Appointment Of Red-Shirt Natthawut Not Good For Unity: Thai Opinion

[Buchholz]

Kasit was not a PAD leader

Additional clarity to the point of contention.

.

[whybother]

Kasit was not a PAD leader but he could be described as a cheerleader.He visited the international airport when it was seized by the yellow mob, and made some encouraging words of support to that mob.He praised the seizure of the airport and observed this was "a new innovation in public protest."

Notwithstanding his support for terrorism he was appointed Foreign Minister by Abhisit.The memory of his appalling behaviour at the airport in some ways has receded in memory given his more striking record of incompetence and buffoonery as Foreign Minister.To be fair to Abhisit one of the reasons Kasit was appointed was that he had a perfectly satisfactory record as an Ambassador and his poor and often laughable performance was something of a surprise.

As to his terrorist sympathies, many good people were caught up in the enthusiasm of the early PAD days (including Korn for example).But Kasit has never distanced himself or even apologised for his errors.It's not his biggest failure however.That was his record as Foreign Minister.

On a personal note please don't try to obfuscate.There are plenty of matters on which reasonable people may disagree but I don't think the record of this disgraceful incompetent is really one of them.

I still don't get it. How is blockading an airport "terrorism"?

[waza]

So restate again, who is Kasit and who was he for PAD?

I am giving you a chance for a blank slate. You can take it or go the route of some of your brothers in arms, restate the untruths and then proclaim it is all semantics.

Kasit was not a PAD leader but he could be described as a cheerleader.He visited the international airport when it was seized by the yellow mob, and made some encouraging words of support to that mob.He praised the seizure of the airport and observed this was "a new innovation in public protest."

Notwithstanding his support for terrorism he was appointed Foreign Minister by Abhisit.The memory of his appalling behaviour at the airport in some ways has receded in memory given his more striking record of incompetence and buffoonery as Foreign Minister.To be fair to Abhisit one of the reasons Kasit was appointed was that he had a perfectly satisfactory record as an Ambassador and his poor and often laughable performance was something of a surprise.

As to his terrorist sympathies, many good people were caught up in the enthusiasm of the early PAD days (including Korn for example).But Kasit has never distanced himself or even apologised for his errors.It's not his biggest failure however.That was his record as Foreign Minister.

On a personal note please don't try to obfuscate.There are plenty of matters on which reasonable people may disagree but I don't think the record of this disgraceful incompetent is really one of them.

Lets get this right, the yellow shirts didnt go to sieze the airport, they went to protest Thaskins return from USA and maybe to block it, the airport continued to operate. The airport authorities then decided to close the airport because some yellow shirt idiots were running around the tarmac and entering the control tower to get Thaskins flight details. The protest lasted 2 weeks and when it finished the yellow shirts cleaned the airport and departed. Kasit is a professional politician and diplomat under both AV and Thaskin,s governments, he isnt a Yellow shirt leader but is a yellow sympasizer, he later stated, "I apologise to all Thai people if what I said has resulted in misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It was impossible for me to have any intention of harming the country,". In addition he said that what he said or did was for democracy, for the good of Thai society, and for the enhancement of Thai politics.

Compare that to Natthawut,s speeches of hate and destruction, he was a redshirt leader who encouraged the redshirts to leave Bangkok a smoking ruin.

Lets get back to the topic.........

Edited January 27, 2012 by waza

[jayboy]

So restate again, who is Kasit and who was he for PAD?

I am giving you a chance for a blank slate. You can take it or go the route of some of your brothers in arms, restate the untruths and then proclaim it is all semantics.

Kasit was not a PAD leader but he could be described as a cheerleader.He visited the international airport when it was seized by the yellow mob, and made some encouraging words of support to that mob.He praised the seizure of the airport and observed this was "a new innovation in public protest."

Notwithstanding his support for terrorism he was appointed Foreign Minister by Abhisit.The memory of his appalling behaviour at the airport in some ways has receded in memory given his more striking record of incompetence and buffoonery as Foreign Minister.To be fair to Abhisit one of the reasons Kasit was appointed was that he had a perfectly satisfactory record as an Ambassador and his poor and often laughable performance was something of a surprise.

As to his terrorist sympathies, many good people were caught up in the enthusiasm of the early PAD days (including Korn for example).But Kasit has never distanced himself or even apologised for his errors.It's not his biggest failure however.That was his record as Foreign Minister.

On a personal note please don't try to obfuscate.There are plenty of matters on which reasonable people may disagree but I don't think the record of this disgraceful incompetent is really one of them.

Lets get this right, the yellow shirts didnt go to sieze the airport, they went to protest Thaskins return from USA and maybe to block it, the airport continued to operate. The airport authorities then decided to close the airport because some yellow shirt idiots were running around the tarmac and entering the control tower to get Thaskins flight details. The protest lasted 2 weeks and when it finished the yellow shirts cleaned the airport and departed. Kasit is a professional politician and diplomat under both AV and Thaskin,s governments, he isnt a Yellow shirt leader but is a yellow sympasizer, he later stated, "I apologise to all Thai people if what I said has resulted in misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It was impossible for me to have any intention of harming the country,". In addition he said that what he said or did was for democracy, for the good of Thai society, and for the enhancement of Thai politics.

Compare that to Natthawut,s speeches of hate and destruction, he was a redshirt leader who encouraged the redshirts to leave Bangkok a smoking ruin.

Lets get back to the topic.........

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.Kasit's weasle like "apology" which you quote simply beggars belief - as though the problem is the Thai people which has misunderstood his stupidity and foolishness, not his own puerile actions.To suggest his actions were in the best interests of Thai society and democracy simply underlines his lack of self awareness.

[Ricardo]

Lets get this right, the yellow shirts didnt go to sieze the airport, they went to protest Thaskins return from USA and maybe to block it,

Wasn't it former-PM Somchai, who was away abroad, and expected back ? This was when he was hanging-on by his fingernails, waiting for the PPP to be declared illegal, in the autumn of 2008 ?

Thaksin had already left the building, by then.

[rixalex]

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.

Surprised to hear you say that because i remember having this discussion with you, admittedly some time ago, and recall you agreeing that certain actions of the PAD, including the airport nonsense, could be described in many unfavourable ways, but not as that of terrorism. Perhaps i'm confusing you with someone else.

Either way, my feeling is the term gets used rather too liberally and easily these days. Cue red shirt brigade stage left nodding their agreements at how rock launcher wielding fellows were so unfairly labelled this way too.

[TAWP]

I am not sure why you think I should need a blank slate, nor come to that who are my brothers in arms? You may see yourself as one of a group but I do not, I comment as I see fit.

You seem to be applying a strange logic, a one off appearance in support of the PAD does not count, it has to be multiple appearances that count. Rather like saying it is ok to commit a robbery if you only do it once. You see it is nothing to do with semantics, just simple logic.

You have chosen to argue with me because you think I am a red supporter, a big mistake! I used to be a PAD supporter until they occupied the airport, that was the point of no return for me. Yet this does not make me a red shirt supporter, even though I am sympathetic to some of their objectives. Equally I find the blinkered defense that some like you write in support of the Dems or PAD and the equally vitriolic attacks on the PT and red shirts shows a complete lack of critical thinking. In real life there are rarely situations that are black or white, most are shades of grey.

Robbing a bank, once or many times, makes one a bank-robber. Not a bank manager.

You saying that this in any way compares to making a speech on a stage is almost being a leader of an organization, well...wow.

If that is your statement then you are wrong. if you state that he was in effect, close to, almost or could be seen as a leader, then you are stating a lie.

No way around it.

[rixalex]

You have chosen to argue with me because you think I am a red supporter, a big mistake! I used to be a PAD supporter until they occupied the airport, that was the point of no return for me. Yet this does not make me a red shirt supporter, even though I am sympathetic to some of their objectives.

Seems you not only abandoned the movement, but everything the PAD stands and fights for. Can't quite understand why the airport occupation would have caused that quantum leap in thinking, to where you are today in the views you express here.

[whybother]

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.Kasit's weasle like "apology" which you quote simply beggars belief - as though the problem is the Thai people which has misunderstood his stupidity and foolishness, not his own puerile actions.To suggest his actions were in the best interests of Thai society and democracy simply underlines his lack of self awareness.

So the next time a group of taxi drivers blockade an airport in protest about something, we'll call them terrorists too.

We can also call baggage handlers and pilots terrorists too, because when they go on strike, they cause passengers untold stress and inconvenience.

[Siam Simon]

Kasit was ca key speaker one day at an unofficial occupation of the airport. He didn't ask the protestors to disperse, as any responsible politician would have done. He encouraged and incited the demonstrators (even dragging Cambodia into things, with his inflammatory nonsense about washing his feet in Hun Sen's blood). By definition, he led the protests that day. Like I already stated: Not a core day-to-day leader, but a leader on the day he spoke.

By this definition, and given that he made regular speeches by video-link to the 'peaceful protest', wouldn't this make former-PM Thaksin a Red-Shirt leader ? I don't recall his asking them to disperse, or condemning the threats to burn Bangkok, either ?

Ricardo, you're behaving in a slightly paranoid manner. I agree with you about Thaksin's relationship to the core Red Shirt leadership at the time that he was phoning in to them. I thought I'd made that clear. Wrt your remarks about Kasit, you are just plain wrong: A mainstream politician just cannot be associated with an illegal protest, not even for one day. This isn't a party political view, it's just ethics: Once a politician has been directly associated with illegality, whether it's Thaksin with his miryad of offences, a stupid little patronage network idiot Kasit with his day out leading the airport protest, or any of the core leaders during the red shirt protests that went out of control. Responsible mainstream politicians just don't associate with illegality.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Siam Simon

[Siam Simon]

So restate again, who is Kasit and who was he for PAD?

I am giving you a chance for a blank slate. You can take it or go the route of some of your brothers in arms, restate the untruths and then proclaim it is all semantics.

Kasit was not a PAD leader but he could be described as a cheerleader.He visited the international airport when it was seized by the yellow mob, and made some encouraging words of support to that mob.He praised the seizure of the airport and observed this was "a new innovation in public protest."

Notwithstanding his support for terrorism he was appointed Foreign Minister by Abhisit.The memory of his appalling behaviour at the airport in some ways has receded in memory given his more striking record of incompetence and buffoonery as Foreign Minister.To be fair to Abhisit one of the reasons Kasit was appointed was that he had a perfectly satisfactory record as an Ambassador and his poor and often laughable performance was something of a surprise.

As to his terrorist sympathies, many good people were caught up in the enthusiasm of the early PAD days (including Korn for example).But Kasit has never distanced himself or even apologised for his errors.It's not his biggest failure however.That was his record as Foreign Minister.

On a personal note please don't try to obfuscate.There are plenty of matters on which reasonable people may disagree but I don't think the record of this disgraceful incompetent is really one of them.

Lets get this right, the yellow shirts didnt go to sieze the airport, they went to protest Thaskins return from USA and maybe to block it, the airport continued to operate. The airport authorities then decided to close the airport because some yellow shirt idiots were running around the tarmac and entering the control tower to get Thaskins flight details. The protest lasted 2 weeks and when it finished the yellow shirts cleaned the airport and departed. Kasit is a professional politician and diplomat under both AV and Thaskin,s governments, he isnt a Yellow shirt leader but is a yellow sympasizer, he later stated, "I apologise to all Thai people if what I said has resulted in misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It was impossible for me to have any intention of harming the country,". In addition he said that what he said or did was for democracy, for the good of Thai society, and for the enhancement of Thai politics.

Compare that to Natthawut,s speeches of hate and destruction, he was a redshirt leader who encouraged the redshirts to leave Bangkok a smoking ruin.

Lets get back to the topic.........

This is just a dreamy massage of the facts. Yellow shirt "guards" blockaded all the access roads to the airport, wielding baseball bats at the blockades. The airport was closed because " some yellow shirt idiots were running around the tarmac and entering the control tower to get Thaskins flight details" Does the word 'euphemism' need re-defining? ' UYnarmed people were shot dead in central Bangkok because a few red shirt idiots were running around the sois with guns.' 'Every yellow shirt protestor is guilty by association.' 'Every red shirt protestor is guilty by association.'

[anterian]

I am not sure why you think I should need a blank slate, nor come to that who are my brothers in arms? You may see yourself as one of a group but I do not, I comment as I see fit.

You seem to be applying a strange logic, a one off appearance in support of the PAD does not count, it has to be multiple appearances that count. Rather like saying it is ok to commit a robbery if you only do it once. You see it is nothing to do with semantics, just simple logic.

You have chosen to argue with me because you think I am a red supporter, a big mistake! I used to be a PAD supporter until they occupied the airport, that was the point of no return for me. Yet this does not make me a red shirt supporter, even though I am sympathetic to some of their objectives. Equally I find the blinkered defense that some like you write in support of the Dems or PAD and the equally vitriolic attacks on the PT and red shirts shows a complete lack of critical thinking. In real life there are rarely situations that are black or white, most are shades of grey.

Robbing a bank, once or many times, makes one a bank-robber. Not a bank manager.

You saying that this in any way compares to making a speech on a stage is almost being a leader of an organization, well...wow.

If that is your statement then you are wrong. if you state that he was in effect, close to, almost or could be seen as a leader, then you are stating a lie.

No way around it.

You are very free with your accusations of lying, perhaps it is a reflection of the company you keep. With such an attitude there is clearly little point in further discussions with you. As far as I am concerned, when an important public personage arrives at a mob situation and supports and endorses the actions of that mob, then he aligns himself with the leaders of that mob. Exactly as a guest speaker at a conference is part of that conference.

[anterian]

You have chosen to argue with me because you think I am a red supporter, a big mistake! I used to be a PAD supporter until they occupied the airport, that was the point of no return for me. Yet this does not make me a red shirt supporter, even though I am sympathetic to some of their objectives.

Seems you not only abandoned the movement, but everything the PAD stands and fights for. Can't quite understand why the airport occupation would have caused that quantum leap in thinking, to where you are today in the views you express here.

Not a quantum leap, but the culmination of a steady drift. A drift which started when some PAD leaders said the country folk were ignorant, uneducated fools who should not be given the vote. I was also becoming more aware of the reality of life in Thailand, the enormous divide between the elite who supported the PAD and ordinary poor Thai. The PAD were no longer simply attacking the Thaksin clan, they were seeking to maintain a status quo which kept the underclass forever an underclass.

I am aware that many country folk are ignorant, uneducated fools, but I now know why. They are intentionally kept in this condition by the elite, the amart, successive governments and royalist cliques. Thaksin did very little for them, he could have done much more, but the little he did was more than any other government has done. I support the red ideals, I do not support Thaksin or the red shirts.

[whybother]

You are very free with your accusations of lying, perhaps it is a reflection of the company you keep. With such an attitude there is clearly little point in further discussions with you. As far as I am concerned, when an important public personage arrives at a mob situation and supports and endorses the actions of that mob, then he aligns himself with the leaders of that mob. Exactly as a guest speaker at a conference is part of that conference.

I am sure many political and business leaders have made speeches in front of groups. That doesn't mean that they endorse anything or everything that that group does, it doesn't mean that they align themselves with the leaders of those groups, and it certainly doesn't make them leaders of those groups.

Clearly, Kasit supported the yellow shirts, but making a speech in front of them does not make him one of their leaders.

[whybother]

Not a quantum leap, but the culmination of a steady drift. A drift which started when some PAD leaders said the country folk were ignorant, uneducated fools who should not be given the vote. I was also becoming more aware of the reality of life in Thailand, the enormous divide between the elite who supported the PAD and ordinary poor Thai. The PAD were no longer simply attacking the Thaksin clan, they were seeking to maintain a status quo which kept the underclass forever an underclass.

I am aware that many country folk are ignorant, uneducated fools, but I now know why. They are intentionally kept in this condition by the elite, the amart, successive governments and royalist cliques. Thaksin did very little for them, he could have done much more, but the little he did was more than any other government has done. I support the red ideals, I do not support Thaksin or the red shirts.

"They are intentionally kept in this condition by the elite, the amart, successive governments and royalist cliques."

... and successive Thaksin (and proxy) governments. Thaksin didn't do anything to educate these people. He needs them the way that they are.

[anterian]

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.Kasit's weasle like "apology" which you quote simply beggars belief - as though the problem is the Thai people which has misunderstood his stupidity and foolishness, not his own puerile actions.To suggest his actions were in the best interests of Thai society and democracy simply underlines his lack of self awareness.

So the next time a group of taxi drivers blockade an airport in protest about something, we'll call them terrorists too.

We can also call baggage handlers and pilots terrorists too, because when they go on strike, they cause passengers untold stress and inconvenience.

In any normal country such a blockade would never be allowed to be total, at most it would be an inconvenience to the public. It would never be allowed to reach the stage of creating a total closure and shut down of the airport. The same goes for your other examples, yes it may create stress and inconvenience, but it does not cause closure.

I feel you are scraping the barrel in your attempts to defend the PAD actions.

[whybother]

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.Kasit's weasle like "apology" which you quote simply beggars belief - as though the problem is the Thai people which has misunderstood his stupidity and foolishness, not his own puerile actions.To suggest his actions were in the best interests of Thai society and democracy simply underlines his lack of self awareness.

So the next time a group of taxi drivers blockade an airport in protest about something, we'll call them terrorists too.

We can also call baggage handlers and pilots terrorists too, because when they go on strike, they cause passengers untold stress and inconvenience.

In any normal country such a blockade would never be allowed to be total, at most it would be an inconvenience to the public. It would never be allowed to reach the stage of creating a total closure and shut down of the airport. The same goes for your other examples, yes it may create stress and inconvenience, but it does not cause closure.

I feel you are scraping the barrel in your attempts to defend the PAD actions.

I'm not defending their actions. Just because in other places "it wouldn't be allowed to happen" that doesn't make it terrorism.

[anterian]

You are very free with your accusations of lying, perhaps it is a reflection of the company you keep. With such an attitude there is clearly little point in further discussions with you. As far as I am concerned, when an important public personage arrives at a mob situation and supports and endorses the actions of that mob, then he aligns himself with the leaders of that mob. Exactly as a guest speaker at a conference is part of that conference.

I am sure many political and business leaders have made speeches in front of groups. That doesn't mean that they endorse anything or everything that that group does, it doesn't mean that they align themselves with the leaders of those groups, and it certainly doesn't make them leaders of those groups.

Clearly, Kasit supported the yellow shirts, but making a speech in front of them does not make him one of their leaders.

"That doesn't mean that they endorse anything or everything that that group does," agreed. But as you yourself accept, he clearly did endorse and support their actions, he aligned himself with their leaders. It is really irrelevant whether he was a leader (in the sense of organiser), he was a public figure who publicly (internationally) endorsed the actions of the PAD. Yet later he was an apologist for them, calling it a friendly "tea party".

[whybother]

"That doesn't mean that they endorse anything or everything that that group does," agreed. But as you yourself accept, he clearly did endorse and support their actions, he aligned himself with their leaders. It is really irrelevant whether he was a leader (in the sense of organiser), he was a public figure who publicly (internationally) endorsed the actions of the PAD. Yet later he was an apologist for them, calling it a friendly "tea party".

There were plenty of people that supported the yellow shirts and red shirts, and spoke on their stages. That doesn't mean that these people were leaders of those groups.

Kasit aligned himself with the mob. He supported them. That still doesn't make him a yellow shirt leader.

[anterian]

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.Kasit's weasle like "apology" which you quote simply beggars belief - as though the problem is the Thai people which has misunderstood his stupidity and foolishness, not his own puerile actions.To suggest his actions were in the best interests of Thai society and democracy simply underlines his lack of self awareness.

So the next time a group of taxi drivers blockade an airport in protest about something, we'll call them terrorists too.

We can also call baggage handlers and pilots terrorists too, because when they go on strike, they cause passengers untold stress and inconvenience.

In any normal country such a blockade would never be allowed to be total, at most it would be an inconvenience to the public. It would never be allowed to reach the stage of creating a total closure and shut down of the airport. The same goes for your other examples, yes it may create stress and inconvenience, but it does not cause closure.

I feel you are scraping the barrel in your attempts to defend the PAD actions.

I'm not defending their actions. Just because in other places "it wouldn't be allowed to happen" that doesn't make it terrorism.

You are now trying to confuse the issue, we are not discussing the merits of a baggage handler's strike, nor a partial blockade by taxi drivers. We are talking about the total shut down and take over of an international airport. Such action is clearly defined by international convention as terrorism.

Such actions would not happen in other places because in other places the military would not refuse to intercede.

[anterian]

"That doesn't mean that they endorse anything or everything that that group does," agreed. But as you yourself accept, he clearly did endorse and support their actions, he aligned himself with their leaders. It is really irrelevant whether he was a leader (in the sense of organiser), he was a public figure who publicly (internationally) endorsed the actions of the PAD. Yet later he was an apologist for them, calling it a friendly "tea party".

There were plenty of people that supported the yellow shirts and red shirts, and spoke on their stages. That doesn't mean that these people were leaders of those groups.

Kasit aligned himself with the mob. He supported them. That still doesn't make him a yellow shirt leader.

Why do you keep flogging this dead horse? I quote you, "Kasit aligned himself with the mob. He supported them. ".and this before an international audience. Enough said!

[Buchholz]

We are talking about the total shut down and take over of an international airport

There are other threads for that.

This thread is talking about:

Appointment Of Red-Shirt Natthawut Not Good For Unity

[anterian]

We are talking about the total shut down and take over of an international airport

There are other threads for that.

This thread is talking about:

Appointment Of Red-Shirt Natthawut Not Good For Unity

Exactly, when you can't win an argument put it on one side. In this thread one aspect of the discussion is the comparison of the suitability of appointing Natthawut in comparison to the suitability of appointing Kasit to the democrat cabinet. To me this is relevant to this thread, if you feel otherwise then let the moderators decide.

[whybother]

You are now trying to confuse the issue, we are not discussing the merits of a baggage handler's strike, nor a partial blockade by taxi drivers. We are talking about the total shut down and take over of an international airport. Such action is clearly defined by international convention as terrorism.

Such actions would not happen in other places because in other places the military would not refuse to intercede.

If it's clearly defined, can you please find me that definition.

There are plenty of cases of taxi drivers blockading airports, with no mention of terrorism.

The fact that it was allowed to happen here doesn't make it terrorism. It just means that the police are useless. The police and the army not doing their job doesn't make other peoples actions terrorism.

If an armed group take over an airport threatening passengers, putting passengers in danger, taking hostages, then that would be classed as terrorism. The yellow shirts didn't attack or threaten any passengers.

I am not saying what the yellow shirts did was right. But it wasn't terrorism.

[jayboy]

There are other threads for that.

This thread is talking about:

Appointment Of Red-Shirt Natthawut Not Good For Unity

True that it's the thread subject (and that's why I made a point about Kasit's appalling behaviour and didn't respond to some follow up comments).

However it's perfectly legitimate - as long as it doesn't swamp the thread - to make compare and contrast points.It's obviously relevant that some of the outrage -which I don't share - applied to Natthawut's apointment would be equally applicable to the appointment of Kasit, arguably the greater offender not least because he had the benefit of position, education and broad international experience.It's also worth pointing out that Natthawut has an electotral mandate.Kasit had none:indeed he and his type were keen to restrict the franchise to the right thinking.

Anyway be that as it may.My point is making this post is to treat with a pinch of salt those who become faux moderators issuing instructions as to what's relevant and what's not.Best leave that to the mods.In most cases, as here, one suspects that some become agitated when the discussion runs counter to the narrative they wish to propagate.

[Buchholz]

We are talking about the total shut down and take over of an international airport

There are other threads for that.

This thread is talking about:

Appointment Of Red-Shirt Natthawut Not Good For Unity

Exactly, when you can't win an argument put it on one side. In this thread one aspect of the discussion is the comparison of the suitability of appointing Natthawut in comparison to the suitability of appointing Kasit to the democrat cabinet.

Nonsense. It's just diversion of the topic away from the OP.

Show me any mention of Kasit in the OP.

[Buchholz]

There are other threads for that.

This thread is talking about:

Appointment Of Red-Shirt Natthawut Not Good For Unity

True that it's the thread subject (and that's why I made a point about Kasit's appalling behaviour and didn't respond to some follow up comments).

However it's perfectly legitimate - as long as it doesn't swamp the thread -

Too late, it's already been swamped.

[anterian]

Whybother. Go to the UN webpage, search for the Hague and Montreal conventions on terrorism with reference to aircraft and airports.

I believe Thailand is a signatory to the Montreal one, not sure about the Hague one.

[Siam Simon]

You are very free with your accusations of lying, perhaps it is a reflection of the company you keep. With such an attitude there is clearly little point in further discussions with you. As far as I am concerned, when an important public personage arrives at a mob situation and supports and endorses the actions of that mob, then he aligns himself with the leaders of that mob. Exactly as a guest speaker at a conference is part of that conference.

I am sure many political and business leaders have made speeches in front of groups. That doesn't mean that they endorse anything or everything that that group does, it doesn't mean that they align themselves with the leaders of those groups, and it certainly doesn't make them leaders of those groups.

Clearly, Kasit supported the yellow shirts, but making a speech in front of them does not make him one of their leaders.

But when a public figure gives a keynote speech to an illegal protest (and a protest that has cost his country billions of baht in lost revenues) , endorsing that protest, I fail to understand how that person can take any future official part in public life. But Kasit was given the Foreign Office portfolio shortly afterward. It was like a bad joke. But it just doesn't seem to matter in Thailand, whichever political party, whatever public figure.

[Siam Simon]

Whatever the yellow mob wanted their actions were those of terrorists.Kasit's weasle like "apology" which you quote simply beggars belief - as though the problem is the Thai people which has misunderstood his stupidity and foolishness, not his own puerile actions.To suggest his actions were in the best interests of Thai society and democracy simply underlines his lack of self awareness.

So the next time a group of taxi drivers blockade an airport in protest about something, we'll call them terrorists too.

We can also call baggage handlers and pilots terrorists too, because when they go on strike, they cause passengers untold stress and inconvenience.

Yeah, and the baseball bat-wielding 'guards' manning the blockades on the roads to the airport were really there to play baseball, right? They certainly weren't holding those baseball bats to threaten violence (ie: terrorise people), were they?