Pardon For Thaksin: Thai Govt Takes Dangerous Path

[nurofiend]

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.

i think it is relevant because if it was how they want to perceive things then that is using it to justify violence

if it is genuinely how they perceive things ie as mentioned, defensive, re-active, protective etc. then they are not using it, it's how they truly perceive it.. whether they are right or wrong to perceive it this way is not relevant to my point, and i've already mentioned propaganda in relation to this somewhere, maybe about 50 posts ago or somethin.

it's not relevant since i'm not defending the actual acts themselves but defending how they could see them differently not just because they decide to see it that way to defend violence.

this wheel could keep spinning but i've made my point as much as i can.

[AleG]

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

I think the bulk of the Red Shirts are deluded, brainwashed people, otherwise nice as they may be, that have bought into the Thaksin myth, his narrative of champion of democracy, a self made peasant that got to the top, etc, etc...

How else can you explain to have a rally of thousands cheering at the idea of burning down, among other things, the hospital were the king was convalescing at?

Screw the argument that they were inflamed by a sense of self defense, on self defense you attack those who are directly attacking you, setting the whole country on fire is not a rational reaction.

[MikeyIdea]

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.

So you agree that the organisers indeed were inciting arson and violence. Thank You

It could indeed be heard all the way to Chieng Mai how the crowds of "peaceful protersters" in unison all cheered at the tone of that. lannarebirth wrote: If I was a peaceful protester, hearing that, I'd have gotten up and left - Yes, that is what all peaceful protesters would have done, wouldn't they? But they didn't, hence, they weren't peaceful protesters

I heard speaches from Udon and Chonburi too where the red shirt organisers incited arson and violence. Crowds cheering. Arisaman named a big American company by name and said that they (the red shirts) would, can't remember if he said burn or destroy now, Crowds cheering. There were many more cities. Now to the main point: Did the peaceful protesters leave? No, they cheered

So why on earth do you have an issue with the quotation marks around "peaceful protesters"?

[nurofiend]

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

I think the bulk of the Red Shirts are deluded, brainwashed people, otherwise nice as they may be, that have bought into the Thaksin myth, his narrative of champion of democracy, a self made peasant that got to the top, etc, etc...

How else can you explain to have a rally of thousands cheering at the idea of burning down, among other things, the hospital were the king was convalescing at?

Screw the argument that they were inflamed by a sense of self defense, on self defense you attack those who are directly attacking you, setting the whole country on fire is not a rational reaction.

i agree, they've been brainwashed.

screw the argument til it's sore if you want...i think they were inflamed by a sense of self defense and being fed the idea into their heads that they would be attacked for being who they are, and feeding the sense of oppression that obviously already is ingrained in the psyche of supporters

he told them that if the government attacked them, then they would attack places listed by the government as "sensitive targets"

i'm not condoning the suggestions, at all, just trying to understand how they might hear it differently from their point of view and their mindset of feeling extremely oppressed by the government... as in if the government attack us, we'll attack the government

i think the crowd heard as defiant rhetoric rather than an actual plan of action.

[nurofiend]

So you agree that the organisers indeed were inciting arson and violence. Thank You

It could indeed be heard all the way to Chieng Mai how the crowds of "peaceful protersters" in unison all cheered at the tone of that. lannarebirth wrote: If I was a peaceful protester, hearing that, I'd have gotten up and left - Yes, that is what all peaceful protesters would have done, wouldn't they? But they didn't, hence, they weren't peaceful protesters

I heard speaches from Udon and Chonburi too where the red shirt organisers incited arson and violence. Crowds cheering. Arisaman named a big American company by name and said that they (the red shirts) would, can't remember if he said burn or destroy now, Crowds cheering. There were many more cities. Now to the main point: Did the peaceful protesters leave? No, they cheered

So why on earth do you have an issue with the quotation marks around "peaceful protesters"?

your welcome.

It could indeed be heard all the way to Chieng Mai how the crowds of "peaceful protersters" in unison all cheered at the tone of that.

yes, i did say "i am fully aware of things that were said"

So why on earth do you have an issue with the quotation marks around "peaceful protesters"?

because i think a lot of protesters that attended the rally at ratchaprasong were peaceful ie non violent protesters and not terrorists, geddit?

[MikeyIdea]

So you agree that the organisers indeed were inciting arson and violence. Thank You

It could indeed be heard all the way to Chieng Mai how the crowds of "peaceful protersters" in unison all cheered at the tone of that. lannarebirth wrote: If I was a peaceful protester, hearing that, I'd have gotten up and left - Yes, that is what all peaceful protesters would have done, wouldn't they? But they didn't, hence, they weren't peaceful protesters

I heard speaches from Udon and Chonburi too where the red shirt organisers incited arson and violence. Crowds cheering. Arisaman named a big American company by name and said that they (the red shirts) would, can't remember if he said burn or destroy now, Crowds cheering. There were many more cities. Now to the main point: Did the peaceful protesters leave? No, they cheered

So why on earth do you have an issue with the quotation marks around "peaceful protesters"?

your welcome.

It could indeed be heard all the way to Chieng Mai how the crowds of "peaceful protersters" in unison all cheered at the tone of that.

yes, i did say "i am fully aware of things that were said"

So why on earth do you have an issue with the quotation marks around "peaceful protesters"?

because i think a lot of protesters that attended the rally at ratchaprasong were peaceful ie non violent protesters and not terrorists, geddit?

The protesters you talk about were cheering arson and the buring of the capital city of Thailand. You call them peaceful?

[nurofiend]

The protesters you talk about were cheering arson and the buring of the capital city of Thailand. You call them peaceful?

i think that evidently most of the protesters were non violent in their actions and not terrorists, we can play with words all day.

by peaceful, i don't mean quiet, i mean they weren't committing acts of violence themselves... and the majority weren't or bangkok would probably have burned if they had been.

[whybother]

The protesters you talk about were cheering arson and the buring of the capital city of Thailand. You call them peaceful?

i think that evidently most of the protesters were non violent in their actions and not terrorists, we can play with words all day.

by peaceful, i don't mean quiet, i mean they weren't committing acts of violence themselves... and the majority weren't or bangkok would probably have burned if they had been.

They were committing the acts of violence, they were just supporting them.

[AleG]

i agree, they've been brainwashed.

screw the argument til it's sore if you want...i think they were inflamed by a sense of self defense and being fed the idea into their heads that they would be attacked for being who they are, and feeding the sense of oppression that obviously already is ingrained in the psyche of supporters

he told them that if the government attacked them, then they would attack places listed by the government as "sensitive targets"

i'm not condoning the suggestions, at all, just trying to understand how they might hear it differently from their point of view and their mindset of feeling extremely oppressed by the government... as in if the government attack us, we'll attack the government

i think the crowd heard as defiant rhetoric rather than an actual plan of action.

If I, or any other foreigner, scratch that, anyone at all would get on a stage and incite people to burn you-know-who I'd be hanging from the nearest lamp post before you can say "try to see it from my point of view". Yet that's what basically Arisaman was saying.

There has been a long time since the protests with the Red Shirt leaders frothing the masses into a frenzy, time enough for people to look back and think "hmmm, maybe the things these guys were saying were over the top". I suspect most people that identify as Red Shirts now are living in an echo chamber, a bubble of propaganda where all contrary opinion and evidence against what they are being fed is labeled and dismissed as lies; unfortunately that's the kind of mental prison that can only be opened from the inside and cursed be Thaksin and his "PR" machine for setting people on that path for his own benefit.

Besides that, as I said many of the attacks by Red Shirts and, ejem, associates can't be construed into any sort of self defense move against the government, the bombing of Sala Daeng, the random grenade attacks around the city, the torching of buildings all over Thailand, etc... Incitements, reprisals, just plain terrorism, yes; self defense against the government, not by a long shot. The "if the government attack us, we'll attack the government" was more like "if the government attack us, we'll attack anyone we have a peeve with", pretty much as a criminal holding a gun to a hostage's head, sure he may think he is acting on self defense, it doesn't make it any more acceptable though.

[MikeyIdea]

The protesters you talk about were cheering arson and the buring of the capital city of Thailand. You call them peaceful?

i think that evidently most of the protesters were non violent in their actions and not terrorists, we can play with words all day.

by peaceful, i don't mean quiet, i mean they weren't committing acts of violence themselves... and the majority weren't or bangkok would probably have burned if they had been.

Wake up nurofiend, Bangkok DID burn... I pass 1, 2, 3, 4 places on my way to work every morning and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 places on the way home from work evey evening

[MikeyIdea]

"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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

[nurofiend]

i agree, they've been brainwashed.

screw the argument til it's sore if you want...i think they were inflamed by a sense of self defense and being fed the idea into their heads that they would be attacked for being who they are, and feeding the sense of oppression that obviously already is ingrained in the psyche of supporters

he told them that if the government attacked them, then they would attack places listed by the government as "sensitive targets"

i'm not condoning the suggestions, at all, just trying to understand how they might hear it differently from their point of view and their mindset of feeling extremely oppressed by the government... as in if the government attack us, we'll attack the government

i think the crowd heard as defiant rhetoric rather than an actual plan of action.

If I, or any other foreigner, scratch that, anyone at all would get on a stage and incite people to burn you-know-who I'd be hanging from the nearest lamp post before you can say "try to see it from my point of view". Yet that's what basically Arisaman was saying.

There has been a long time since the protests with the Red Shirt leaders frothing the masses into a frenzy, time enough for people to look back and think "hmmm, maybe the things these guys were saying were over the top". I suspect most people that identify as Red Shirts now are living in an echo chamber, a bubble of propaganda where all contrary opinion and evidence against what they are being fed is labeled and dismissed as lies; unfortunately that's the kind of mental prison that can only be opened from the inside and cursed be Thaksin and his "PR" machine for setting people on that path for his own benefit.

Besides that, as I said many of the attacks by Red Shirts and, ejem, associates can't be construed into any sort of self defense move against the government, the bombing of Sala Daeng, the random grenade attacks around the city, the torching of buildings all over Thailand, etc... Incitements, reprisals, just plain terrorism, yes; self defense against the government, not by a long shot. The "if the government attack us, we'll attack the government" was more like "if the government attack us, we'll attack anyone we have a peeve with", pretty much as a criminal holding a gun to a hostage's head, sure he may think he is acting on self defense, it doesn't make it any more acceptable though.

mmm, do you think that's what he was actually saying? not sure tbh

you're right, there were some acts that could not be considered self-defense by anyone....and when you say the "if the government attack us, we'll attack the government" was more like "if the government attack us, we'll attack anyone we have a peeve with"

in some circumstances it was that way by the individuals carrying out the acts and i remember grenade attacks in chiang mai too at the time.

but with regards to the crowd cheering some of the incitement parts of speeches, i do genuinely believe it was mainly cheering in a sense of defiance rather than actually hoping that the violence would end up happening...afterall most of those speeches were along the lines of if they hurt us, shoot us, spill red shirt blood etc then we will do these things and i don't think many of them were hoping to be shot or killed so that they could burn stuff....

[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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

yeah i know there were children there, but you naturally weren't around during the live firing zone declaration which is when i stated there wasn't many there.

well i don't remember seeing any in newspapers, you'd think more pics would have found there way on the internet... mmm strange indeed.

what newspapers were they in?

[hanuman1]

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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

yeah i know there were children there, but you naturally weren't around during the live firing zone declaration which is when i stated there wasn't many there.

well i don't remember seeing any in newspapers, you'd think more pics would have found there way on the internet... mmm strange indeed.

what newspapers were they in?

I salute your patience and perseverence in explaining your position. I too do not condone any violent acts. Maybe many reds also make similar declarations to the one I just made on their own Thai web boards. As far as not 'publicly' denouncing violence, it is unfortunate that good people are demonized en mass by some posters here for not doing something that they feel neither empowered nor required to do (apart from by their most implacable opponents).

The leaders have different, and added, responsibilities to the demonstrators. I feel far more comfortable with the criticism of the leaders than with this blanket condemnation of thousands of unknown others.

[MikeyIdea]

<quote name='nurofiend' timestamp='1322001476' post='4865497'>

"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.

</quote>

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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

yeah i know there were children there, but you naturally weren't around during the live firing zone declaration which is when i stated there wasn't many there.

well i don't remember seeing any in newspapers, you'd think more pics would have found there way on the internet... mmm strange indeed.

what newspapers were they in?

Seeing the pictures in the Thai newspapers at the time wasn't difficult, I saw a couple of more pictures myself and they were in several Thai newspapers, black and white photos, difficult to miss if you were looking

Looking is part of being informed before having opinions you know

Edited November 23, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[nurofiend]

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

yeah i know there were children there, but you naturally weren't around during the live firing zone declaration which is when i stated there wasn't many there.

well i don't remember seeing any in newspapers, you'd think more pics would have found there way on the internet... mmm strange indeed.

what newspapers were they in?

Seeing the pictures in the Thai newspapers at the time wasn't difficult, I saw a couple of more pictures myself and they were in several Thai newspapers, black and white photos, difficult to miss if you were looking

Looking is part of being informed before having opinions you know

why the need for the smart alec comment at the end, does it make you feel big and intellectually superior yeah?

like you really think i wasn't aware of this phenomenon... childish

anyway, i did see thai newspapers at the time and i don't recall seeing this pictures... so again i ask, can you name of some these several thai newspapers papers so that i can do a bit of research on it please? thanks.

[nurofiend]

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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

yeah i know there were children there, but you naturally weren't around during the live firing zone declaration which is when i stated there wasn't many there.

well i don't remember seeing any in newspapers, you'd think more pics would have found there way on the internet... mmm strange indeed.

what newspapers were they in?

I salute your patience and perseverence in explaining your position. I too do not condone any violent acts. Maybe many reds also make similar declarations to the one I just made on their own Thai web boards. As far as not 'publicly' denouncing violence, it is unfortunate that good people are demonized en mass by some posters here for not doing something that they feel neither empowered nor required to do (apart from by their most implacable opponents).

The leaders have different, and added, responsibilities to the demonstrators. I feel far more comfortable with the criticism of the leaders than with this blanket condemnation of thousands of unknown others.

exactly, clearly you have understood the point i was making, thank god at least one person got it!

Edited November 23, 2011 by nurofiend

[TAWP]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

[hanuman1]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

Edited November 23, 2011 by hanuman1

[nurofiend]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

no, that completely 100% wasn't the point, i won't elaborate as hanuman has made it perfectly clear in his post exactly what the point was.

[yoshiwara]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

A weak effort at defending the indefencible. Maybe we should show that video of Arisman urging on the 'peaceful demonstrators' to arm themselves with bottles filled with petrol to burn down Bangkok.

That line that it was only a few who either actioned or supported the violence doesn't quite cut it.

On the other hand good effort to salvage something from the violent wreckage. Well maybe not. Just another attempt to put a layer of whitewash on the movement.

At least Thaksin will not object. When something unsavoury happens he blames it on fake reds. Just a little smidgen of difference with the 'minority' of reds 'disconnected' from the mass.

Reconstituted food it tastes like.

[nurofiend]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

A weak effort at defending the indefencible. Maybe we should show that video of Arisman urging on the 'peaceful demonstrators' to arm themselves with bottles filled with petrol to burn down Bangkok.

That line that it was only a few who either actioned or supported the violence doesn't quite cut it.

On the other hand good effort to salvage something from the violent wreckage. Well maybe not. Just another attempt to put a layer of whitewash on the movement.

At least Thaksin will not object. When something unsavoury happens he blames it on fake reds. Just a little smidgen of difference with the 'minority' of reds 'disconnected' from the mass.

Reconstituted food it tastes like.

oh what's the point

the line that it was only a few who actioned the violence does cut it, because it's true

i couldn't be bothered with entering a debate with you as clearly, you have still missed the point.

and there is no point in arguing with someone with views as rigid as yours.

[Buchholz]

I salute your patience and perseverence in explaining your position. I too do not condone any violent acts. Maybe many reds also make similar declarations to the one I just made on their own Thai web boards. As far as not 'publicly' denouncing violence, it is unfortunate that good people are demonized en mass by some posters here for not doing something that they feel neither empowered nor required to do (apart from by their most implacable opponents).

The leaders have different, and added, responsibilities to the demonstrators. I feel far more comfortable with the criticism of the leaders than with this blanket condemnation of thousands of unknown others.

exactly, clearly you have understood the point i was making, thank god at least one person got it!

If your point was that the rank and file Red Shirts are not empowered to have a say in their own "movement", then it's no wonder people don't get it.

Any one in any movement is empowered to belong with that movement or to disengage from it if something is done that they don't approve of. It's called quitting, which is something very much within their ability to do so.

If they stay with a movement whose leaders preach anarchy and destruction, then they are legitimately and justifiably tied to the negative aspects of that movement.

While they certainly are not "required" to quit to suit others, but by not quitting then it is tacit approval of what occurs within the movement. If they decide to stay with a movement then they are understandably linked to that movement, with both its positive and negative aspects. That is true whatever the movement is.

.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[Skywalker69]

"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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

The reds idea of kindergarten??

[Buchholz]

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few.

The movement in its current form should die. It should be replaced by one in which the main goal is not to exonerate a fugitive depostic trillionaire. Its violent offenders purged from it. Its hateful and destructive rhetoric cease from its stages.

In its place, the non-elite, the non-violent, grass-root base should dictate its ideology, goals, and actions with tolerance, progress, and national unity at the forefront.

It's up to the rank and file for that to occur. The radical leaders are nothing without them.

Sadly, I've been waiting for that to occur since 2007 when they first unleashed their violence and first demonstrated their being duped by the Dubai one.

.

[yoshiwara]

I think the point is that the Red Shirt leaders have never openly and strongly denounced the violent elements of the movement.

If that were the point, I don't think nurofiend and myself would have such an issue with it. I think the red leaders were naive to not condemn the violence by certain supporters of the red shirt movement, especially since a lack of support is not something they needed to worry about when it came to wanting to kick the Dems out of power at the time.

No, that isn't the point. The point is that grassroots, or 'rank and file' red shirt demonstrators - every one of them - are branded as supporters of terrorism by the loudest contributors on this forum.

Not just those that were present when the violence was being perpetrated, but by extension those who weren't even there but consider themselves red shirt supporters, and who may or may not have attended other red shirt demonstrations, the majority of which were entirely peaceful.

And these thousands - if not tens/hundreds of thousands - have earned the name 'supporter of terrorism' simply because in their capacity as individuals who feel strongly enough about politics in their country to put on a red shirt and travel to a demonstration, have not told a reporter, held a press conference or left the movement in disgust on the grounds that a few people associated with their large and varied movement happened to think it appropriate to use violence for whatever reason.

People who claim that all these thousands should distance themselves from the movement based on the violence of a few simply want the movement to die. It is the characterization of the many according to the actions of a few. The fact that the vast majority, if not all, of red demos nationwide before and since the violent episodes of 18 months ago have passed off entirely peacefully is not mentioned. It doesn't fit with the majority line here on TV. Thankfully for the 'red hoards' of non-violent activists, this fact has not been so willfully ignored by the Thai population at large.

A weak effort at defending the indefencible. Maybe we should show that video of Arisman urging on the 'peaceful demonstrators' to arm themselves with bottles filled with petrol to burn down Bangkok.

That line that it was only a few who either actioned or supported the violence doesn't quite cut it.

On the other hand good effort to salvage something from the violent wreckage. Well maybe not. Just another attempt to put a layer of whitewash on the movement.

At least Thaksin will not object. When something unsavoury happens he blames it on fake reds. Just a little smidgen of difference with the 'minority' of reds 'disconnected' from the mass.

Reconstituted food it tastes like.

oh what's the point

the line that it was only a few who actioned the violence does cut it, because it's true

i couldn't be bothered with entering a debate with you as clearly, you have still missed the point.

and there is no point in arguing with someone with views as rigid as yours.

The point is that they are all layers of the same onion supporting Thaksin.

Phooey to the odd bad apple exculpation. So stale it has got mould all over it.

We know what the forum red apologists have as their main objective. Rigids R' Us.

Nobody misses the point on that one.

[Buchholz]

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.

I saw children among the "peaceful protesters" at Ratchaprasong all the time until I decided it was too dangerous end of April. I also saw more than one picture of children being in the front line, i.e., used as human shields, this was in different Thai newspapers

The best picture I thought was the one of a child put on the barrier on Rama 4 Rd, I suppose that's the only one you knew of. It wasn't difficult to find more, it was in the Thai newspapers, black and white photos, several different ones

The reds idea of kindergarten??

It's desensitizing them to the reality that real guns kill humans. That bullets and grenade fragments rip through human flesh like a hot knife through butter.

Tragically, it completely removes the context in which so many of us grew up playing with toy guns by being directly associated with an organization with repeated violent acts in which real guns and real grenades were employed that subsequently killed real people.

The absurdity of these local chapters calling themselves "love" (as in this case, The UDD Pattaya Love group) when the reality is they are anything but loving. To subject these children to all the trappings of the worst this so-called movement has to offer and to have them listen to the hateful and divisive call-in speech by fugitive anti-monarchist Jakrapob is nothing short of child abuse.

.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

I salute your patience and perseverence in explaining your position. I too do not condone any violent acts. Maybe many reds also make similar declarations to the one I just made on their own Thai web boards. As far as not 'publicly' denouncing violence, it is unfortunate that good people are demonized en mass by some posters here for not doing something that they feel neither empowered nor required to do (apart from by their most implacable opponents).

The leaders have different, and added, responsibilities to the demonstrators. I feel far more comfortable with the criticism of the leaders than with this blanket condemnation of thousands of unknown others.

exactly, clearly you have understood the point i was making, thank god at least one person got it!

If your point was that the rank and file Red Shirts are not empowered to have a say in their own "movement", then it's no wonder people don't get it.

Any one in any movement is empowered to belong with that movement or to disengage from it if something is done that they don't approve of. It's called quitting, which is something very much within their ability to do so.

If they stay with a movement whose leaders preach anarchy and destruction, then they are legitimately and justifiably tied to the negative aspects of that movement.

While they certainly are not "required" to quit to suit others, but by not quitting then it is tacit approval of what occurs within the movement. If they decide to stay with a movement then they are understandably linked to that movement, with both its positive and negative aspects. That is true whatever the movement is.

.

i'm done with trying to explain and reason with you buchholz, i'm done

finito, ok? thanks.

[nurofiend]

The point is that they are all layers of the same onion supporting Thaksin.

Phooey to the odd bad apple exculpation. So stale it has got mould all over it.

We know what the forum red apologists have as their main objective. Rigids R' Us.

Nobody misses the point on that one.

yeah, it's the ones who say anything different about the red shirts than the status qou of hate filled venom on this forum that are the rigid ones...pffft lol

again...i'm out mate, carry on.

[yoshiwara]

The point is that they are all layers of the same onion supporting Thaksin.

Phooey to the odd bad apple exculpation. So stale it has got mould all over it.

We know what the forum red apologists have as their main objective. Rigids R' Us.

Nobody misses the point on that one.

yeah, it's the ones who say anything different about the red shirts than the status qou of hate filled venom on this forum that are the rigid ones...pffft lol

again...i'm out mate, carry on.

'Hate-filled venom'? We had enough of that from Jatuporn, Arisman and a cast of thousands paid for by you know who.