Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[CalgaryII]

Tax payers lol, I bet 95% of the donkeys bussed into to Bangkok for the burn Bangkok fest never payed 1 baht in taxes.

This Post reeks of contemptuous disdain of a large swath of the Thai electorate.

It displays the political conceit and self-importance of one side of the political divide, while disparaging, vilifying and slandering their political opposites.

This attitude will keep them in the political wilderness forever, and is the reason why there is such anti-coup vigilance.

That type of attitude impugning a non-political context to their opposites, is what is so revolting to the majority of the Thai electorate.

But the fools persist in it, even though it results in one political defeat after the other.

Not sure how to change it.

I think a first step would be to select a strong populist, charismatic leader who strongly relates to non-elites, unlike Abhi. Perhaps such a person's demeanor would filter down. Is there anyone in the Democrat Party fitting that model?

The Red Shirt Movement has spawned several of those, and for the Democrat Party to have any chance in the future, they had better do so as well.

Another step, would be to somehow convince all political sectors that coups are a historical reality in Thailand, never to be repeated. It takes more than self-serving Generals to make this point.

Perhaps that would be a start to checkmating the phenomena posed by the headline of this thread.

Edited February 20, 2012 by CalgaryII

[rubl]

It is very interesting to read that the formation by the MoD of a Control Centre to direct red-shirt pro-government protests is defended by anti-coupists as needed to prevent another coup. Fightback to armed agression is pure political agenda some have it. Those killed by grenade attacks (like an Army colonel) might have a different opinion if only we could ask them. If the army fightback was a 'riot', what was initiating the armed agression? Oh, the confiscation of k. Thaksin's THB 70 billion? Pure coincidence of course.

Edited February 20, 2012 by rubl

[Reasonableman]

Characterizing the fightback to armed aggression as a 'riot', is pure political agenda, designed to denigrate those who opposed the coup-ist armed aggressors. Suggesting they were people devoid of a political context, bent on anti-social behavior, while casting the vengeful and vicious attack on them as justified.

If the fightback was a 'riot', what was the initiating armed aggression?

And then you wonder why there is anti-coup vigilance as thius thread discusses.

Cut and paste talking points and catch phrases. Do yourself a favour, think for yourself and wake up already. You are nothing else than a Useful Idiot to Thaksin's PR machine.

Spam, spam, spam.... wonderful spam!

[animatic]

Characterizing the fightback to armed aggression as a 'riot', is pure political agenda, designed to denigrate those who opposed the coup-ist armed aggressors. Suggesting they were people devoid of a political context, bent on anti-social behavior, while casting the vengeful and vicious attack on them as justified.

If the fightback was a 'riot', what was the initiating armed aggression?

And then you wonder why there is anti-coup vigilance as thius thread discusses.

Cut and paste talking points and catch phrases. Do yourself a favour, think for yourself and wake up already. You are nothing else than a Useful Idiot to Thaksin's PR machine.

It so resembles a 'professional attack on others points' and nothing else.

PM 101

Belittle those that disagree with you to attempt to diminish them

and their ideas in the minds of the less informed that might follow their points.

But it's still no sale.

Edited February 20, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

If you believe the propaganda of others,

just because they add partial truths to their screeds,

you will have only have yourself to blame when you

end up in a place you abhor.

Don't be manipulated, think for yourself.

[CalgaryII]

Ozmick, #320

BTW Thaksin tried a coup; it failed but gave him propaganda ammunition to couple with electoral bribes to swing an election.

Opposition induced indoctrination of Thaksin haters, including a helping of contemptuousness for their political opposites.

Also a dollop of removing a political context for the electoral majority who nevertheless engineered an electoral victory fully appraised of all peole concerned.

[Orac]

It is very interesting to read that the formation by the MoD of a Control Centre to direct red-shirt pro-government protests is defended by anti-coupists as needed to prevent another coup. Fightback to armed agression is pure political agenda some have it. Those killed by grenade attacks (like an Army colonel) might have a different opinion if only we could ask them. If the army fightback was a 'riot', what was initiating the armed agression? Oh, the confiscation of k. Thaksin's THB 70 billion? Pure coincidence of course.

I am not sure any anti-coupists have defended the MoD setting up a control centre though some of us have ridiculed the article itself which seems to be based on hearsay from some anonymous senior military officers and written by two US retirees.

Incidentally, since you have used the term, I would like to go on record as an anti-coupist as I see it as the biggest threat to democracy however imperfect it may be.

[CalgaryII]

Characterizing the fightback to armed aggression as a 'riot', is pure political agenda, designed to denigrate those who opposed the coup-ist armed aggressors. Suggesting they were people devoid of a political context, bent on anti-social behavior, while casting the vengeful and vicious attack on them as justified.

If the fightback was a 'riot', what was the initiating armed aggression?

And then you wonder why there is anti-coup vigilance as thius thread discusses.

Cut and paste talking points and catch phrases. Do yourself a favour, think for yourself and wake up already. You are nothing else than a Useful Idiot to Thaksin's PR machine.

It so resembles a 'professional attack on others points' and nothing else.

PM 101

Belittle those that disagree with you to attempt to diminish them

and their ideas in the minds of the less informed that might follow their points.

But it's still no sale.

• Characterizing those who disagree as being 'professional', is the same notion as the Opposition uses to render a large swath of the Thai electorate being devoid of a political context. But thank you for the compliment.
  

• Perfectly understandable, the no-sale bit. As another esteemed Poster suggested, when one is not in the market, sales do not occur.
  

Edited February 20, 2012 by CalgaryII

[CalgaryII]

If you believe the propaganda of others,

just because they add partial truths to their screeds,

you will have only have yourself to blame when you

end up in a place you abhor.

Don't be manipulated, think for yourself.

Couldn't agree with you more!

[rubl]

It is very interesting to read that the formation by the MoD of a Control Centre to direct red-shirt pro-government protests is defended by anti-coupists as needed to prevent another coup. Fightback to armed agression is pure political agenda some have it. Those killed by grenade attacks (like an Army colonel) might have a different opinion if only we could ask them. If the army fightback was a 'riot', what was initiating the armed agression? Oh, the confiscation of k. Thaksin's THB 70 billion? Pure coincidence of course.

I am not sure any anti-coupists have defended the MoD setting up a control centre though some of us have ridiculed the article itself which seems to be based on hearsay from some anonymous senior military officers and written by two US retirees.

Incidentally, since you have used the term, I would like to go on record as an anti-coupist as I see it as the biggest threat to democracy however imperfect it may be.

The article may be rubbish, we'll wait for a follow up. In the mean time a few posters like to throw around some nice sounding terms, even suggesting the Dem's do as their opponents, select a strong populist, charismatic leader who strongly relates to non-elites. Makes you think of MacBeth (It's a story told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing).

As for coups, I'm against out of principle, but a high moral ground is not in all cases defendable

[CalgaryII]

As long as the coup-ist armed aggressors don't mess with them, there will be no riots.

Unlike 2010.

Unlike 2010 I doubt this government is going to hand over control of the situation to the army and authorise them to use live fire on them - if they do then I would say riots are a possibility.

And the end of that Government, as last years election demonstrated.

[longway]

Rubl, #267

Lots of posters have

told me that the use of the Army for crowd control as done in Thailand March - May 2010

Using the coup-ist enforcers to attack those who threatened their power-grab, as in Thailand March-May 2010, and then characterizing the citizens they assaulted as anti-social types and anarchists for standing up to them, is quite unique to Thailand.

Later these anti-social types and anarchists became terrorists. Not sure why. I think because the coup-ists described those who opposed them that way.

As many posters are discovering from alternative sources other than the Opposition.

"Later these anti-social types and anarchists became terrorists. Not sure why"

Because that is an accurate way of describing those committing mass arson and setting car bombs. Later the TRC, as a milksop to the current regime, changed that to "criminal association" which doesn't change the fact that those actions were criminal.

Are you aware that your minimalist view of democracy would support Hitler, the elected leader of Germany in the 1930s who came to power by use of his private militia creating social division and oppressing opposition.

Even Hitler knew he needed to get the military on his NAZI party side to take over Germany. It appears that the red shirts and black shirts also had ex members and active members of the military on their side as well. The rule of law means nothing without a police and military enforcer supporting that rule of law. Members of the military swear oaths to defend the country and its laws. Who else is going to stop war lord types with their own thug army from breaking the nations laws and terrorizing citizens? Had the military not sided with the NAZI, Hitler would not have been able to do anything. Same with Thanksin, if he ever gets enough of the RTA on his side, who will stop him and enforce the country's rule of law, instead of the rule of a dictator?

Another ridiculous argument this time instead of defending democracy it is the rule of law that needs to be defended. You can't get any more illegal than a military coup less than a month before scheduled elections and then rewriting the constitution afterwards to exonerate yourself.

How about having thousands executed without due process on mere suspicion of drug dealing?

What is ridiculous is people here think you can have democracy without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, its mob rule, not democracy

Democracy has 2 facets

free and fair elections

rule of law

without both its not democracy.

Edited February 20, 2012 by longway

[Orac]

It is very interesting to read that the formation by the MoD of a Control Centre to direct red-shirt pro-government protests is defended by anti-coupists as needed to prevent another coup. Fightback to armed agression is pure political agenda some have it. Those killed by grenade attacks (like an Army colonel) might have a different opinion if only we could ask them. If the army fightback was a 'riot', what was initiating the armed agression? Oh, the confiscation of k. Thaksin's THB 70 billion? Pure coincidence of course.

I am not sure any anti-coupists have defended the MoD setting up a control centre though some of us have ridiculed the article itself which seems to be based on hearsay from some anonymous senior military officers and written by two US retirees.

Incidentally, since you have used the term, I would like to go on record as an anti-coupist as I see it as the biggest threat to democracy however imperfect it may be.

The article may be rubbish, we'll wait for a follow up. In the mean time a few posters like to throw around some nice sounding terms, even suggesting the Dem's do as their opponents, select a strong populist, charismatic leader who strongly relates to non-elites. Makes you think of MacBeth (It's a story told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing).

As for coups, I'm against out of principle, but a high moral ground is not in all cases defendable

I could never get the hang of Shakespeare so I bow to your superior knowledge on that. As for the suggestions on who should lead the Dems, although Abhisit seems to be a genuine and honest person he is not getting anywhere making them electable and, according to the poll in another thread today, Yingluck is gaining in popularity.

Going back to the original article I am wondering if there is some truth in it but as a means of Thaksin trying to maintain control of the red shirts as they are now a significant force in their own right, possibly the only group out there that could launch a credible attack on PT's position in the polls.

[longway]

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.

"as the headline of this thread suggests."

Remember, the information in this article, if there is an inkling of truth in it, is coming to us via the military. We should naturally ask ourselves why the military would want people to know/believe this. People with different political views will have different answers to that question.

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

As you will have noticed, many here do not have a struggle at all with this point. They view a coup as a part of Thai democracy. I do not share that view. Regardless of the tyranny of a given leader, there are constitutional processes to resolve conflicts. Regardless of the difficulty of following constitutional processes, in the end I believe doing so is much better for the development of Thai democracy.

Just a final note for coup proponents : why did the coup occur just 5 weeks prior to an election?

You miss the point, its not about supporting a coup but understand that the reason that coups occur is that the rule of law is not followed by anyone in power.

If a civilian government, no matter how popular, is not subject to the rule of law and takes control of an army not subject to the rule of law, what have you solved? All you have now is the control of both in one set of lawless hands. is this really better?

What is required before anything can progress is ensuring that the rule of law is followed, this is where it becomes very apparent that the reds are not a democracy movement, they are an pro-thaksin and anti-army coalition. They are only interested in mob rule.

The civilian gov't is subject to the rule of law.

Instead of the rule of law, the army uses tanks.

Certainly there could be a lot less corruption in Thai gov't. But it is necessary to not resort to non-democratic means when solving problems of governance.

If you think that then you live in lala land, rather than thailand.

There is a story in another english daily about a man and his family being harassed and intimidated by government officials after he blew the whistle on their involvement in animal trafficking, especially elephants.

This is the real front line of the democratic struggle in Thailand, if the reds has an ounce of democratic instinct in their organisation they would be at his side and providing him with moral and legal support. their absence from this situation and scores similar to it is very telling.

Edited February 20, 2012 by longway

[pedro01]

Tax payers lol, I bet 95% of the donkeys bussed into to Bangkok for the burn Bangkok fest never payed 1 baht in taxes.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how they evade VAT...

I don't know about VAT but I do know (edit: at least I have read) rice farmers are exempt from most taxes when it comes to anything related to their farming.

Then allow me to educate you. Everybody pays tax, VAT goes onto most products people buy.

Everybody pays tax. Of course, some incomes are not taxable but that is merely one type of tax.

[Orac]

"Later these anti-social types and anarchists became terrorists. Not sure why"

Because that is an accurate way of describing those committing mass arson and setting car bombs. Later the TRC, as a milksop to the current regime, changed that to "criminal association" which doesn't change the fact that those actions were criminal.

Are you aware that your minimalist view of democracy would support Hitler, the elected leader of Germany in the 1930s who came to power by use of his private militia creating social division and oppressing opposition.

Even Hitler knew he needed to get the military on his NAZI party side to take over Germany. It appears that the red shirts and black shirts also had ex members and active members of the military on their side as well. The rule of law means nothing without a police and military enforcer supporting that rule of law. Members of the military swear oaths to defend the country and its laws. Who else is going to stop war lord types with their own thug army from breaking the nations laws and terrorizing citizens? Had the military not sided with the NAZI, Hitler would not have been able to do anything. Same with Thanksin, if he ever gets enough of the RTA on his side, who will stop him and enforce the country's rule of law, instead of the rule of a dictator?

Another ridiculous argument this time instead of defending democracy it is the rule of law that needs to be defended. You can't get any more illegal than a military coup less than a month before scheduled elections and then rewriting the constitution afterwards to exonerate yourself.

How about having thousands executed without due process on mere suspicion of drug dealing?

What is ridiculous is people here think you can have democracy without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, its mob rule, not democracy

Democracy has 2 facets

free and fair elections

rule of law

without both its not democracy.

I do agree with you on this, also the law must be applied without fear or favour. Unfortunately in Thailand this has never been the case with the law being twisted by all sides for political purposes.

As for the war on drugs - tough subject but very popular at the time. Drugs were a huge problem at the time in Thailand and were mentioned three times in a week in royal speeches immediately before this action was taken so there was immense pressure from all levels of society to take action quickly. This is not saying I condone the action that was taken.

[longway]

Even Hitler knew he needed to get the military on his NAZI party side to take over Germany. It appears that the red shirts and black shirts also had ex members and active members of the military on their side as well. The rule of law means nothing without a police and military enforcer supporting that rule of law. Members of the military swear oaths to defend the country and its laws. Who else is going to stop war lord types with their own thug army from breaking the nations laws and terrorizing citizens? Had the military not sided with the NAZI, Hitler would not have been able to do anything. Same with Thanksin, if he ever gets enough of the RTA on his side, who will stop him and enforce the country's rule of law, instead of the rule of a dictator?

Another ridiculous argument this time instead of defending democracy it is the rule of law that needs to be defended. You can't get any more illegal than a military coup less than a month before scheduled elections and then rewriting the constitution afterwards to exonerate yourself.

How about having thousands executed without due process on mere suspicion of drug dealing?

What is ridiculous is people here think you can have democracy without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, its mob rule, not democracy

Democracy has 2 facets

free and fair elections

rule of law

without both its not democracy.

I do agree with you on this, also the law must be applied without fear or favour. Unfortunately in Thailand this has never been the case with the law being twisted by all sides for political purposes.

As for the war on drugs - tough subject but very popular at the time. Drugs were a huge problem at the time in Thailand and were mentioned three times in a week in royal speeches immediately before this action was taken so there was immense pressure from all levels of society to take action quickly. This is not saying I condone the action that was taken.

The action on the drug dealers was popular and can be argued to be have been effective and even necessary, but please don't tell me its any more democratic than having tanks roll out to solve a particular problem, the arguments you put forward about pressure from society can equally be used to support the coup.

Please note that it was soley Thaksin's idea to solve the problem by mass executions.

Edited February 20, 2012 by longway

[Orac]

How about having thousands executed without due process on mere suspicion of drug dealing?

What is ridiculous is people here think you can have democracy without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, its mob rule, not democracy

Democracy has 2 facets

free and fair elections

rule of law

without both its not democracy.

I do agree with you on this, also the law must be applied without fear or favour. Unfortunately in Thailand this has never been the case with the law being twisted by all sides for political purposes.

As for the war on drugs - tough subject but very popular at the time. Drugs were a huge problem at the time in Thailand and were mentioned three times in a week in royal speeches immediately before this action was taken so there was immense pressure from all levels of society to take action quickly. This is not saying I condone the action that was taken.

The action on the drug dealers was popular and can be argued to be have been effective and even necessary, but please don't tell me its any more democratic than having tanks roll out to solve a particular problem, the arguments you put forward can equally be used to support the coup.

On that one I will have to disagree. In my view the prevention of free and fair elections as mandated by a Royal Decree by using military force is probably one of the most undemocratic things I can think of. I am not sure how democracy was effected by the war on drugs apart from the seperate issue of the rule of law however, as you state, it was popular and would probably have gained a vote of approval if put to a referendum at the time.

[longway]

How about having thousands executed without due process on mere suspicion of drug dealing?

What is ridiculous is people here think you can have democracy without the rule of law. Without the rule of law, its mob rule, not democracy

Democracy has 2 facets

free and fair elections

rule of law

without both its not democracy.

I do agree with you on this, also the law must be applied without fear or favour. Unfortunately in Thailand this has never been the case with the law being twisted by all sides for political purposes.

As for the war on drugs - tough subject but very popular at the time. Drugs were a huge problem at the time in Thailand and were mentioned three times in a week in royal speeches immediately before this action was taken so there was immense pressure from all levels of society to take action quickly. This is not saying I condone the action that was taken.

The action on the drug dealers was popular and can be argued to be have been effective and even necessary, but please don't tell me its any more democratic than having tanks roll out to solve a particular problem, the arguments you put forward can equally be used to support the coup.

On that one I will have to disagree. In my view the prevention of free and fair elections as mandated by a Royal Decree by using military force is probably one of the most undemocratic things I can think of. I am not sure how democracy was effected by the war on drugs apart from the seperate issue of the rule of law however, as you state, it was popular and would probably have gained a vote of approval if put to a referendum at the time.

I think state sponsored executions without trial is just as undemocratic no matter how popular. You try to separate the rule of law from democracy, its a fallacy to think that.

Again you have to look at the root of the problems in thailand. All state structures in thailand are dominated by patron client networks, unless this is tackled, you wont get democracy.

Edited February 20, 2012 by longway

[ianf]

Would the new riots be a ploy to demand his return?

There are new riots? I seem to have missed that

There were never old riots.

There was the coup-ist attack on anti-coupists, resulting in some fightback, and the killing of over 90 taxpayers, but that is all.

Perhaps you are confusing the Oppositional mantra, trying to characterize the taxpayers who stood up to their coup, as being anarchist, anti-social and yes, rioters while portraying their armed aggressors malevolently.

But that is just the Opposition denigrating those who do not accept their undemocratic tendencies, like little ole' coups and such.

Were all the people who died taxpayers? really? Very well researched, eh? Did the reds kill reds? Or did the reds simply talk about violence from their stages (we all heard it) but in fact did nothing? Did they bring equipment to make molotov cocktails to Bangkok? Or was that just a rumour? Did Mr Abhisit personally order the shootings of everyone that died? Or were some of the deaths part of a red strategy to strengthen their cause? Did the reds offer policies and a way forward in all the speeches they made? Or did they , as Hitler suggests in Mein Kampf, avoid argumentation and concentrate on emotional [manipulation]? Is there any possibility that those reds who were armed actually use the arms resulting in at least ONE death if not a lot more? Just a teeny weeny possibility? You know Mr frequent poster Calgaryll, you have many questions to answer. It is not sufficient simply to rehash Amsterdam's propaganda or make assumptions about what happened. If you want to create a strong argument for your position you have to move beyond rhetoric. Because at the moment your posts are simply risible and not believable at all. To me, I could suggest that you were being paid to post these, but we all know that is absolutely not the case; it's just that you seem to be part of the propaganda regime for Thaksin - or at least you are doing a very good job for them. And I have not yet heard one word from you about the extra-judicial deaths that occurred during the so-called drug war. My ex-wife's relative was one of those who died. He's never been near drugs but he was a political opponent of Khun Thaksin. Now that leads me to ask many more questions .........

[blows]

One could argue that the so called 2006 coup d'etat, was the RTA enforcing the rule of law and removing an illegitimate PM.

[sparebox2]

I wonder if he will return as a Jedi knight.

May the cash be with you.

[blows]

Would the new riots be a ploy to demand his return?

There are new riots? I seem to have missed that

There were never old riots.

There was the coup-ist attack on anti-coupists, resulting in some fightback, and the killing of over 90 taxpayers, but that is all.

Perhaps you are confusing the Oppositional mantra, trying to characterize the taxpayers who stood up to their coup, as being anarchist, anti-social and yes, rioters while portraying their armed aggressors malevolently.

But that is just the Opposition denigrating those who do not accept their undemocratic tendencies, like little ole' coups and such.

Were all the people who died taxpayers? really? Very well researched, eh? Did the reds kill reds? Or did the reds simply talk about violence from their stages (we all heard it) but in fact did nothing? Did they bring equipment to make molotov cocktails to Bangkok? Or was that just a rumour? Did Mr Abhisit personally order the shootings of everyone that died? Or were some of the deaths part of a red strategy to strengthen their cause? Did the reds offer policies and a way forward in all the speeches they made? Or did they , as Hitler suggests in Mein Kampf, avoid argumentation and concentrate on emotional [manipulation]? Is there any possibility that those reds who were armed actually use the arms resulting in at least ONE death if not a lot more? Just a teeny weeny possibility? You know Mr frequent poster Calgaryll, you have many questions to answer. It is not sufficient simply to rehash Amsterdam's propaganda or make assumptions about what happened. If you want to create a strong argument for your position you have to move beyond rhetoric. Because at the moment your posts are simply risible and not believable at all. To me, I could suggest that you were being paid to post these, but we all know that is absolutely not the case; it's just that you seem to be part of the propaganda regime for Thaksin - or at least you are doing a very good job for them. And I have not yet heard one word from you about the extra-judicial deaths that occurred during the so-called drug war. My ex-wife's relative was one of those who died. He's never been near drugs but he was a political opponent of Khun Thaksin. Now that leads me to ask many more questions .........

That would also be my guess, that the drug war was a smokescreen to execute Thaksin opposition, as is the case with most dictators.

[Orac]

One could argue that the so called 2006 coup d'etat, was the RTA enforcing the rule of law and removing an illegitimate PM.

One could argue that but, since elections were scheduled for less than a month after the coup that legitimacy could have been tested at the ballot box.

[blows]

I wonder if he will return as a Jedi knight.

May the cash be with you.

Funny, but I think he would return as Darth Vader 'the empire strikes back' saying "Abhisit, I am your father"

[longway]

One could argue that the so called 2006 coup d'etat, was the RTA enforcing the rule of law and removing an illegitimate PM.

Instead of meaningless arguments about who was right and who was wrong, why not examine the situation objectively and get to the root of this problem and deal with that?

[Orac]

I think state sponsored executions without trial is just as undemocratic no matter how popular. You try to separate the rule of law from democracy, its a fallacy to think that.

Again you have to look at the root of the problems in thailand. All state structures in thailand are dominated by patron client networks, unless this is tackled, you wont get democracy.

For your first point, we will just have to agree to differ - i personally do not think that 'undemocratic' is the right term for this though unethical or illegal would possibly fit in its place.

Your second point is very valid and you right in saying it is the fundemental issue hindering Thailands democratic progress. My hope is that the political awakening of the general population that we have seen over the last few years will eventially break this mold and force a government through that is truly representative of the people.

[sparebox2]

I wonder if he will return as a Jedi knight.

May the cash be with you.

Funny, but I think he would return as Darth Vader 'the empire strikes back' saying "Abhisit, I am your father"

"And Yingluck is your twin sister".

[longway]

I think state sponsored executions without trial is just as undemocratic no matter how popular. You try to separate the rule of law from democracy, its a fallacy to think that.

Again you have to look at the root of the problems in thailand. All state structures in thailand are dominated by patron client networks, unless this is tackled, you wont get democracy.

For your first point, we will just have to agree to differ - i personally do not think that 'undemocratic' is the right term for this though unethical or illegal would possibly fit in its place.

Your second point is very valid and you right in saying it is the fundemental issue hindering Thailands democratic progress. My hope is that the political awakening of the general population that we have seen over the last few years will eventially break this mold and force a government through that is truly representative of the people.

The word you are looking for is mob rule.

[CalgaryII]

ianf, #350

You know Mr frequent poster Calgaryll, you have many questions to answer

Allright, thank you for asking. Let me have a go.

Were all the people who died taxpayers? really? Very well researched, eh?

Taxpayers is a play on words, denoting citizens and Thai people generally. The Opposition has been so focussed on characterizing the people their aggressors killed, and who stood up to their coup, as being Red Shirts devoid of political context.

Using the descriptor of taxpayers or citizens, simply drives home the point these were mainstream Thai's standing up to coup-ists. And being killed for it. The coup-ists clearly showed their colours. Even to the point of callously ignoring deaths, while magnifying property damage.

Showed what they were all about, and how they viewed those who they look upon with disdain.

Did the reds kill reds?

That is the most prepostorous spin from the coup-ists there is, and is not worthy of discussion. Along the lines of Suthep's "they ran into bullets" nonsense.

Many of such comments also emenate from those who have never had any meaningful interaction with red Shirts, having only the perceptions the Opposition created for them.

Or did the reds simply talk about violence from their stages (we all heard it) but in fact did nothing? Did they bring equipment to make molotov cocktails to Bangkok? Or was that just a rumour?

Yes, to all of the above. They were protesters, and that is what protesters do.

To vilify this, and disregard the vengeful and vicious attack by coup-ist aggressors which precipitated it, is pro-coup Opposition agenda.

Did Mr Abhisit personally order the shootings of everyone that died?

This is all about accountability. If not him, who?

Wasn't it Truman who had a sign on his desk, "The buck stops here".

He is the one accused of war crimes by some.

Or were some of the deaths part of a red strategy to strengthen their cause?

A similar offensive argument as the one about Reds killing each other.

It is offensive...plain and simple.

I cannot bring myself to say more.

I have stood at the temple wall with parents whose son's ashes were interred there. I have financed an old man shot through the foot in the temple Wat Pratom, where the bullet expanded is it exitted. I have looked in the face of someone whose right eye won't stop secreting tears, because he was shot in it.

One must look at these deaths and maimings personally, and realize what one side of the political divide was capable of, to protect their prerogatives. These people's justified protests, knowing they were the electoral majority was validated in last July's election. Their demands of early elections to restore reality was not unreasonable.

Alternatively, to reduce their political space by suggesting they had no political awareness, and were being led around the nose by somebody, is the extreme of disparaging slandering and vilification.

Did the reds offer policies and a way forward in all the speeches they made?

Yes they do.

Accept that these people are politicized. Just accept it. It is not hard.

Do you think thousands upon thousands attend rallies and voted the way they did, in a political vaccuum going forward.

it's just that you seem to be part of the propaganda regime for Thaksin - or at least you are doing a very good job for them

.

Thank you for the compliment.

I have frequently mentioned that I am not a Thaksin apologist. He is not my issue or interest.

Your comment however, belies the underlying belkief again, which has a contemptuous undertone of a huge political swath in Thailand. That these people have no political space other than through their association, bereft of personal convictions.

That is dead wrong, and is Oppositional mantra.

In light of above, the conviction that coups are an ever-present possibility as this thread's headline suggests is taken seriously, by politically serious people.

Edited February 20, 2012 by CalgaryII