Thailand's Thaksin Prepares For War

[tlansford]

They represent communism or socialism at best ... don't be naive. This is neither a negative or positive comment but just a realistic one.

I don't deny what your observations were, however, when I have seen large red shirt rallies, I have not seen the same thing at all.

As a historical point, the color red doesn't have anything to do with communism for the red shirts. It was a color of shirt used by a group led by a student activist who had previously founded the September 19th group which was then subsequently take as the color for the movement as a whole. Red + communism is a coincidence. As you probably know, the Thai people have many traditions around colors; colors for your birthday, lucky colors, etc.

I never said anything about their colors but to me it is obvious they represent at best socialist views right down to their being farmers & workers (Hammer and sickle) and believe it is unfair that the rich live better than them to believing the rich should share their wealth with them.

Not to mention the red shirt oldster still wearing his Mao suit and hat.

And Weng'ing on Dr. W. and Tida who were communists hiding in the jungles

till a global pardon came down.

The organizational structure is red to the core. Democracy is the facade overlay of that, and underneath another snaky layer is an uber-capitalist who craves power by any means if HE WINS.

We can't be naive, the method of stirring up the masses for this movement,

was right out of Maos' playbook, triangulation and the Red Schools in Issan,

just being part of the structure.

Besides the fact that you ignore the history and make-up of the red-shirts, don't you see that having Thailand's "uber-capitalist" as the hero of a communist organization is illogical?

[blows]

Seriously, that's the work of the commie media, not the Republicans and proves the point, thank you.

It was very clever of the TV networks back in 2000 to insist on red for Republicans and blue for Democrats; it had often been the reverse in earlier elections. David Brinkley spoke of Ronald Reagan’s “sea of blue” in 1980, and Time wrote in 1984, “On NBC’s national map, a spreading sea of blue represented Reagan’s triumph, and little islands of red symbolized Mondale’s meager winnings; on ABC and CBS maps, the color symbolism was reversed.” NBC that year — like other networks in previous years — was in keeping with the worldwide use of political colors, where typically red represents communism, socialism, and social democracy and blue is associated with conservative parties. But when the dominant U.S. media all decided to paint the Democrats blue and Republicans red, they got rid of that pesky, lingering association of red with socialism.

http://www.cato-at-l...p-virginia-red/

well, quoting the cato institute explains the use of "commie media".

The red shirts have groups with are communist within the UDD. They also have groups that are capitalists. The UDD is an umbrella organization for a diverse set of organizations. As noted earlier, the color red was first used by one of the small groups in rallies after the coup, not a communist group either, and after that it became the adopted color for the movement.

Quoting David Brinkley actually. It is in the public domain globally that the left is red and the right is blue.

Your quote above is from the cato institute.

OK, it seems like you are saying that because they use the color red, this supports the claim that they are communists.

The link is, the quote is from David Brinkley. I did not pick the Russian red army name no colors, I did not pick the Mao red guard name nor colors, etc etc etc. It is understandable why the democrats would want to get rid of their red image and still keep their red agenda.

[tlansford]

- sniper -

well, quoting the cato institute explains the use of "commie media".

The red shirts have groups with are communist within the UDD. They also have groups that are capitalists. The UDD is an umbrella organization for a diverse set of organizations. As noted earlier, the color red was first used by one of the small groups in rallies after the coup, not a communist group either, and after that it became the adopted color for the movement.

Quoting David Brinkley actually. It is in the public domain globally that the left is red and the right is blue.

Your quote above is from the cato institute.

OK, it seems like you are saying that because they use the color red, this supports the claim that they are communists.

The link is, the quote is from David Brinkley. I did not pick the Russian red army name no colors, I did not pick the Mao red guard name nor colors, etc etc etc. It is understandable why the democrats would want to get rid of their red image and still keep their red agenda.

While the history of colors is interesting, I'd like to still come the this point : do you think that red is the UDD color because they are a communist movement? (edit : I ask because this was the implication I understood from previous posts, but I would prefer not to presume something you may not intend...)

Edited February 20, 2012 by tlansford

[Insight]

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.

Yup, just like all those shops with signs above them at the likes of Pantip and MBK. Wonder how many tourists have successfully received a VAT refund from the govt for purchases made at those places?

But, of course, in the red shirt sticks it's done 100% by the books...

Edited February 20, 2012 by Insight

[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.

Yup, just like all those shops with signs above them at the likes of Pantip and MBK. Wonder how many tourists have successfully received a VAT refund from those places?

But, of course, in the red shirt sticks it's done 100% by the books...

Just to be clear, I am not talking about VAT. I am talking about the shop owner paying taxes for running the shop.

[rubl]

lots of unnecessary stuff at the begin (IMHO) removed ...

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.

Reading this somehow I immediately think of Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Jatuporn. Beats me why

[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

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.

With 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' and lots of UDD leaders and non-leaders on the party list and therefor 'elected', a credible UDD attack in the polls would mean the UDD needs to form an official political party, according to laws and regulations for political parties and adhere to laws and regulations which govern political parties. A 'democratic' organisation without (official) political standing has a wee bit more space to manoeuvre in.

[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.

You may have missed some posts of our dear member Calgaryll. He seems to have introduced the term 'anti-coupist'. I try to ignore his posts. I'm not sure who defended the ControlCentre first, Calgaryll or 478geo. The last didn't seem to see anything wrong with using military expertise in controlling undesirable situations. Just go through some of the posts in this thread.

BTW tongue-in cheek, you go on record as 'anti-coupist' because you see it as the biggest threat . It seems to suggest you like to be a threat to society

Edited February 20, 2012 by rubl

[animatic]

lots of unnecessary stuff at the begin (IMHO) removed ...

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.

Reading this somehow I immediately think of Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Jatuporn. Beats me why

Maybe because he beats that point till it's flatter than a dead prawn and just a prawn.

[473geo]

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.

You may have missed some posts of our dear member Calgaryll. He seems to have introduced the term 'anti-coupist'. I try to ignore his posts. I'm not sure who defended the ControlCentre first, Calgaryll or 478geo. The last didn't seem to see anything wrong with using military expertise in controlling undesirable situations. Just go through some of the posts in this thread.

BTW tongue-in cheek, you go on record as 'anti-coupist' because you see it as the biggest threat . It seems to suggest you like to be a threat to society

Well 478geo may well not seem to see anything wrong with using military expertise in controlling undesirable situations........unlike one of similar name who accepted the possible use of military expertise to monitor the events, but suggested that the on the ground action be undertaken by the police supported by special police units......

Edited February 20, 2012 by 473geo

[OzMick]

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.

Try not to be dliberately obtuse.

1/ Hitler was appointed chancellor because he was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats, and he had formed a coalition. Is that unusual? He became chancellor 4 weeks before the Riechstag fire. Banning the communists (13% vote) was one way of eliminating other parties. Thaksin prefers to buy them - a New Aspiration, to be rich(er).

2/ He called fresh elections and used his private army to attack any opposition including the Social Democrats. Thaksin has formed his private army and already used it for violent protest.

3/ He assumed the powers of the head of state on Hindenburg's death. I did say the process is not yet complete.

4/ Hitler energised his followers by inflated claims about the power and wealth of a very small group in society. Call them Jews, or call them amart.

5/ Early in his political career, Hitler faced the courts and had charges minimised and dropped by a friendly judge, allowing him to continue his rise after a short incarceration. Compare to asset concealment case.

I see enough similarities for comparison. Hopefully others might see where the garden path could lead and take a diversion.

[nurofiend]

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.

Try not to be dliberately obtuse.

1/ Hitler was appointed chancellor because he was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats, and he had formed a coalition. Is that unusual? He became chancellor 4 weeks before the Riechstag fire. Banning the communists (13% vote) was one way of eliminating other parties. Thaksin prefers to buy them - a New Aspiration, to be rich(er).

2/ He called fresh elections and used his private army to attack any opposition including the Social Democrats. Thaksin has formed his private army and already used it for violent protest.

3/ He assumed the powers of the head of state on Hindenburg's death. I did say the process is not yet complete.

4/ Hitler energised his followers by inflated claims about the power and wealth of a very small group in society. Call them Jews, or call them amart.

5/ Early in his political career, Hitler faced the courts and had charges minimised and dropped by a friendly judge, allowing him to continue his rise after a short incarceration. Compare to asset concealment case.

I see enough similarities for comparison. Hopefully others might see where the garden path could lead and take a diversion.

and after all that... comparing him to hitler remains a stupid, ridiculous, joke.

[tlansford]

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.

Try not to be dliberately obtuse.

1/ Hitler was appointed chancellor because he was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats, and he had formed a coalition. Is that unusual? He became chancellor 4 weeks before the Riechstag fire. Banning the communists (13% vote) was one way of eliminating other parties. Thaksin prefers to buy them - a New Aspiration, to be rich(er).

2/ He called fresh elections and used his private army to attack any opposition including the Social Democrats. Thaksin has formed his private army and already used it for violent protest.

3/ He assumed the powers of the head of state on Hindenburg's death. I did say the process is not yet complete.

4/ Hitler energised his followers by inflated claims about the power and wealth of a very small group in society. Call them Jews, or call them amart.

5/ Early in his political career, Hitler faced the courts and had charges minimised and dropped by a friendly judge, allowing him to continue his rise after a short incarceration. Compare to asset concealment case.

I see enough similarities for comparison. Hopefully others might see where the garden path could lead and take a diversion.

and after all that... comparing him to hitler remains a stupid, ridiculous, joke.

Thank you

[tlansford]

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.

Try not to be dliberately obtuse.

1/ Hitler was appointed chancellor because he was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats, and he had formed a coalition. Is that unusual? He became chancellor 4 weeks before the Riechstag fire. Banning the communists (13% vote) was one way of eliminating other parties. Thaksin prefers to buy them - a New Aspiration, to be rich(er).

2/ He called fresh elections and used his private army to attack any opposition including the Social Democrats. Thaksin has formed his private army and already used it for violent protest.

3/ He assumed the powers of the head of state on Hindenburg's death. I did say the process is not yet complete.

4/ Hitler energised his followers by inflated claims about the power and wealth of a very small group in society. Call them Jews, or call them amart.

5/ Early in his political career, Hitler faced the courts and had charges minimised and dropped by a friendly judge, allowing him to continue his rise after a short incarceration. Compare to asset concealment case.

I see enough similarities for comparison. Hopefully others might see where the garden path could lead and take a diversion.

Please inform yourself before trying to discuss this.

Hilter was appointed by Hindenberg by decree and without a vote. This was done reluctantly by the then president. It was extremely unusual and like most of the methods Hitler used to gain absolute power, was NOT within, but rather outside of, the democratic process in Germany.

Using his absolute powers from the Enabling Act, he passed a law the day before Hindenberg's death dissolving the office of president and merging it with his own. He also purged the military.

The similarities you find are superficial and without perspective of both situations. Thaksin was/is no friend of democracy, but Nurofiend said it best...

[OzMick]

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.

Try not to be dliberately obtuse.

1/ Hitler was appointed chancellor because he was the leader of the party with the largest number of seats, and he had formed a coalition. Is that unusual? He became chancellor 4 weeks before the Riechstag fire. Banning the communists (13% vote) was one way of eliminating other parties. Thaksin prefers to buy them - a New Aspiration, to be rich(er).

2/ He called fresh elections and used his private army to attack any opposition including the Social Democrats. Thaksin has formed his private army and already used it for violent protest.

3/ He assumed the powers of the head of state on Hindenburg's death. I did say the process is not yet complete.

4/ Hitler energised his followers by inflated claims about the power and wealth of a very small group in society. Call them Jews, or call them amart.

5/ Early in his political career, Hitler faced the courts and had charges minimised and dropped by a friendly judge, allowing him to continue his rise after a short incarceration. Compare to asset concealment case.

I see enough similarities for comparison. Hopefully others might see where the garden path could lead and take a diversion.

Please inform yourself before trying to discuss this.

Hilter was appointed by Hindenberg by decree and without a vote. This was done reluctantly by the then president. It was extremely unusual and like most of the methods Hitler used to gain absolute power, was NOT within, but rather outside of, the democratic process in Germany.

Using his absolute powers from the Enabling Act, he passed a law the day before Hindenberg's death dissolving the office of president and merging it with his own. He also purged the military.

The similarities you find are superficial and without perspective of both situations. Thaksin was/is no friend of democracy, but Nurofiend said it best...

As the quibbling is getting repetitious and off topic, may I summarise my thoughts.

When one political party decides to have its own armed militia, peace and democracy are rarely the end result.

[Orac]

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.

With 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts' and lots of UDD leaders and non-leaders on the party list and therefor 'elected', a credible UDD attack in the polls would mean the UDD needs to form an official political party, according to laws and regulations for political parties and adhere to laws and regulations which govern political parties. A 'democratic' organisation without (official) political standing has a wee bit more space to manoeuvre in.

I think this is a longer term game and at it is early days yet though there is a huge and inevitable event in Thailands future pending that is beyond the bounds of discussion here that many parties are positioning themselves for.

The big obstacle to 'people power' in Thailand is the military and the UDD need Thaksin/PT to engage them in some way to try and reduce some of their power. Non UDD PT on the other hand are just looking for power and provided they can come to an accomodation with the military as seems to be happenning they may not want to rock the boat further. I would expect to see further pressure here from the UDD in the coming months which are alluded to in the article such as military reshuffles, charter change and more action over the events of 2010.

And just to get the right wing side of TV of the wound up, it needs to be remembered that the Communist Party of Thailand was allied with the Thai Moslem Peoples Liberation Army back in the 70s when the current leader of the UDD and her MP husband went off to join the CPT in the jungle. If there are still any contacts there then there is the potential for an 'unholy' alliance between the UDD communists and terrorists and militant Islam - Fox News would be having a coronary if they had a Thai channel.

[CalgaryII]

lots of unnecessary stuff at the begin (IMHO) removed ...

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.

Reading this somehow I immediately think of Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Jatuporn. Beats me why

Very perceptive and very correct.

The UDD/RS are extremely vigilant about protecting the Government they elected.

History shows the absence of such vigilance with no credible opposing political movement, has had predictable results.

The protection of Ms. Y and her Govt. these people feel a need to provide, was a major motivator for the humongous flood relief efforts these people launched during the flood crisis.

While they were engaged in a supreme effort in this regard, the Opposition enegaged in equally prodigious efforts at disparaging Govt initiatives via their incessant FROC-flogging.

While one side of the political divide was positively supporting, the other was negatively tearing down.

Jatuporn is a highly respected and capable leader in the UDD/RS Movement, and is accordingl;y on the front line of anti-coup vigilance.

Expect his warnings to continue unabated.

Edited February 21, 2012 by CalgaryII

[CalgaryII]

lots of unnecessary stuff at the begin (IMHO) removed ...

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.

Reading this somehow I immediately think of Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Jatuporn. Beats me why

Maybe because he beats that point till it's flatter than a dead prawn and just a prawn.

Not with the UDD/RS rank and file.

They take all warnings seriously, and are like a 'flea on a dog' watching the coup-ists in the Opposition.

I can understand however, why the coup-ists in the opposition get annoyed at these repeated warnings

Continually shining a light on them is uncomfortable.

[whybother]

Very perceptive and very correct.

The UDD/RS are extremely vigilant about protecting the Government they elected.

History shows the absence of such vigilance with no credible opposing political movement, has had predictable results.

The protection of Ms. Y and her Govt. these people feel a need to provide, was a major motivator for the humongous flood relief efforts these people launched during the flood crisis.

While they were engaged in a supreme effort in this regard, the Opposition enegaged in equally prodigious efforts at disparaging Govt initiatives via their incessant FROC-flogging.

While one side of the political divide was positively supporting, the other was negatively tearing down.

Jatuporn is a highly respected and capable leader in the UDD/RS Movement, and is accordingl;y on the front line of anti-coup vigilance.

Expect his warnings to continue unabated.

"humongous" "supreme" "prodigious" ... "BS" comes to mind.

[AleG]

An abundance of supercilious verbiage and exuberance of byzantine phraseology a worthier argument does not constitute.

[Reasonableman]

An abundance of supercilious verbiage and exuberance of byzantine phraseology a worthier argument does not constitute.

But a spell check would at least give it some faint resemblance to an educated & informed opinion, rather than recycled verbal diarrhea.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Reasonableman

[CalgaryII]

An abundance of supercilious verbiage and exuberance of byzantine phraseology a worthier argument does not constitute.

What about what I said.

Impressive vocabulary though.

LOL!

[AleG]

An abundance of supercilious verbiage and exuberance of byzantine phraseology a worthier argument does not constitute.

What about what I said.

Impressive vocabulary though.

LOL!

What you said is a justification for Jatuporn to constantly crying about an impending coup. As he seems to do every 2 or 3 months for the last two years or so. His "evidence" that he claims to have never materializes.

He's a proven liar, the doctored audio tape of Abhisit ordering the killing of Red Shirts is sufficient proof.

His job as UDD windbag is to keep the people in a constant state of anger and fear with his recurrent coup conspiracies and thus easily manipulated.

If he is "highly respected" among the Red Shirts that goes a long way on showing the moral character of the movement.

[CalgaryII]

Nisa, 405

They represent communism or socialism at best ... don't be naive. This is neither a negative or positive comment but just a realistic one.

Tlansford, #405

I don't deny what your observations were, however, when I have seen large red shirt rallies, I have not seen the same thing at all.

As a historical point, the color red doesn't have anything to do with communism for the red shirts. It was a color of shirt used by a group led by a student activist who had previously founded the September 19th group which was then subsequently take as the color for the movement as a whole. Red + communism is a coincidence. As you probably know, the Thai people have many traditions around colors; colors for your birthday, lucky colors, etc.

Let me add some additional thoughts to the above in the way of clarification.

I had originally simply dismissed this photo as just another example of Oppositional types projecting the Oppositional agenda of contemptuousness toward their political opposites, while demonstrating their own arrogance, conceit and Political sense of self-importance.

All of the above is true, but now let me focus on the photo. A photo carefully selected to slander and villify the dominant Political Movement in Thailand.

My perception of this Red Shirt friend, is that he is part of a non-recognized, small splinter group of Red Shirts.

They are not allowed on the UDD stage.

His T-shirt and cap are the clue's"

• His T-shirt originates with a group whose singular focus is on a specific law.
  
• The leader of that group is in fact a previous Communist operative, and is currently incarcerated for contravening that law.
  

However, this cap is worn by many Red Shirts not because of affinity for Communism as the Opposition would like to assert in their campaign to characterize those taxpayers who stood up to their coup, as being anarchic and anti-social while whitewashing their armed aggressors.

But it is worn as a manifestation of rebellion against the status quo, in the way many display the image of that Cuban revolutionary leader Che Guavara.

Those displaying Che's image are not necesarily revolutionaries, but like to project an image of non-conformity, in a similar vein as those displaying the USA Southern revolutionary flag.

It is an in-your-face sign to the Opposition, that Thai citizens will not be forced into conforming to their agenda, as they tried to force with their coup.

My personal opinion of Che Guevara is that he was a real asshol_e. He was most distraught when there wasn't an exchange of nuclear weapons during the Cuban missile crisis, and that instead there was accomodation. Talk about an extreme idiot.

Edited February 21, 2012 by CalgaryII

[whybother]

His T-shirt and cap are the clue's"

• His T-shirt originates with a group whose singular focus is on an archaic and anachronistic law.
  
• The leader of that group is in fact a previous Communist operative, and is currently incarcerated for contravening that law.
  

I might be missing something, but how which group's singular focus is on an archaic and anachronistic law has a hammer and sickle on their t-shirts (or anywhere else)?

[CalgaryII]

Nisa, #408

Which leads back to my comment that they are either morons or communists leaning.

It amazes me how comfortable and self-assured some people who have never been among Red Shirts in a meaningful way, will parrot the Oppositional characterization of them as if it had merit.

Farangs who dump on the mainstream Red Shirt Movement and its people, are just mimicking and chanting Oppositional characterizations designed to besmirch and disparage those who are their political opposites.

In exactly the same way they portray those citizens who stood up to their coup, as being anarchic and anti-social, opposing their angelic pro-coup aggressors.

It is why I can extremely confidently state that those who come echo and mime the Oppsosition this way, have never been near the Red Shirts in a meaningful way.....absolutely confidently.

Edited February 21, 2012 by CalgaryII

[Insight]

An abundance of supercilious verbiage and exuberance of byzantine phraseology a worthier argument does not constitute.

What about what I said.

Impressive vocabulary though.

LOL!

What you said is a justification for Jatuporn to constantly crying about an impending coup. As he seems to do every 2 or 3 months for the last two years or so. His "evidence" that he claims to have never materializes.

He's a proven liar, the doctored audio tape of Abhisit ordering the killing of Red Shirts is sufficient proof.

His job as UDD windbag is to keep the people in a constant state of anger and fear with his recurrent coup conspiracies and thus easily manipulated.

If he is "highly respected" among the Red Shirts that goes a long way on showing the moral character of the movement.

He's not the only highly respected leader full of denials:

Mr Nattawut denied ordering his followers to burn Bangkok as the military closed in.

"I didn't order red shirts to burn the place. The video clip was doctored. If anyone accuses me as such, I will sue to prove that in court."

You'll have to Google the source owing to forum rules.

[ianf]

Nisa, #408

Which leads back to my comment that they are either morons or communists leaning.

It amazes me how comfortable and self-assured some people who have never been among Red Shirts in a meaningful way, will parrot the Oppositional characterization of them as if it had merit.

Farangs who dump on the mainstream Red Shirt Movement and its people, are just mimicking and chanting Oppositional characterizations designed to besmirch and disparage those who are their political opposites.

In exactly the same way they portray those citizens who stood up to their coup, as being anarchic and anti-social, opposing their angelic pro-coup aggressors.

It is why I can extremely confidently state that those who come echo and mime the Oppsosition this way, have never been near the Red Shirts in a meaningful way.....absolutely confidently.

Oh Yeah? lol

[ianf]

lots of unnecessary stuff at the begin (IMHO) removed ...

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.

Reading this somehow I immediately think of Pheu Thai party list MP and UDD leader k. Jatuporn. Beats me why

Very perceptive and very correct.

The UDD/RS are extremely vigilant about protecting the Government they elected.

History shows the absence of such vigilance with no credible opposing political movement, has had predictable results.

The protection of Ms. Y and her Govt. these people feel a need to provide, was a major motivator for the humongous flood relief efforts these people launched during the flood crisis.

While they were engaged in a supreme effort in this regard, the Opposition enegaged in equally prodigious efforts at disparaging Govt initiatives via their incessant FROC-flogging.

While one side of the political divide was positively supporting, the other was negatively tearing down.

Jatuporn is a highly respected and capable leader in the UDD/RS Movement, and is accordingl;y on the front line of anti-coup vigilance.

Expect his warnings to continue unabated.

Thank you cagaryll, I have noted that you and you alone have a monopoly on truth

[waza]

Nisa, #408

Which leads back to my comment that they are either morons or communists leaning.

It amazes me how comfortable and self-assured some people who have never been among Red Shirts in a meaningful way, will parrot the Oppositional characterization of them as if it had merit.

Farangs who dump on the mainstream Red Shirt Movement and its people, are just mimicking and chanting Oppositional characterizations designed to besmirch and disparage those who are their political opposites.

In exactly the same way they portray those citizens who stood up to their coup, as being anarchic and anti-social, opposing their angelic pro-coup aggressors.

It is why I can extremely confidently state that those who come echo and mime the Oppsosition this way, have never been near the Red Shirts in a meaningful way.....absolutely confidently.

Sorry CalgaryII, but your constant Amsterdam verbatim is repeated ad nauseum and lacks credibility to the point where I no longer read them.