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.

Ignoring the fact that TRT and PPP DID commit the actions they were found guilty of.

And disbanded based on the laws. But why quibble with reality.

Let's just throw out a misleading catch phrase.

hardly a misleading catch phrase, but rather a pivotal point in the ongoing social and political struggle. But as you so correctly point out, "why quibble with reality"? As if it were not really any thing like a judicial coup, nor that it didn't hand the reins of gov't to the democrats, or that the democrats and the military were not playing a key role in it, nor that they were using the PAD to achieve their aims, nor that the PAD was willingly going along with the whole thing, or that it was not known in advance how the decision would come out, or that the judiciary was impartial, ...

Really, let's just pretend that it was a standard, run-of-the-mill decision, not influenced by politics, but true, untainted justice.

Would you like a refill on your koolaid?

I recall at the beginning of the Bangkok protest of 2010, a lot were predicting it would get ugly and that there would be violence. Well, it did remain peaceful for the first few days, and a number of red sympathisers came onto the forum saying how wrong it was for people to have been making those predictions, and how unfair it was to stereotype the reds as being violent.

I recall the violence beginning after 1 month, not just a few days?

Anyway, no denials from me that the protests in the last 6 years were never violent. Clearly they have been. And likewise, they were not always violent. That is true for both sides.

One month you say? Was it that long? I don't recall precisely. Point was, when it started, it was peaceful, and the red sympathisers came here saying "told you so".

"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.

there is at least one incident where Abhisit was personally involved in supporting, encouraging and prolonging the PAD demonstrations leading later to the court decision / judicial coup. Abhisit, a general, and the daughter of the BKK Bank visited the PAD protesters in the Gov't House in the middle of a court-sanctioned dispersal by the police. The dispersal had been non-violent, and all-but successful up to that point. Shortly after the 3 left the protesters, the PAD broke out from the govt house, attacked police, and in the ensuing violence, the courts rescinded the dispersal order, and the PAD protests continued, eventually leading to the airport occupations and the dissolution of the PPP court decision.

I would say that Abhisit was up to his eyebrows in the muck.

Where are the usual defenders of this mob. No one in sight.

There is no defence, so they are understandably quiet.

Whereas you'll be out on the streets tomorrow protesting won't you ?

Or will you still be posting pointless drivel on an anonymous forum ?

Where are the usual defenders of this mob. No one in sight.

There is no defence, so they are understandably quiet.

Whereas you'll be out on the streets tomorrow protesting won't you ?

Or will you still be posting pointless drivel on an anonymous forum ?

Pot ... Kettle ...

I recall at the beginning of the Bangkok protest of 2010, a lot were predicting it would get ugly and that there would be violence. Well, it did remain peaceful for the first few days, and a number of red sympathisers came onto the forum saying how wrong it was for people to have been making those predictions, and how unfair it was to stereotype the reds as being violent.

I recall the violence beginning after 1 month, not just a few days?

Anyway, no denials from me that the protests in the last 6 years were never violent. Clearly they have been. And likewise, they were not always violent. That is true for both sides.

One month you say? Was it that long? I don't recall precisely. Point was, when it started, it was peaceful, and the red sympathisers came here saying "told you so".

it was between 3-4 weeks. The weekend of April 10 was more or less the beginning of the escalation.

I recall at the beginning of the Bangkok protest of 2010, a lot were predicting it would get ugly and that there would be violence. Well, it did remain peaceful for the first few days, and a number of red sympathisers came onto the forum saying how wrong it was for people to have been making those predictions, and how unfair it was to stereotype the reds as being violent.

I recall the violence beginning after 1 month, not just a few days?

Anyway, no denials from me that the protests in the last 6 years were never violent. Clearly they have been. And likewise, they were not always violent. That is true for both sides.

One month you say? Was it that long? I don't recall precisely. Point was, when it started, it was peaceful, and the red sympathisers came here saying "told you so".

it was between 3-4 weeks. The weekend of April 10 was more or less the beginning of the escalation.

Argue about when the violence started all you want but the point is there was violence. And people don't care how peaceful it was in the beginning, people care about how it ended in flames.

it was between 3-4 weeks. The weekend of April 10 was more or less the beginning of the escalation.

14 March - Protests started.

15 March - Marched to 11th Infantry Regiment.

16 March - Splashed blood.

20 March - Parade around Bangkok.

27 March - Confront troops at various locations.

3 April - Take over Ratchaprasong.

8 April - State of Emergency

8/9 April - Protesters stormed Government House and Thaicom

10 April - ... enough said.

... no violence until 8/9 April, but a lot of confrontation.

They had to start with the appearance of being peaceful,

other wise they can't twist the blame to the other side.

The real question is:

Was the original aim to remain peaceful, or was that just a tactic, as part of the greater strategy of blaming the Army and the Dems for violence and make them fall?

How many were NOT surprised when it DID turn violent?

Because it seemed more than just apparent that was the intent from day one, as shown by the regular refusals at negotiations and the continuous escalation's of agressiveness.

How many were not surprised, and still blamed the army?

And how many did so through crocodile tears?

I recall the violence beginning after 1 month, not just a few days?

Anyway, no denials from me that the protests in the last 6 years were never violent. Clearly they have been. And likewise, they were not always violent. That is true for both sides.

One month you say? Was it that long? I don't recall precisely. Point was, when it started, it was peaceful, and the red sympathisers came here saying "told you so".

it was between 3-4 weeks. The weekend of April 10 was more or less the beginning of the escalation.

Argue about when the violence started all you want but the point is there was violence. And people don't care how peaceful it was in the beginning, people care about how it ended in flames.

And of course it was INTENDED to be violent. Arisman's "million liters of petrol" speech was the preamble to this expession of free speech and assembly at Ratchaprasong.

A few posts of back and forth bickering have been removed from view.

Well I'm glad a few people on here are swimming against the tide, expecting any rally on behalf of the demands of Arisman - the man suspected by many of coordinating the M79 attacks into the multi-coloured protesters at Siam (amongst other allegations on this thread) - to be peaceful.

Such a belief is against the typical behaviour the red shirts are now renowned for, both in Thailand and overseas, and against the predictions of the odd security analyst here and there I am in contact with.

But if the usual pro-red lot on here believe they'll act peacefully, well I suppose that's some good news. Personally I'll be staying well the expletive away.

At least you got your grammar right on that post.

Ignoring the fact that TRT and PPP DID commit the actions they were found guilty of.

And disbanded based on the laws. But why quibble with reality.

Let's just throw out a misleading catch phrase.

hardly a misleading catch phrase, but rather a pivotal point in the ongoing social and political struggle. But as you so correctly point out, "why quibble with reality"? As if it were not really any thing like a judicial coup, nor that it didn't hand the reins of gov't to the democrats, or that the democrats and the military were not playing a key role in it, nor that they were using the PAD to achieve their aims, nor that the PAD was willingly going along with the whole thing, or that it was not known in advance how the decision would come out, or that the judiciary was impartial, ...

Really, let's just pretend that it was a standard, run-of-the-mill decision, not influenced by politics, but true, untainted justice.

Would you like a refill on your koolaid?

Isn't there an old joke about Thailand being a Disneyland for adults?

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.

I did answer it. I don't think Thailand has ever seen a clean government since it achieved democracy but Thaksin took corruption to the highest level. There are dirty politicians and then there's Thaksin.

he took corruption to the highest level in thailand?

'He took corruption to the wrong destinations in Thailand' would be a more realistic opinion.

Ignoring the fact that TRT and PPP DID commit the actions they were found guilty of.

And disbanded based on the laws. But why quibble with reality.

Let's just throw out a misleading catch phrase.

hardly a misleading catch phrase, but rather a pivotal point in the ongoing social and political struggle. But as you so correctly point out, "why quibble with reality"? As if it were not really any thing like a judicial coup, nor that it didn't hand the reins of gov't to the democrats, or that the democrats and the military were not playing a key role in it, nor that they were using the PAD to achieve their aims, nor that the PAD was willingly going along with the whole thing, or that it was not known in advance how the decision would come out, or that the judiciary was impartial, ...

Really, let's just pretend that it was a standard, run-of-the-mill decision, not influenced by politics, but true, untainted justice.

Would you like a refill on your koolaid?

Isn't there an old joke about Thailand being a Disneyland for adults?

it'll be nice someday, whenever the Thaksin question gets sorted out, and we have a chance to participate in intelligent threads like lifecycle management...

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.

That's your request. There's no need for a statistical breakdown when the answer is,,,, as highlighted by multiple incidents over many years.

Thanks for your meaningless non-rebuttal.

.

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.

I had to laugh when I read that Arisaman, the red shirt who urged the crowd to burn Bangkok is considering asking the Minister for Defence, General Yuttasak, to stand bail for him!!!!!

It's how the Red Shirt mindset works.....

.

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.

.

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

.

Try and elucidate a bit more. Your encrypted posts are impossible to respond to.

.

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.

.

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

.

Try and elucidate a bit more. Your encrypted posts are impossible to respond to.

.

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.

I did answer it. I don't think Thailand has ever seen a clean government since it achieved democracy but Thaksin took corruption to the highest level. There are dirty politicians and then there's Thaksin.

he took corruption to the highest level in thailand?

'He took corruption to the wrong destinations in Thailand' would be a more realistic opinion.

And one can just imagine the conversation between the coup-makers back in 2006:

" Ok guys, we're as corrupt as hell, but this Thaksin has worked out a way to be even more corrupt than us, and it's beyond the pale."

Back on Planet Earth, the conversation was: "This Thaksin cut us out of the loop. Time to use all our friends and influence to get rid of him so we can get back onto the money."

Hi Buchholz. how is your day?

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.

.

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

.

Try and elucidate a bit more. Your encrypted posts are impossible to respond to.

.

you really don't understand what i meant in this post?

encrypted??? lololololol

tho i'll be quite content not to get a response from you.

And one can just imagine the conversation between the coup-makers back in 2006:

" Ok guys, we're as corrupt as hell, but this Thaksin has worked out a way to be even more corrupt than us, and it's beyond the pale."

Back on Planet Earth, the conversation was: "This Thaksin cut us out of the loop. Time to use all our friends and influence to get rid of him so we can get back onto the money."

Hi Buchholz. how is your day?

And on another thread you have been alluding that Thaksin changed the capital gains tax laws to benefit the powers-that-be.

And one can just imagine the conversation between the coup-makers back in 2006:

" Ok guys, we're as corrupt as hell, but this Thaksin has worked out a way to be even more corrupt than us, and it's beyond the pale."

Back on Planet Earth, the conversation was: "This Thaksin cut us out of the loop. Time to use all our friends and influence to get rid of him so we can get back onto the money."

Hi Buchholz. how is your day?

And on another thread you have been alluding that Thaksin changed the capital gains tax laws to benefit the powers-that-be.

It's a tangled web, Mick, and most of it can't be discussed on this forum. Do some learning, then come back to us.

And one can just imagine the conversation between the coup-makers back in 2006:

" Ok guys, we're as corrupt as hell, but this Thaksin has worked out a way to be even more corrupt than us, and it's beyond the pale."

Back on Planet Earth, the conversation was: "This Thaksin cut us out of the loop. Time to use all our friends and influence to get rid of him so we can get back onto the money."

Hi Buchholz. how is your day?

And on another thread you have been alluding that Thaksin changed the capital gains tax laws to benefit the powers-that-be.

It's a tangled web, Mick, and most of it can't be discussed on this forum. Do some learning, then come back to us.

well, it is not TOO difficult to figure out.

Off-topic, but I hope all of the elite, enemies and friends alike, sent a nice thank you note to Thaksin for 0 capital gains taxes. It is far and away the biggest give-away, to those who already have more than enough, that can possibly be imagined.

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"?

Oberkommando, do you enjoy rewritting Thai history

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"?

Oberkommando, do you enjoy rewritting Thai history

I suggest you read the thread

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/521171-none-of-111-banned-politicians-will-become-next-pm-says-chalerm/page__st__25

You might learn something about how the 2007 constitution came into being, Thai history in the raw, it may upset you.

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"?

Oberkommando, do you enjoy rewritting Thai history

The option was to vote for the 2007 constitution or have the returning of the mandate to The People indefinitely postponed. I, personally, know several people who are still angry about this, but voted for the 2007 constitution just in the hope of getting the mandate back.

-snip-

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"?

Oberkommando, do you enjoy rewritting Thai history

The option was to vote for the 2007 constitution or have the returning of the mandate to The People indefinitely postponed. I, personally, know several people who are still angry about this, but voted for the 2007 constitution just in the hope of getting the mandate back.

That was perhaps the most insidious part of the coercion...

The option was to vote for the 2007 constitution or have the returning of the mandate to The People indefinitely postponed. I, personally, know several people who are still angry about this, but voted for the 2007 constitution just in the hope of getting the mandate back.

A more likely and believable reaction from angry people would have been to vote no, and some people, let's not forget, did vote no, quite a lot of them in fact - why weren't they scared?

Had the vote gone the way of the no's, as Thaksin was urging for, the generals would been publicly snubbed and Thaksin, i think, would have been emboldened enough to take the fight to them, so to speak - much as he later did in 2009 and 2010.

If people feared anything from voting no, which i don't really think - not sufficiently to sway them anyway - it was a fear of what anarchy might result from Thaksin's reaction.

When they have finished this rally I wonder if it would be possible to nip round to the British Embassy and have a go about our frozen annual incease pensions, the new ambassador would love to meet you. PS no more than 10 loudspeaker vans and no karoake until after 9pm. thank you.