Red Shirts Threaten To Rally For Arisman's Bail

[MunterHunter]

Free speech is a myth, an urban legend if you will... there are laws in this country that prevent you discussing certain subjects, there are rules on this forum that prevent you discussing certain subjects.

I don't say its right nor do i say its wrong, i merely point out a simple fact of life.

[tlansford]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

As I said earlier, the list would take too long to compile. However to help you out I googled "red shirt" + violence with this result:

Search

About 5,890,000 results (0.29 seconds)

You can have fun with that lot.

Don't try to cop out, Mick. You made the allegation about Red Shirt violence being the norm. Let's see some evidence. Like I keep stating: You just make it up to fit your prejudices.

let's see, Aug 5, 2010 - more than 10,000 Red Shirts at Central World.

Everyone remember that day? Of course not. No violence.

The issue on the counting is pure perception. Violent protests are remembered, non-violent protests are not. The list is a waste of time for this forum, there have been 1,000s of gatherings of the UDD, large and small, and no one here will recall those days which were peaceful and without incident.

And whether there might be violence or not, or just a consideration of how many people will attend a rally/demonstration/protest is a good reason for authorities to be prepared, but it is not a good reason to take away the right to assemble.

All the bogus arguments posted that try to justify that position run into the same wall very quickly. the "yes, but..." argument goes no where.

PS: regarding ozmick's intellectual exercise, I googled red shirt + ice cream and received 13,100,000 results (0.11 seconds), then red shirt + santa claus and got 1,920,000 results (0.23 seconds)

Say, this is fun, now let's try red shirt + delusional, ...

[tlansford]

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

What have the Democrat party supported that is the "very opposite of" democracy?

it is called a judicial coup.

[tlansford]

From what I remember, the protests weren't related to the court case. The yellow shirts were generally doing what they could to stop the government of the time from changing the constitution, and one of the reasons they went to Swampy was to stop Somchai from arriving.

Let's get the facts right. The yellow shirts wanted to retain the Constitution the military junta pushed through, and not allow the reinstatement of the People's Constitution of 1997 which was abrogated by the junta.

The protests put pressure on the courts, considering the rhetoric used by the yellows at the time I think that was very much an aim.

Yes, let's get the facts right. The Constitution was put to the vote and people accepted it with a large majority. Where was the "Pushing through"?

the military junta made criticism as well as simply campaigning against the 2007 constitution illegal, then they put a ton of money behind promoting their 2007 constitution for the referendum.

[whybother]

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

What have the Democrat party supported that is the "very opposite of" democracy?

it is called a judicial coup.

The courts disbanded a party for corruption. They had no say in who formed the next government.

[phiphidon]

You're right, of course, regarding the historical record of this organization.

With countless episodes of violence and major battles in 2007, 2009, and 2010, it's checkered beyond credibility. The tally sheet for violent versus non-violent comparisons would be heavily sided on the former.

This is a group that has already been given much leeway with so many other of its leaders not incarcerated. With the likes of Jatuporn and Karun and Natthawut still stirring up trouble on the outside, it still doesn't satisfy their demands and they want the worst of the lot, Arisaman, free also.

Incredulous demands.

They want to demonstrate for democracy? Then, as said, previously, dump their undemocratic focuses of Thaksin and despicable Red Shirt Leaders. They want credibility? Then, as said, dissociate and strike out on their own with legitimate leaders and legitimate issues.

.

The request was for a statistical breakdown. But you, true to form, came up with meaningless propaganda. Thanks for that, Buchholz.

As I said earlier, the list would take too long to compile. However to help you out I googled "red shirt" + violence with this result:

Search

About 5,890,000 results (0.29 seconds)

You can have fun with that lot.

And most of those were probably TV posts.....................Incidentally try "thailand democrats violence", you'll get 33,600,000 results - so what's the point?

[Crushdepth]

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

What have the Democrat party supported that is the "very opposite of" democracy?

it is called a judicial coup.

Or it could also be called "justice". It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and complain when the judiciary uphold electoral law in the same breath.

[nurofiend]

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

What have the Democrat party supported that is the "very opposite of" democracy?

it is called a judicial coup.

The courts disbanded a party for corruption. They had no say in who formed the next government.

so you're saying the democrats didn't support the coup?

[nurofiend]

if you are a supporter of pad/yellow shirt or whatever that opposition likes to call themselves these days or the democrat party... then you cannot make any arguments about democracy, because they've all supported the very opposite of it

What have the Democrat party supported that is the "very opposite of" democracy?

it is called a judicial coup.

Or it could also be called "justice". It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and complain when the judiciary uphold electoral law in the same breath.

It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and say that a coup is a good thing

[whybother]

so you're saying the democrats didn't support the coup?

Are you saying that they did?

edit: which coup? the "judicial" coup, or the military coup?

Edited December 23, 2011 by whybother

[gl555]

It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and say that a coup is a good thing

It's been argued to death on this forum already.

When democracy has failed. When the judiciary and legislature won't remove a corrupt executive because they're beholden to him, it's time for the military to do something about it. A coup isn't a good thing but it's so much better then letting a corrupt and ineffectual government continue ruling the country.

[nurofiend]

so you're saying the democrats didn't support the coup?

Are you saying that they did?

yeah... i am

are you saying they didn't?

[nurofiend]

It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and say that a coup is a good thing

It's been argued to death on this forum already.

When democracy has failed. When the judiciary and legislature won't remove a corrupt executive because they're beholden to him, it's time for the military to do something about it. A coup isn't a good thing but it's so much better then letting a corrupt and ineffectual government continue ruling the country.

so please tell me when a corrupt and ineffectual government hasn't ruled the country since.

[gl555]

I wouldn't shed a tear if a couple of trucks overturned while they're on their way here. Freaking jobless thugs.

yes what horrible scumbag sub-human thugs who wish death on others eh?

Why even bother debating with such hateful people?

These people are trying to intimidate the courts into releasing a terrorist who incited other Red Shirts to burn Bangkok to the ground. Yes wanting to free someone who actually manage to get people to try to burn down this city isn't hateful.

[whybother]

so you're saying the democrats didn't support the coup?

Are you saying that they did?

yeah... i am

are you saying they didn't?

No. They didn't support the coup.

Show me something that shows that they did support it.

Edited December 23, 2011 by whybother

[nurofiend]

so you're saying the democrats didn't support the coup?

Are you saying that they did?

yeah... i am

are you saying they didn't?

No. They didn't support the coup.

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team.

Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution.^[22] The military junta organized general elections for 23 December 2007."

You're either very naive to think that the democrats didn't support it or you're arguing for the sake of arguing...

[whybother]

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team.

Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution.^[22] The military junta organized general elections for 23 December 2007."

You're either very naive to think that the democrats didn't support it or you're arguing for the sake of arguing...

So you're using the "If you're not with us, you're against us" argument?

He voiced displeasure, but didn't protest. That doesn't mean he supported it.

Edited December 23, 2011 by whybother

[OzMick]

.

And most of those were probably TV posts.....................Incidentally try "thailand democrats violence", you'll get 33,600,000 results - so what's the point?

Possibly that you need to uprate uprate your google skills.

[gl555]

It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and say that a coup is a good thing

It's been argued to death on this forum already.

When democracy has failed. When the judiciary and legislature won't remove a corrupt executive because they're beholden to him, it's time for the military to do something about it. A coup isn't a good thing but it's so much better then letting a corrupt and ineffectual government continue ruling the country.

so please tell me when a corrupt and ineffectual government hasn't ruled the country since.

I think the previous government did a pretty good job. At least, the PM back then didn't evade paying billions in income tax. I wonder how many projects for poor people the tax he didn't pay could fund?

And let's not mention the thousands killed on the war on drugs?

Yes you've probably read all these before. Like I said, it's been argued to death already.

[nurofiend]

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team.

Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution.^[22] The military junta organized general elections for 23 December 2007."

You're either very naive to think that the democrats didn't support it or you're arguing for the sake of arguing...

So you're using the "If you're not with us, you're against us" argument?

He voiced displeasure, but didn't protest. That doesn't mean he supported it.

i'm not using any argument... if you really can't see that the democrat party wanted the coup then fine but i think you'd have to be blinded by bias to believe that.

another thing he voiced his displeasure at

"The PAD declared that the only person they would accept as Premier was Abhisit of the Democrat Party.^[23] Abhisit voiced displeasure at sieges, but did not stop his deputies from their roles in the PAD"

it's just keeping up appearances... same as thaksin has done in the past

[nurofiend]

It amazes me how people can rattle on about "democracy" and say that a coup is a good thing

It's been argued to death on this forum already.

When democracy has failed. When the judiciary and legislature won't remove a corrupt executive because they're beholden to him, it's time for the military to do something about it. A coup isn't a good thing but it's so much better then letting a corrupt and ineffectual government continue ruling the country.

so please tell me when a corrupt and ineffectual government hasn't ruled the country since.

I think the previous government did a pretty good job. At least, the PM back then didn't evade paying billions in income tax. I wonder how many projects for poor people the tax he didn't pay could fund?

And let's not mention the thousands killed on the war on drugs?

Yes you've probably read all these before. Like I said, it's been argued to death already.

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

[MunterHunter]

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team.

Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution.^[22] The military junta organized general elections for 23 December 2007."

You're either very naive to think that the democrats didn't support it or you're arguing for the sake of arguing...

Don't see anything in that post that supports "Democrat's supported the coup" Abhisit supported the 2007 Constitution over the 1997 Constitution... both parties were allegedly involved in bribery and corruption, and Abhisit voiced displeasure at the coup but did not criticize the Junta in power (sounds like a fairly wise move to me!)

[nurofiend]

"Abhisit voiced displeasure at the 2006 coup that overthrew Thaksin, but otherwise did not protest it or the military junta that ruled Thailand for over a year. A fact-finding panel at the Attorney-General's Office found that the Democrat Party bribed other parties to boycott the 2006 parliamentary election, which forced the constitutional crisis, and voted to dissolve the party. It also found that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party bribed other parties to contest the election. A junta tribunal acquitted Abhisit and the Democrats of the vote fraud charges, but convicted and banned the Thai Rak Thai party and its entire executive team.

Abhisit supported the junta's 2007 Constitution, calling it an improvement on the 1997 Constitution.^[22] The military junta organized general elections for 23 December 2007."

You're either very naive to think that the democrats didn't support it or you're arguing for the sake of arguing...

Don't see anything in that post that supports "Democrat's supported the coup" Abhisit supported the 2007 Constitution over the 1997 Constitution... both parties were allegedly involved in bribery and corruption, and Abhisit voiced displeasure at the coup but did not criticize the Junta in power (sounds like a fairly wise move to me!)

it's just plain obvious, that's all.

[gl555]

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

In terms of corruption, Abhisit was pretty clean. As for the others in his government, name one individual who stole a couple of billion(US dollars mind you, not baht) from the Thai people if you can. Thai politiians are mostly corrupt sad to say but Thaksin and his cronies took it to the highest level. He likes to claim to be a champion of poor people. Well a billion US dollars can help a lot of poor people don't you think?

[nurofiend]

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

In terms of corruption, Abhisit was pretty clean. As for the others in his government, name one individual who stole a couple of billion(US dollars mind you, not baht) from the Thai people if you can. Thai politiians are mostly corrupt sad to say but Thaksin and his cronies took it to the highest level. He likes to claim to be a champion of poor people. Well a billion US dollars can help a lot of poor people don't you think?

would you like me to repeat the question?

[gl555]

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

In terms of corruption, Abhisit was pretty clean. As for the others in his government, name one individual who stole a couple of billion(US dollars mind you, not baht) from the Thai people if you can. Thai politiians are mostly corrupt sad to say but Thaksin and his cronies took it to the highest level. He likes to claim to be a champion of poor people. Well a billion US dollars can help a lot of poor people don't you think?

would you like me to repeat the question?

I've already answered it. They're all corrupt but it's the degree of corruption and Thaksin's government brought corruption to the next level!

[rixalex]

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

The government weren't no, but with regards corruption, have yet to see any evidence that Abhisit was (or is), and seeing as these changes have to start from the top, that surely was a big step in the right direction. As for ineffectiveness, that is a little hard to gauge, as most of their tenure, resources and time were being sucked up in dealing with mob violence.

Red shirts caused the government to be less effective, and then go one about how ineffective the government was. Red logic for you i guess.

[lannarebirth]

Yes, most of us are aware of incidents involving Red Shirts. They're not short of blame, nor are the people opposing them (including the, at the time, Deputy PM Suthep and his, at the time, 'Mini-Me' Nevin Chidchob, who both personally organised the Blue Shirt provocateurs who caused the escalation of trouble outside the ASEAN Pattaya Conference). But your remark about Red Shirts causing trouble each and every time they gather is plain bullsh!t, and places you firmly in the party political propagandist camp, and out of the intelligent debate. Why do you do that? You're an intelligent guy. We're not going to change the course of events on TVF. The best we can do is, between all of us, try to get to the bottom of things as best we can within the forum rules. We can all disagree on the route, and even the destination, but let's not mislead each other along the way. That's for the deluded.

"Each and every time" is indeed an exaggeration. But when trouble occurs at a red-shirt gathering nobody is surprised - it is the rule rather than the exception.

Yes, mine is an exaggeration. but from what I have seen your comment is not. What's more, it is so prevalent, that there is always the threat of violence that overhangs a Reds Shirt event. It is also well implied that if they come to "protest YOUR protest" you had either backdown on exercising YOUR rights, or there could be trouble.

[nurofiend]

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

The government weren't no, but with regards corruption, have yet to see any evidence that Abhisit was (or is), and seeing as these changes have to start from the top, that surely was a big step in the right direction. As for ineffectiveness, that is a little hard to gauge, as most of their tenure, resources and time were being sucked up in dealing with mob violence.

Red shirts caused the government to be less effective, and then go one about how ineffective the government was. Red logic for you i guess.

... yellow logic for you i guess

we're talking about the government parties .... not thaksin, not abhisit.

[nurofiend]

so are you saying the previous government were innocent of any corruption or ineffectiveness?

In terms of corruption, Abhisit was pretty clean. As for the others in his government, name one individual who stole a couple of billion(US dollars mind you, not baht) from the Thai people if you can. Thai politiians are mostly corrupt sad to say but Thaksin and his cronies took it to the highest level. He likes to claim to be a champion of poor people. Well a billion US dollars can help a lot of poor people don't you think?

would you like me to repeat the question?

I've already answered it. They're all corrupt but it's the degree of corruption and Thaksin's government brought corruption to the next level!

you said

"A coup isn't a good thing but it's so much better then letting a corrupt and ineffectual government continue ruling the country."

i asked do you think the democrat government were innocent of these values and you couldn't just give me a straight answer

btw.... the answer is no.