Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[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"

"And Yingluck is your twin sister".

Apparently so, but Yingluck has yet to turn away from the darkside.

[Moruya]

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

There are new riots? I seem to have missed that

From the OP ["red-shirt" demonstrations planned for the coming months]

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

Are you speaking with authority?

[CalgaryII]

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.

Mob rule is synonymous with coups.

Standing up to coup-ists and their armed aggressors is not riotous or anarchic, as much as the coup-ists would like to define them as such.

It is defending ones political space, of which they have an excellent awareness, politicised as they are.

[whybother]

Mob rule is synonymous with coups.

Standing up to coup-ists and their armed aggressors is not riotous or anarchic, as much as the coup-ists would like to define them as such.

It is defending ones political space, of which they have an excellent awareness, politicised as they are.

"Mob rule is synonymous with coups."

So the Red Shirts WERE trying to force a coup with their mob antics in 2010.

[whybother]

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.

So the reds only killed army personnel and "taxpayers" then? No reds got caught up in their shooting at and throwing grenades at the army and "taxpayers"?

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.

So they talked about burning down buildings and talked about shooting at the army, and it happened, but it wasn't them.

[Moruya]

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.

Propaganda smells the same wherever it originates.

The rural Thais need a hero. None of YS, Thaksin, the PTP or the UDD has the qualifications to be that. They don't come anywhere near it.

[whybother]

Sukampol: No war room against coup

BANGKOK: -- Defence Minister Gen Sukampol Suwannathat Monday denied that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had ordered an establishment of a war room to counter any coup attempt.

Sukampol said Yingluck did not order him to set up the war room to direct red-shirt mass rallies against coups.

Sukampol said had he given a secret order to set up a war room, Asia Times would not have learnt about the order.

-- The Nation 2012-02-20

No one said Yingluck ordered it. Why do you need to deny it?

[blows]

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

There are new riots? I seem to have missed that

From the OP ["red-shirt" demonstrations planned for the coming months]

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

As long as the demonstrators break no laws and don't violate anybody's human rights, there will be no problem.

[OzMick]

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".

While this proposition re-inforces a common description of k. Thaksin, I didn't think that it was literally true. Shows to go ya!

[animatic]

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.

Mob rule is synonymous with coups.

Standing up to coup-ists and their armed aggressors is not riotous or anarchic, as much as the coup-ists would like to define them as such.

It is defending ones political space, of which they have an excellent awareness, politicised as they are.

Like the Red Shirt Coup Thaksin failed to pull off? TWICE.

[OzMick]

Sukampol: No war room against coup

BANGKOK: -- Defence Minister Gen Sukampol Suwannathat Monday denied that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra had ordered an establishment of a war room to counter any coup attempt.

Sukampol said Yingluck did not order him to set up the war room to direct red-shirt mass rallies against coups.

Sukampol said had he given a secret order to set up a war room, Asia Times would not have learnt about the order.

-- The Nation 2012-02-20

No one said Yingluck ordered it. Why do you need to deny it?

" General (retired) Phonchai Kranloet, Lieutenant General (retired) Manas Paorik, and Lieutenant General Prin Suwanathat, the cousin of new minister of defense Sukamphon....." were named as the supervisors in the OP. Will they also deny their involvement?

A smart journalist could try following one or more of the named officers, see if they have new employment.

[CalgaryII]

Animatic, #370

Like the Red Shirt Coup Thaksin failed to pull off? TWICE.

Electoral success is electoral success

Regardless how inconvenient that truth may be for some.

To torture history to suggest something else, is not taken seriously by serious political analysts.

To suggest opposing a coup-ist goverment is in itself a coup, is ridiculous.

Edited February 20, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

Animatic, #370

Like the Red Shirt Coup Thaksin failed to pull off? TWICE.

Electoral success is electoral success

Regardless how inconvenient that truth may be for some.

To torture history to suggest something else, is not taken seriously by serious political analysts.

To suggest opposing a coup-ist goverment is in itself a coup, is ridiculous.

Electoral success obviously isn't electoral success when elected MPs decide that they don't want to support a party. If the red shirts don't understand that part of democracy, then they should learn a bit more about it.

You keep going on about how the red shirts are protesting the coup, but the coup was 4 years ago, and there have been elections, twice.

[h90]

So, basicly, Thaksin is planning on overthrowing his sister's government?

And all, just so he can get back in the catbird's seat.

What a guy!!!

Sounds a lot like Bangkok will be burning again. Maybe we should hope the puppet is unable to implement any flood control. We may need the water to quench Bangkok.

Having Bangkok flood because of the incompetent government, while the owner want to burn Bangkok would be a funny thing.....

Complete improbable in any other country but Thailand

[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.

Mob rule is synonymous with coups.

Standing up to coup-ists and their armed aggressors is not riotous or anarchic, as much as the coup-ists would like to define them as such.

It is defending ones political space, of which they have an excellent awareness, politicised as they are.

There is one thing the reds are not and that is a democracy movement.

Edited February 20, 2012 by longway

[CalgaryII]

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

Coup-ists would argue that.

The electoral majority in Thailand would argue otherwise.

The election of last year was their demonstration of it.

BTW, the coup-ist armed aggressors are perceived by a huge electoral swath of the country, as being no different than a foreign occupying force.

Just the way it is.

[CalgaryII]

Longway, #375

There is one thing the reds are not and that is a democracy movement.

Standing up to the personification of anti-democracy being the coup, would suggest otherwise.

No-one else stood up to this demonstration of anti-democracy. Only them.

As imperfect they may be, Democracy is their central tenet.

Those who question this, show they have not been around them in any meaningful way, and are simply following how the Opposition defines them

Edited February 20, 2012 by CalgaryII

[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.

Coup-ists would argue that.

The electoral majority in Thailand would argue otherwise.

The election of last year was their demonstration of it.

BTW, the coup-ist armed aggressors are perceived by a huge electoral swath of the country, as being no different than a foreign occupying force.

Just the way it is.

The majority of the Thai citizenry does not agree.

[tlansford]

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...

It is not a valid argument, just bad rhetoric. Many of the working (poor) people are self-employed and have their own shops. Once you hang a sign in front of your shop, you cannot avoid paying taxes.

It also suggests that 95% of the red-shirts are only working (or non-working) poor. Another stereo-type that is untrue.

[longway]

Longway, #375

There is one thing the reds are not and that is a democracy movement.

Standing up to the personification of anti-democracy being the coup, would suggest otherwise.

No-one else stood up to this demonstration of anti-democracy. Only them.

As imperfect they may be, Democracy is their central tenet.

Those who question this, show they have not been around them in any meaningful way, and are simply following how the Opposition defines them

I get this impression from reading your posts and others who support your views.

Also the reds lack of action or support other than when Thaksin's interests are threatened, whether you know it or not, you have nothing to do with democracy.

[CalgaryII]

Longway, #375

There is one thing the reds are not and that is a democracy movement.

Standing up to the personification of anti-democracy being the coup, would suggest otherwise.

No-one else stood up to this demonstration of anti-democracy. Only them.

As imperfect they may be, Democracy is their central tenet.

Those who question this, show they have not been around them in any meaningful way, and are simply following how the Opposition defines them

I get this impression from reading your posts and others who support your views.

Also the reds lack of action or support other than when Thaksin's interests are threatened, whether you know it or not, you have nothing to do with democracy.

The old saw about simplistically defining the Red Shirts as being devoid of political awareness, other than what an association gives them.

The opposition is preaching this far and wide, but only their own choir is listening.

Until the elites and opposition get over this agenda of theirs, can political progress be made.

Only when political dialogue between equals occurs, can there be progress.

The Opposition seems very blind to this fact.

If they ever hope to have electoral success in the future, they'd better get off their high-horse, instead of pissing-off the electoral majority who elected Ms. Y last time around, and will do so again in a heartbeat.

Edited February 20, 2012 by CalgaryII

[tlansford]

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.

Again, an inaccurate and over the top comparison to Hitler. Not only is Thailand not Great Depression, Post-WW I Germany, your statements that he was elected the leader of Germany and implying that he somehow gained power through democratic processes is also incorrect.

Hitler was not elected chancellor, but appointed chancellor through non-democratic maneuvers, and his consolidation of power thereafter was completed in the same way.

People who understand Germany history know that he did not come to power through democratic means but by exploiting and inflaming the fear & hatred of people against, Jews, gays, gypsies, and others in a defeated country with an impossible economic situation, while simultaneously presenting the himself as the solution to Germany' plight, and then weaseled his way into being appointed chancellor.

After which he put through a law to give his cabinet emergency powers for 4 years, (physically excluding part of the legislature and using other strong-arm tactics & threats in order to get the needed margin) with which he abolished the office of President on Hindenberg's death and folded them into his own powers.

And long before he ever attempted all of this manipulation, his first failed power-grab attempt was much more direct : a coup.

There is no view of democracy, minimalist or otherwise, which "would support Hitler".

43.9% of the vote and forming a coalition is not democratic - but 48.3% and forming a coalition is? Inflaming fear and hatred of the upper classes/wealthy is not so different to doing the same to Jews, etc. Forming a private army is the first step, we are only part-way into the sequence, guess which bit comes next.

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

you are very far off-base regarding Hitler.

1) he was appointed chancellor, not elected.

2) the 43% vote was already after banning the communist party. The Nazis still never won an absolute majority in the legislature.

3) he gained absolute control with th Enabling Act in a vote where he kept his opposition from voting.

4) a couple of months later, all other political parties were banned.

To campaign against the elite & corrupt, even if that includes Thaksin himself, is not at all similar to Hitler's demonization of non-German ethnic groups. To claim that it is "not so different" is absurd.

People can and do use democratic processes in ways that abuse & undermine democracy. Redistricting in the USA is one example, Ahisit's maneuvers to gain power are another. Thaksin used the tools of democracy to solidify his own power, too. But none of that comes close to Hitler and Nazi Germany. The comparison is hyperbole.

[tlansford]

I wonder if he will return as a Jedi knight.

May the cash be with you.

sometimes you pop-up with some really good ones...

[tlansford]

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 can argue that, but even though I disagree with the foundation of that argument, given that the coup planning began 7 months prior & before the elections and the constitutional crisis, it is a very difficult position to take.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

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.

Mob rule is synonymous with coups.

Standing up to coup-ists and their armed aggressors is not riotous or anarchic, as much as the coup-ists would like to define them as such.

It is defending ones political space, of which they have an excellent awareness, politicised as they are.

Like the Red Shirt Coup Thaksin failed to pull off? TWICE.

when were these two attempts?

[blows]

Who said: "if you want peace, prepare for war"

I don't think it applies here.

[CalgaryII]

Who said: "if you want peace, prepare for war"

I don't think it applies here.

What applies here, is to scare the shit out of coup-ists, who are not above doing it again.

The ever increasing Rallies of the Red Shirts, in both frequency and size, is designed to do just that.

The one at Bonanaza Resort in Khao Yai this Saturday promises to be the largest one since the election.

We shall see.

[CalgaryII]

TF, #385

when were these two attempts?

I didn't have the patience to query this nonsense, so I am glad you did TF

[whybother]

Who said: "if you want peace, prepare for war"

I don't think it applies here.

What applies here, is to scare the shit out of coup-ists, who are not above doing it again.

The ever increasing Rallies of the Red Shirts, in both frequency and size, is designed to do just that.

The one at Bonanaza Resort in Khao Yai this Saturday promises to be the largest one since the election.

We shall see.

Great ... using minority mobs to "scare the shit out of" any one that disagrees with them.

[blows]

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

Mahatma Gandhi