't know what they all think.

[Buchholz]

let me ask you this, how many media stories have you seen based on an interview with a no name red shirt supporter as the interviewee are you aware of? could you count them on one hand?

not unless I had dozens of fingers on one hand

how do you know that they don't denounce any of these actions? you don't.

I know that it hasn't occurred in news articles, blogs, magazines, or verbal discussions.

If it has occurred, it would seem to be a miniscule and not the mass disagreement you opine.

and again you cannot prove that the average follower doesn't frown upon this

The absence of disagreement to the violence is to condone it.

If there is an absence of your alleged and supposed mass disagreement with the tactics, it is incumbent upon that mass to verbalize and publish their disagreement with it.

To date, that has not occurred.

.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

let me ask you this, how many media stories have you seen based on an interview with a no name red shirt supporter as the interviewee are you aware of? could you count them on one hand?

not unless I had dozens of fingers on one hand

how do you know that they don't denounce any of these actions? you don't.

I know that it hasn't occurred in news articles, blogs, magazines, or verbal discussions.

If it has occurred, it would seem to be a miniscule and not the mass disagreement you opine.

and again you cannot prove that the average follower doesn't frown upon this

The absence of disagreement to the violence is to condone it.

If there is an absence of your alleged and supposed mass disagreement with the tactics, it is incumbent upon that mass to verbalize and publish their disagreement with it.

To date, that has not occurred.

.

would you kindly link me a few of those stories please? obviously it should be no bother to you since they're plentiful.

"of your alleged and supposed mass disagreement with the tactics."

that sir, is what you call putting words in ones mouth.

i never said this, you started by asking all the questions of why didn't they denounce this and that etc etc... i simply said you don't know that they didn't...and answered that i don't either but perhaps they view some of the actions in a different light than someone outside looking in.

you don't know what they all think and what their personal opinions are, i'm sorry buchholz but you just don't.

Edited November 22, 2011 by nurofiend

[Buchholz]

"no public condemnation of Red Shirts shouting anti-monarchist rants, no distancing from Red Shirts publishing communistic aspirations, no denouncement of Red Shirts holding up toddlers on the front lines as human shields"

i'm only aware of one proven instance of this, if you can show me more i'm all eyes, until any evidence to prove otherwise, this was the act of one individual.

The media is resplendent with photos of children involved in various deplorable situations including human shielding, presence in live fire zones, and various other participatory involvement. Any parent that would have their children present at any time after the announcement was made the rallies were illegal and it was known the potential for violence was extremely high is bad parenting IMO.

This one seems to encapsulate the Red Shirt feeling quite well:

Teaching them young - children of the red shirt movement play with toy guns during the fund-raising rally

http://pattayamail.com/912/news15.shtml

[Buchholz]

you don't know what they all think and what their personal opinions are, i'm sorry buchholz but you just don't.

I readily don't know what they all think. I just know what they say and what I read.

And there's not much in the way of disagreeing with the violent tendencies of the so-called movement nor disagreement with the violent rhetoric of their leaders.

.

[nurofiend]

"no public condemnation of Red Shirts shouting anti-monarchist rants, no distancing from Red Shirts publishing communistic aspirations, no denouncement of Red Shirts holding up toddlers on the front lines as human shields"

i'm only aware of one proven instance of this, if you can show me more i'm all eyes, until any evidence to prove otherwise, this was the act of one individual.

The media is resplendent with photos of children involved in various deplorable situations including human shielding, presence in live fire zones, and various other participatory involvement. Any parent that would have their children present at any time after the announcement was made the rallies were illegal and it was known the potential for violence was extremely high is bad parenting IMO.

This one seems to encapsulate the Red Shirt feeling quite well:

Teaching them young - children of the red shirt movement play with toy guns during the fund-raising rally

http://pattayamail.c...12/news15.shtml

ok fair enough i agree that keeping your children there after a live firing zone had been declared is of course bad parenting to say the least and didn't the leaders (at least claim) that they tried to get them to leave and we're not exactly talking about 100's of kids here either going by what was reported tbf, going by time magazine they say at least two dozen, so yeah i agree bad parenting of those who didn't leave with their kids..

back to the original point can you show me any more instances other than the one that i'm aware of, of a kid being used as a human shield, since you talked in the plural.

[nurofiend]

you don't know what they all think and what their personal opinions are, i'm sorry buchholz but you just don't.

I readily don't know what they all think. I just know what they say and what I read.

And there's not much in the way of disagreeing with the violent tendencies of the so-called movement nor disagreement with the violent rhetoric of their leaders.

.

you don't know what they all say either... you can't say they all applaud and approve of the violence because you don't know this, that's the point i'm making.

[whybother]

you don't know what they all think and what their personal opinions are, i'm sorry buchholz but you just don't.

I readily don't know what they all think. I just know what they say and what I read.

And there's not much in the way of disagreeing with the violent tendencies of the so-called movement nor disagreement with the violent rhetoric of their leaders.

you don't know what they all say either... you can't say they all applaud and approve of the violence because you don't know this, that's the point i'm making.

There will always be some that don't approve. That doesn't give everyone else a free ride.

[nurofiend]

you don't know what they all think and what their personal opinions are, i'm sorry buchholz but you just don't.

I readily don't know what they all think. I just know what they say and what I read.

And there's not much in the way of disagreeing with the violent tendencies of the so-called movement nor disagreement with the violent rhetoric of their leaders.

you don't know what they all say either... you can't say they all applaud and approve of the violence because you don't know this, that's the point i'm making.

There will always be some that don't approve. That doesn't give everyone else a free ride.

and never have i suggested that it should.

[Buchholz]

you don't know what they all think and what their personal opinions are, i'm sorry buchholz but you just don't.

I readily don't know what they all think. I just know what they say and what I read.

And there's not much in the way of disagreeing with the violent tendencies of the so-called movement nor disagreement with the violent rhetoric of their leaders.

.

you don't know what they all say either... you can't say they all applaud and approve of the violence because you don't know this, that's the point i'm making.

I'm not saying they all applaud and approve of the repeated violent acts, but it would seem very precious few have voiced unconditional and unequivocal condemnation of these reoccurring tendencies. So few that I have not seen any that voiced their displeasure with them to the point that they were disassociating themselves from the Red Shirts.

The failure to do so condemns the entire movement to being associated with violence.

.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[whybother]

you don't know what they all say either... you can't say they all applaud and approve of the violence because you don't know this, that's the point i'm making.

There will always be some that don't approve. That doesn't give everyone else a free ride.

and never have i suggested that it should.

No. You just seem to be saying that because somewhere someone must have denounced their violent actions, then all those red shirts that support the leaders that haven't denounced the violent actions are OK.

[Buchholz]

Speaking of applauding and approving, why are these throngs of Red Shirts applauding and approving Arisaman:

According to Arisaman in the video, his list of targets for burning are:

Siriraj Hospital,

All Muslim Mosques,

Government House,

Important Ministries,

Airports,

Rajavithi Road,

Bridges,

Bank of Thailand,

Commercial Banks,

Military Barracks,

Court of Justice,

and NGO's

will all be destroyed.

His retort is:

"Not one of these will remain standing."

btw, there are 3,494 mosques and 56 airports in Thailand.

No info on the number of other targets like bridges and banks, etc.

.

[nurofiend]

you don't know what they all say either... you can't say they all applaud and approve of the violence because you don't know this, that's the point i'm making.

There will always be some that don't approve. That doesn't give everyone else a free ride.

and never have i suggested that it should.

No. You just seem to be saying that because somewhere someone must have denounced their violent actions, then all those red shirts that support the leaders that haven't denounced the violent actions are OK.

well you're close to the mark but still off.

i'm saying we can only make assumptions on how many individuals denounce individual acts and just because a red shirt remains a red shirt doesn't mean they applaud every act carried out.

i'm saying that i try and understand how from their perspective some actions would seem very different than they do to us, which means i believe that even people who are non violent themselves would see some of the acts as sometimes protective and sometimes as a statement, rather than offensive violence.. they would see it as re-active.

can you not see how a supporter would view things that way?

[nurofiend]

Speaking of applauding and approving, why are these throngs of Red Shirts applauding and approving Arisaman:

According to Arisaman in the video, his list of targets for burning are:

Siriraj Hospital,

All Muslim Mosques,

Government House,

Important Ministries,

Airports,

Rajavithi Road,

Bridges,

Bank of Thailand,

Commercial Banks,

Military Barracks,

Court of Justice,

and NGO's

will all be destroyed.

His retort is:

"Not one of these will remain standing."

btw, there are 3,494 mosques and 56 airports in Thailand.

No info on the number of other targets like bridges and banks, etc.

.

of course it's horrible stuff to be saying but can you not grasp how he's talking about it in a defensive manner from the crowds point of view, as in if they hurt us we will do this... of course we know his intentions and it was inciting the crowd, it's designed to rouse the feeling of oppression and the idea that they will be attacked for being who they are, so when he says if they attack us we well blah blah blah... it's not the same as just saying "let's go burn everything for the sake of it"... i'm not excusing the speech at all but with regards to the crowd it's just deepening their divisional mindset i think and of course planting seeds of the possibilities and expectations of violence.

tbh i don't think i would call much of the crowd i seen there as violent people because i didn't hear of many women toting gun's, especially a load of grannies!!!

[nurofiend]

Speaking of applauding and approving, why are these throngs of Red Shirts applauding and approving Arisaman:

According to Arisaman in the video, his list of targets for burning are:

Siriraj Hospital,

All Muslim Mosques,

Government House,

Important Ministries,

Airports,

Rajavithi Road,

Bridges,

Bank of Thailand,

Commercial Banks,

Military Barracks,

Court of Justice,

and NGO's

will all be destroyed.

His retort is:

"Not one of these will remain standing."

btw, there are 3,494 mosques and 56 airports in Thailand.

No info on the number of other targets like bridges and banks, etc.

.

anyway i'm not here to defend the red shirts violent actions or incitements, that was never my intention nor my opinion that they should be defended.

and i've grown weary of this lonnnnng discussion now

i think the majority of red shirts are decent people who are not thugs and terrorists, that's the only point i was making at the start, that was it!

i can only take it that since you took up arguing with that point that you think the majority of them are not decent and are thugs and terrorists, does that sound fair?

if not then i don't understand why you began arguing in the first place.

[whybother]

No. You just seem to be saying that because somewhere someone must have denounced their violent actions, then all those red shirts that support the leaders that haven't denounced the violent actions are OK.

well you're close to the mark but still off.

i'm saying we can only make assumptions on how many individuals denounce individual acts and just because a red shirt remains a red shirt doesn't mean they applaud every act carried out.

i'm saying that i try and understand how from their perspective some actions would seem very different than they do to us, which means i believe that even people who are non violent themselves would see some of the acts as sometimes protective and sometimes as a statement, rather than offensive violence.. they would see it as re-active.

can you not see how a supporter would view things that way?

I CAN see how a red shirt supporter will see things how they want to so that they can justify the violence.

They justify their armed militia shooting at the army. They justify the thugs attacking the army outside their bamboo barricades. They justify the grenades shot at opposition protesters and innocent bystanders. They justify burning down department stores, TV stations, 7/11s and provincial halls. They justify the red shirts that make bombs (and accidentally blow them selves up). They justify their leaders telling them to burn everything down.

What I can't see is how someone with half a brain can justify it.

[nurofiend]

No. You just seem to be saying that because somewhere someone must have denounced their violent actions, then all those red shirts that support the leaders that haven't denounced the violent actions are OK.

well you're close to the mark but still off.

i'm saying we can only make assumptions on how many individuals denounce individual acts and just because a red shirt remains a red shirt doesn't mean they applaud every act carried out.

i'm saying that i try and understand how from their perspective some actions would seem very different than they do to us, which means i believe that even people who are non violent themselves would see some of the acts as sometimes protective and sometimes as a statement, rather than offensive violence.. they would see it as re-active.

can you not see how a supporter would view things that way?

I CAN see how a red shirt supporter will see things how they want to so that they can justify the violence.

They justify their armed militia shooting at the army. They justify the thugs attacking the army outside their bamboo barricades. They justify the grenades shot at opposition protesters and innocent bystanders. They justify burning down department stores, TV stations, 7/11s and provincial halls. They justify the red shirts that make bombs (and accidentally blow them selves up). They justify their leaders telling them to burn everything down.

What I can't see is how someone with half a brain can justify it.

ok so you think they perceive things based on how they want to perceive them just to justify violent acts rather than genuinely how they truly perceive things, brilliant.

[Buchholz]

Speaking of applauding and approving, why are these throngs of Red Shirts applauding and approving Arisaman:

According to Arisaman in the video, his list of targets for burning are:

Siriraj Hospital,

All Muslim Mosques,

Government House,

Important Ministries,

Airports,

Rajavithi Road,

Bridges,

Bank of Thailand,

Commercial Banks,

Military Barracks,

Court of Justice,

and NGO's

will all be destroyed.

His retort is:

"Not one of these will remain standing."

btw, there are 3,494 mosques and 56 airports in Thailand.

No info on the number of other targets like bridges and banks, etc.

anyway i'm not here to defend the red shirts violent actions or incitements, that was never my intention nor my opinion that they should be defended.

and i've grown weary of this lonnnnng discussion now

i think the majority of red shirts are decent people who are not thugs and terrorists, that's the only point i was making at the start, that was it!

i can only take it that since you took up arguing with that point that you think the majority of them are not decent and are thugs and terrorists, does that sound fair?

That's the thing, I don't feel the majority of them are thugs (otherwise there would be even more than dozens and dozens of violent acts committed by the Red Shirts), but I am curious as to their rationale and motivations for not condemning those that are.

By not doing so, they condemn their movement to the scrap heap of other extreme and violent organizations.

It also lessens the legitimacy of their proclaimed "fight for democracy" and all the negativity that is justifiably bestowed upon them and instead reveals their movement to be primarily focused on the return of a deposed megalomaniac despot.

This is why I began the "argument" (which I don't see as arguing, btw) when I asked:

What have these "many many good people" done themselves about the "sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs"?

Have they identified them, denounced them, disassociated from them, decried their actions, assisted police in their apprehension, removed them from their so-called movement, barred their presence?

Anything along those lines?

Unfortunately, other than some musings about seeing their acts as defensive, it remains unanswered, which is too bad for those that mistakenly do believe that this "grass roots organization is seeking justice". If it was, then those things I spoke of would have would have occurred. Unfortunately, for the majority, they've simply been duped by an elite trillionaire.

I would be the first to applaud and approve of their alleged goals if they were real and sincere... but they aren't.

.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[whybother]

ok so you think they perceive things based on how they want to perceive them just to justify violent acts rather than genuinely how they truly perceive things, brilliant.

Whether they "want to perceive things" or whether it is "genuinely how they truly perceive things" is irrelevant. They use it to justify violence.

[nurofiend]

Speaking of applauding and approving, why are these throngs of Red Shirts applauding and approving Arisaman:

According to Arisaman in the video, his list of targets for burning are:

Siriraj Hospital,

All Muslim Mosques,

Government House,

Important Ministries,

Airports,

Rajavithi Road,

Bridges,

Bank of Thailand,

Commercial Banks,

Military Barracks,

Court of Justice,

and NGO's

will all be destroyed.

His retort is:

"Not one of these will remain standing."

btw, there are 3,494 mosques and 56 airports in Thailand.

No info on the number of other targets like bridges and banks, etc.

anyway i'm not here to defend the red shirts violent actions or incitements, that was never my intention nor my opinion that they should be defended.

and i've grown weary of this lonnnnng discussion now

i think the majority of red shirts are decent people who are not thugs and terrorists, that's the only point i was making at the start, that was it!

i can only take it that since you took up arguing with that point that you think the majority of them are not decent and are thugs and terrorists, does that sound fair?

That's the thing, I don't feel the majority of them are thugs (otherwise there would be even more than dozens and dozens of violent acts committed by the Red Shirts), but I am curious as to their rationale and motivations for not condemning those that are.

By not doing so, they condemn their movement to the scrap heap of other extreme and violent organizations.

It also lessens the legitimacy of their proclaimed "fight for democracy" and all the negativity that is justifiably bestowed upon them and instead reveals their movement to be primarily focused on the return of a deposed megalomaniac despot.

This why I began the "argument" (which I don't see as arguing, btw) when I asked:

What have these "many many good people" done themselves about the "sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs"?

Have they identified them, denounced them, disassociated from them, decried their actions, assisted police in their apprehension, removed them from their so-called movement, barred their presence?

Anything along those lines?

Unfortunately, other than some musings about seeing their acts as defensive, it remains unanswered, which is too bad for those that mistakenly do believe that this "grass roots organization is seeking justice". If it was, then those things I spoke have would have occurred. Unfortunately, for the majority, they've simply been duped by an elite trillionaire.

I would be the first to applaud and approve of their alleged goals if they were real and sincere... but they aren't.

.

well i told you i didn't know the answer to that question to begin with and i could only base it on opinion tbf, didn't i?

to me you when you put it as What have these "many many good people" done themselves about the "sporadic minority of hateful, violent, thugs"?

i translated that as you saying there aren't a lot of good people who follow them to, i based this translation on your leanings and i don't think it was an outlandish assumption to have made because of that.

i agree that they've been duped...100%

your question does remain unanswered but my original point was only to say, well i've said it enough times already.