Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[Mosha]

Only in Thailand would we have Westerners condoning coups and military dictatorships.

Only in Thailand would those same Westerners be appreciative of a man who's record on human rights is truly appalling, has taken Thailand into a new, dark era of media censorship and who has failed, at every gifted opportunity, to win a general election even when the odds were so stacked in his favour it seemed impossible to lose.

The remarkable aspect about the bloodless 2006 coup was the public reaction to it. 'Mai pen rai' would just about sum it up.

No police check points for months, it was great.

[OzMick]

Only in Thailand would we have Westerners condoning coups and military dictatorships.

Only in Thailand would those same Westerners be appreciative of a man who's record on human rights is truly appalling, has taken Thailand into a new, dark era of media censorship and who has failed, at every gifted opportunity, to win a general election even when the odds were so stacked in his favour it seemed impossible to lose.

The remarkable aspect about the bloodless 2006 coup was the public reaction to it. 'Mai pen rai' would just about sum it up.

Initially, yes. But after 3 years, 4 governments, hundreds of "democracy" schools, and a dedicated if mercenary pack of propagandists, a small percentage of the population became quite concerned. My g/f's family in the far NE were coerced into making a donation to the cause with the promise of a B20,000 payoff when the Democrat govt was replaced. It appears elections don't count as they are still waiting.

[whybother]

The repeated attempts at toppling him, were perfectly understandable.

Acquiring one's Prime Ministership via Parliamentary manueverings which in turn were an extension of a coup, creates such a situation.

The electoral majority knew they were the electoral majority. For them to be governed by an electoral minority had predictive results.

I have said before, the Australian Prime Minister did it correctly.

When she was elected PM via Parliamentary manueverings, she decreed immediately that the Prime Ministership was a nationally elected office, and scheduled a national election to validate herself.

Oppositional types will spin this as her simply following timelines to a previously scheduled election, but that wasn't her take.

But I can fully understand Abhi's reluctance to follow suit. As it was, the Australian Prime Minister barely squeeked through....Abhi knew that would not be the case for him, and so did the R' song protesters.

The violence referenced needs to be corrected as coup-ist violence on anti-coup people, with predictable reactions. To suggest the attackers were benevolent and the attackees were anarchic and anti-social, doesn't fly. Especially when perpetrated by pro-coup elements which was the entire focus of the protests to begin with.

So, what you're saying is that Somchai should have called elections when he came to power?

[newsweird]

Yes, but some rats are preferable to other rats

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you`re still a rat.

Agreed

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

[blows]

Yes, but some rats are preferable to other rats

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you`re still a rat.

Agreed

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

To many, democracy means the majority can do what ever they want to the minority, zero minority rights.

[whybother]

To many, democracy means the majority can do what ever they want to the minority, zero minority rights.

To the red shirts, democracy means the minority (them) can do what ever they want. Zero rights for anyone else.

[connda]

Well, I guess she doesn't have plausible deniable now -- well, unless Ms. Yingluck doesn't read. You never know.

[rixalex]

The repeated attempts at toppling him, were perfectly understandable.

The means attempted at toppling him, were no more legal or democratic than the coup.

[blackthorn2005]

If Thaksin wants a war, he should head to Argentina, where another crackpot, or crack head government is planning to attack the Falkland Islands again. The Argentinians will need all the help they can get!

[rixalex]

I have said before, the Australian Prime Minister did it correctly.

When she was elected PM via Parliamentary manueverings, she decreed immediately that the Prime Ministership was a nationally elected office, and scheduled a national election to validate herself.

Oppositional types will spin this as her simply following timelines to a previously scheduled election, but that wasn't her take.

But I can fully understand Abhi's reluctance to follow suit. As it was, the Australian Prime Minister barely squeeked through....Abhi knew that would not be the case for him, and so did the R' song protesters.

At the time he rose to power, i favoured, and am on record here as saying such, Abhisit calling elections promptly so in which to give himself a decent mandate with which to work - or if not him, someone else. He chose however not to - and i think he paid ultimately for that decision - but that was his choice to make, and nobody had any right to try and force him otherwise - least of all by violence and intimidation. Once the violence and intimidation began, which didn't take long, i became opposed to him calling elections as to do so would have been to perpetuate and encourage the cycle of mob rule.

[newsweird]

Yes, but some rats are preferable to other rats

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you`re still a rat.

Agreed

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

To many, democracy means the majority can do what ever they want to the minority, zero minority rights.

Politics is the second oldest profession on earth and it has a striking resemblance to the first.

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant

[viathais]

I have no idea where the writers of this article got their intel from, but I sure hope it is all BS. Our business does not need another disruption like the red shirt protesets or new floods. We are in the entertainment business, we don't need more trouble dammit.

You own a bar?

No. Event management.

aha coyote troupe.

[Oberkommando]

You are right, Thaksin's media censorship and human rights record was quite appalling.

It certainly was, remarkable then that is was so easily eclipsed by the Abhisit tenure.

[Oberkommando]

The repeated attempts at toppling him, were perfectly understandable.

The means attempted at toppling him, were no more legal or democratic than the coup.

I would argue that a civilian protest movement even with a militant element is more democratic than a military coup and junta.

But you reap what you sow, and the whole matter should have been solved without military intervention in politics at the behest of others which continually holds Thailand back.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[Oberkommando]

At the time he rose to power, i favoured, and am on record here as saying such, Abhisit calling elections promptly so in which to give himself a decent mandate with which to work - or if not him, someone else. He chose however not to - and i think he paid ultimately for that decision - but that was his choice to make, and nobody had any right to try and force him otherwise - least of all by violence and intimidation. Once the violence and intimidation began, which didn't take long, i became opposed to him calling elections as to do so would have been to perpetuate and encourage the cycle of mob rule.

The Democrats have been unelectable since the Chuan administration of the late 90's thanks to harsh fiscal policies against the nation's poor and corruption which eventually brought down that government.

Abhisit would have known this only too well and would have simply been handing power back to the elected majority.

That is of course assuming he was allowed to make that decision which he clearly would not have been by those behind and complicit in the machinations behind the 2006 coup.

[rixalex]

You are right, Thaksin's media censorship and human rights record was quite appalling.

It certainly was, remarkable then that is was so easily eclipsed by the Abhisit tenure.

In terms of media censorship, i think there is evidence that the internet was subjected to more control under Abhisit, but of course that has to be viewed with consideration given to the massive increase in net usage over the years since Thaksin was at the helm. In terms of other media outlets, i think the evidence would be to the contrary. Thaksin was slapping out so many million baht law-suits that the media became thoroughly self censoring. I guess that was the idea.

As for human rights record, i don't think anyone seriously thinks that Abhisit's abuses came anywhere close to Thaksin's.

Edited February 19, 2012 by rixalex

[tlansford]

- sniper -

No sale yet again.

Back the the Perception Management drawing board.

"no sale" ... of course neither are you in the market to buy....

[phupaman]

Hi Colin Yai.

The answer to your question. Why havent the media picked up on it .Just one 4 letter word,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,FEAR.

phupaman

[whybother]

The bloodless coup of 2006 was not bloodless.

Just ask family and friends of those who died at R'song.

Over 90 deaths resulted from this coup, with Political upheaval of extreme proportions, before the election of last year corrected the 'ship of state.

For some reason they put things on hold for 3 1/2 years, and THEN came out straight after Thaksin lost a lot of money.

Edited February 19, 2012 by whybother

[metisdead]

Thread was drifting off topic, off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[rixalex]

Answer to was his Government legitimate.......No.

Wrong answer.

[blows]

You are right, Thaksin's media censorship and human rights record was quite appalling.

It certainly was, remarkable then that is was so easily eclipsed by the Abhisit tenure.

Did Abhisit summarily execute over 2,500 people in 3 months and call it a drug war?

[CalgaryII]

Answer to was his Government legitimate.......No.

Wrong answer.

Elections legitimize a Government.

Parliamentary manueverings resulting in a clear anti-majority result is illegitimate.

Any semblance of legitimacy of such parliamentary manueverings were thoroughly discounted, given its coup underpinnings.

One can understand very quickly why those concerned, are very vigilant with respect to coups, as the headline of this thread suggests.

This is all very easy for me.

I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of defending a coup and all its' political and constitutional aftermath.

You guys are really struggling with that.

Edited February 19, 2012 by CalgaryII

[OzMick]

Now that the red shirts have re-elected Mrs Weng (though the legitimacy of that democratic process is dubious) surely they will be able to make a clear statement of what they expect to achieve by their planned rallies.

Constitution change seems to be a major aim. Which sections and the benefits for their followers would be of interest.

[rixalex]

Answer to was his Government legitimate.......No.

Wrong answer.

Elections legitimize a Government.

Parliamentary manueverings resulting in a clear anti-majority result is illegitimate.

Any semblance of legitimacy of such parliamentary manueverings were thoroughly discounted, given its coup underpinnings.

This is all very easy for me.

I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of defending a coup and all its' political and constitutional aftermath.

You guys are really struggling with that.

Abhisit's government was legitimate. To argue otherwise is to argue against basic parliamentary processes that exist as a matter of fact. By all means argue that you feel Abhisit's route to power was dubious. I'm sure you could make that case, just as i'm sure you could make the case that Somchai's route to power was also dubious.... were you not so tied up by agenda.

[Moruya]

Answer to was his Government legitimate.......No.

Wrong answer.

Elections legitimize a Government.

Parliamentary manueverings resulting in a clear anti-majority result is illegitimate.

Any semblance of legitimacy of such parliamentary manueverings were thoroughly discounted, given its coup underpinnings.

One can understand very quickly why those concerned, are very vigilant with respect to coups, as the headline of this thread suggests.

This is all very easy for me.

I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of defending a coup and all its' political and constitutional aftermath.

You guys are really struggling with that.

So the British Government is illegitimate?

[CalgaryII]

Now that the red shirts have re-elected Mrs Weng (though the legitimacy of that democratic process is dubious) surely they will be able to make a clear statement of what they expect to achieve by their planned rallies.

Constitution change seems to be a major aim. Which sections and the benefits for their followers would be of interest.

As I read the situation with respect to rallies, they have several primary purposes:

• Keep the membership vital, involved, informed and cohesive
  
• Send a message to all the various elements of the opposition that the UDD/Red Shirts are a force to be reckoned with. A message pointedly aimed at coup-ists. This is in support of the subject-matter of this thread.
  
• Send a message to the PTP and Ms. Y, that their political base is alive and well, and to discount them in the face of Oppositional intimidation will be a mistake.
  
• To focus on electoral promises and to project expectations, especially as it regards constitutional reform. This is the biggie of course considering the existential threat the coup constitution represents.
  
• With respect to the 'clear statement" you suggest, let me assure you the UDD/RS membership is very clear on all these matters.
  

[Moruya]

Now that the red shirts have re-elected Mrs Weng (though the legitimacy of that democratic process is dubious) surely they will be able to make a clear statement of what they expect to achieve by their planned rallies.

Constitution change seems to be a major aim. Which sections and the benefits for their followers would be of interest.

As I read the situation with respect to rallies, they have several primary purposes:

• Keep the membership vital, involved, informed and cohesive
  
• Send a message to all the various elements of the opposition that the UDD/Red Shirts are a force to be reckoned with. A message pointedly aimed at coup-ists. This is in support of the subject-matter of this thread.
  
• Send a message to the PTP and Ms. Y, that their political base is alive and well, and to discount them in the face of Oppositional intimidation will be a mistake.
  
• To focus on electoral promises and to project expectations, especially as it regards constitutional reform. This is the biggie of course considering the existential threat the coup constitution represents.
  
• With respect to the 'clear statement" you suggest, let me assure you the UDD/RS membership is very clear on all these matters.
  

You seem to be foreever in cloud cuckoo land.

Do you really believe that there is such a thing as "membership"? That would imply that there is a list. It would also imply that there is an associated body to be a member of.

Send a message to the opposition - be nice to the PTP or we will throw bags of shit in your gardens, throw AIDS infested blood over your house, bring a million litres of petrol to your city and burn it down

Send a message to Yingluck and the PTP? They can do that at cabinet meetings

Focus on election promises. What ones have been met so far by the PTP/UDD government?

[473geo]

Sensationalist attention seeking headline........given the information provided this is no more than a 'control centre' for pro government rallies......what war is the article speaking of.....an imaginary coup?.