Thai Democrats Blocking Reconciliation: Natthawut

[geriatrickid]

You are presumably referring to the drugs war with its needless killings, certainly the blackest mark against Thaksin given his personal direction of it.However there has never been a suggestion that he faces charges for reasons everybody is familiar with notably the almost universal support of the Thai people including the ruling class.Doesn't excuse it but is certainly relevant.

To me, whether a policy has widespread support or not, makes no difference whatsoever to the level of culpability bestowed on those who actually get to sit down and study the idea, and then implement it, should it turn out being a morally bankrupt idea. The public does not sit down and study with all the facts at hand. The public is presented with carefully crafted sound bites that ignore any potential problems, and simply highlight potential benefits. If someone tells you that they have a plan to come down hard on drug dealers, and if necessary use lethal force to get drugs off the streets, who wouldn't like the sound of that? This is what the Thai public was presented with, and who would blame them for liking the idea? Now, what they were presented with, and what actually transpired, were two very different things. What actually happened, was that a good number of entirely innocent people were killed, and a good number of other people were killed simply to settle scores, or in order to clear the path for new dealers.

Should the public have known that this would happen? No, i don't think it is the public's job to think through every possible eventuality. This is what the politicians are paid to do.

Should the public in some way share the blame with those who implemented the policy? This is what you seem to suggest. If you are not suggesting the blame be shared, you are surely at the very least suggesting the blame be lessened for those at the top. To me, this is a complete nonsense.

Incidentally, I think you would have found, were people polled at the time, that there was the same widespread support for the government using whatever means necessary to clear the streets of Bangkok of red protesters in 2010, as there was widespread support for the "war on drugs". For me, in both cases, a complete irrelevance.

The drug war has been discussed ad nauseum. Mr. Thaksin was cleared. Many of the deaths blamed on the government were druggies settling scores or killing non implicated persons. The drug cartels were engaged in a well funded insurrection. The police and the military carried out the drug war and they were in charge of all operations. Those very same officials went on to loyally serve successive governments including Abhisit's democrats who took no action.

[rixalex]

The drug war has been discussed ad nauseum. Mr. Thaksin was cleared. Many of the deaths blamed on the government were druggies settling scores or killing non implicated persons. The drug cartels were engaged in a well funded insurrection. The police and the military carried out the drug war and they were in charge of all operations. Those very same officials went on to loyally serve successive governments including Abhisit's democrats who took no action.

Thaksin has been cleared? On what grounds do you say that? Do you think a full and thorough enquiry with power to actually bring anyone to justice has ever been undertaken? I don't think it has. And why? Well obviously because it would implicate a lot of people, not only Thaksin. Do we take that to mean that Thaksin is innocent? It seems you do. Or at least, if you don't think he is innocent, you are happy from him to evade facing justice on the basis and justification that if others don't pay the price for what happened, then nor should he. It's a warped direction to be looking at it from, but one that surprises me not the least.

[jayboy]

Should the public in some way share the blame with those who implemented the policy? This is what you seem to suggest. If you are not suggesting the blame be shared, you are surely at the very least suggesting the blame be lessened for those at the top. To me, this is a complete nonsense.

Incidentally, I think you would have found, were people polled at the time, that there was the same widespread support for the government using whatever means necessary to clear the streets of Bangkok of red protesters in 2010, as there was widespread support for the "war on drugs". For me, in both cases, a complete irrelevance.

I am not suggesting that at all as I would have thought was clear from my earlier post.The drugs war was the worst by a considerable distance of Thaksin's abuses of power.My point in emphasizing popular support doesn't diminish Thaksin's responsibility or the seriousness of the matter.Critical however was the support of all sections of the ruling class, the same elements that moved heaven and earth in the attempt (unsuccessful as it turned out) to destroy Thaksin.You shoiuld perhaps ponder the significance of why one never hears of serious efforts by the amart to pursue Thaksin for these crimes.It's only the very naive - we have a history of this on this forum - who think Thaksin will ever be called to account for this.The other issue is that there is little patience in Thailand for those who underestimate the misery caused by drugs - mainly speed - at all levels of society.

As to the clearance of redshirt protestors I think your estimation of popular support is just wrong.Among the Bangkok middle classes, probably but they are not representative.I don't think if there was the popular revulsion you suggest political parties representing redshirts and Thaksin would win general elections again and again.

[rixalex]

I am not suggesting that at all as I would have thought was clear from my earlier post.The drugs war was the worst by a considerable distance of Thaksin's abuses of power.My point in emphasizing popular support doesn't diminish Thaksin's responsibility or the seriousness of the matter.Critical however was the support of all sections of the ruling class, the same elements that moved heaven and earth in the attempt (unsuccessful as it turned out) to destroy Thaksin.You shoiuld perhaps ponder the significance of why one never hears of serious efforts by the amart to pursue Thaksin for these crimes.It's only the very naive - we have a history of this on this forum - who think Thaksin will ever be called to account for this.The other issue is that there is little patience in Thailand for those who underestimate the misery caused by drugs - mainly speed - at all levels of society.

I don't think that i am under any illusions as to why Thaksin has not been brought to justice in this matter. I thought i had made that clear.

As to the clearance of redshirt protestors I think your estimation of popular support is just wrong.Among the Bangkok middle classes, probably but they are not representative.I don't think if there was the popular revulsion you suggest political parties representing redshirts and Thaksin would win general elections again and again.

There was in my opinion strong support, and not just amongst Bangkok middle classes, for those protesters to be forcably evicted and for the authorities to stop dithering. Now had all the eventualities been spelt out, like people being shot, perhaps support wouldn't have been as strong, but this goes back to what i was saying about how a government presents matters and how that makes bringing strength of public support into the argument a complete waste of time - an irrelevance.

As for using Thaksin's success at the polls as an indication of what people were thinking in the midst of all the red protest chaos in 2010, with regards how authorities dealt with it, i think it is you who is being naive here about what motivated people to vote the way they did.

[phiphidon]

Thaksin has been cleared? On what grounds do you say that? Do you think a full and thorough enquiry with power to actually bring anyone to justice has ever been undertaken? I don't think it has. And why? Well obviously because it would implicate a lot of people, not only Thaksin. Do we take that to mean that Thaksin is innocent? It seems you do. Or at least, if you don't think he is innocent, you are happy from him to evade facing justice on the basis and justification that if others don't pay the price for what happened, then nor should he. It's a warped direction to be looking at it from, but one that surprises me not the least.

The Thai government said on Thursday it was reopening an investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killings of 2,500 people during former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's "war on drugs".

The decision comes as Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's administration seeks Thaksin's extradition on terrorism charges linked to recent deadly street protests by the anti-government "Red Shirts"

.

Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga said the probe could lead to the prosecution of the fugitive ex-premier through the International Criminal Court, but he denied the move was politically motivated."It is nothing to do with politics or trying to maliciously act against anyone, but eventually there will be prosecutions of anybody held responsible, either inside or outside Thailand," he said.

The investigation was launched after Thaksin was ousted in a 2006 coup, but was never completed.

The initial findings suggested 1,200 people were killed in incidents unrelated to the drugs trade.

Pirapan said he would ask a former attorney-general, Kampee Kaewcharoen, to lead the revived probe.

"I hope the investigation will not take very long because the previous committee has already investigated to some extent," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jkgwiJd2dfQTrnSIIIlE_KO7oAiA

There has been three investigations carried out but no conclusions to link Thaksin or his government with extrajudicial killings. The Human Rights Watch put forward the idea that the second report had been tampered with to remove names.

However their impartiality can be thought to be questionable (and not just in this matter) due to their colluding with the military, through a high up figure, in a cover up of military involvement. I can only suggest you look for some cables written in november 2006 for further info.

[jayboy]

As for using Thaksin's success at the polls as an indication of what people were thinking in the midst of all the red protest chaos in 2010, with regards how authorities dealt with it, i think it is you who is being naive here about what motivated people to vote the way they did.

W will just have to agree to differ.If you seriously choose to believe the people of Thailand made a clear decision in favour of a party controlled by Thaksin because of a revulsion against the red shirts it's probably a discussion best held within the tin foil hat community.

[rixalex]

W will just have to agree to differ.If you seriously choose to believe the people of Thailand made a clear decision in favour of a party controlled by Thaksin because of a revulsion against the red shirts it's probably a discussion best held within the tin foil hat community.

Never said or even implied that the people of Thailand made a clear decision in favour of a party controlled by Thaksin because of a revulsion against the red shirts. Don't stoop yourself to making stuff up please.

You were suggesting that poll results and successes for Thaksin in 2011 can be used as some sort of barometer as to the general mood and feeling of the public in 2010 as to how they wished to see the protesters dealt with - or not dealt with as the case may be. I disagreed.

[jayboy]

You were suggesting that poll results and successes for Thaksin in 2011 can be used as some sort of barometer as to the general mood and feeling of the public in 2010 as to how they wished to see the protesters dealt with - or not dealt with as the case may be. I disagreed.

I wasn't speaking of how any group should be "dealt with", simply whether it enjoyed a broad measure of support in the country.You appear to think Yingluck's resounding general election victory has nothing to say on that subject.Difficult lesson to digest for some but perhaps won't surprise who saw in Bangkok the friendly welcome the redshirts received from ordinary people.

[FangFerang]

Can you explain why he's been unable to set foot in his own country please?

Because an illegal, unconstitutional junta, backed by groups of powerful people who had been marginalised by Dr.Thaksin, set up a committee, with state funds, stacked full of his arch enemies with the sole purpose of convicting him , no matter the lack of evidence. Then the court allowed the main prosecution witness, who was implicitly implicated in the trumped up case himself, to give private testimony, banning defence lawyers from the bent judges chambers. And consequently he was systematically, institutionally vilified to a brainwashed public.

That's why?

Is this true? It was a Star Chamber conviction?

Anybody, please let me know if this is fact, not inference. I do know Interpol wants nothing to do with this case, and that is very suspicious. All these events pre-date my stay here in the LOS, and on this forum alone I have read absolutely contradictory information about Thaksin for two years, often cited by people who write intelligently. The polarization is quite emotional and intense. If I lived here ten years I would still be a beginner in learning about Thai culture, much less have a real understanding of the convoluted political landscape, which is murky at best so far to me.

I have no trouble believing that any politician is a lying thief with delusions of grandeur, but I think this is an important point for newcomers to know. If the conviction was a farce, and with directly-involved coup leaders declaring they will take the "truth to the grave" (sic), maybe TIT is a little stranger than I even imagined.

Edited March 30, 2012 by FangFerang

[rixalex]

I wasn't speaking of how any group should be "dealt with",

The parallel that i was drawing, was speaking of precisely that. If you weren't then you obviously weren't paying close enough attention to the point being made:

If it could be proved that the general public mood was in favour of authorities taking decisive action and if needs be, violent action, to bring the red protest of 2010 to an end (i think it had reached the stage where a considerable proportion of the public most certainly was in favour of that), would that have any bearing on the rights or the wrongs of what played out - would it be of any relevance? I think not, because it wasn't the public that was making the decisions. And i apply the exact same principles to the war on drugs.

[rixalex]

You appear to think Yingluck's resounding general election victory has nothing to say on that subject.Difficult lesson to digest for some but perhaps won't surprise who saw in Bangkok the friendly welcome the redshirts received from ordinary people.

You confuse support for a group with support for a group's actions. It is quite possible that a good number of people generally supported what the red movement was trying to achieve (as possibly shown by later poll results in 2011), but did not support the way they took Bangkok hostage, and did support the military forcefully evicting them.

Much in the same way that while a good number of people supported the PAD's general aims, they may well have not supported their airport nonsense, and had it dragged on for weeks and weeks, may well have supported forceful eviction and all that might have entailed.

[Skywalker69]

"The Democrats are not sincere in pushing for reconciliation because of their desire to take revenge on Thaksin," he said.

Shold be read The PTP are sincere to bring back Thaksin so he could take revenge.

[473geo]

I wasn't speaking of how any group should be "dealt with",

The parallel that i was drawing, was speaking of precisely that. If you weren't then you obviously weren't paying close enough attention to the point being made:

If it could be proved that the general public mood was in favour of authorities taking decisive action and if needs be, violent action, to bring the red protest of 2010 to an end (i think it had reached the stage where a considerable proportion of the public most certainly was in favour of that

I think you would struggle to prove a consensus insisting a violent solution was acceptable.....other than those who after the event would like to propogate the inference this was the case....by some way of attempted mitigation.......which as you rightly say has no real bearing on the magnitude of any crime

However is there not the possibilty that the public did indeed accept the drug war deaths more readily than the 2010 'clampdown' fatalities, so their opinion was indeed reflected in the voting?

[sparebox2]

Democrats is opposing King Prajadhipok's Institute.

How dare Mark.

[rixalex]

I think you would struggle to prove a consensus insisting a violent solution was acceptable.....other than those who after the event would like to propogate the inference this was the case....by some way of attempted mitigation.......which as you rightly say has no real bearing on the magnitude of any crime

Well, we are agreed on it having no bearing, so even though i would disagree that a considerable proportion of the population did not think that a violent solution was acceptable - i would say a considerable proportion of the population realised that violence to some degree was inevitable in the process of a forced eviction - let us not waste time on arguing over something we both agree is an irrelavance. Any attempted mitigation of any government act or policy, by use of the argument of large public support, is in my view a nonsense.

However is there not the possibilty that the public did indeed accept the drug war deaths more readily than the 2010 'clampdown' fatalities, so their opinion was indeed reflected in the voting?

You could speculate that, just as i could speculate that without the far-fetched populist policies that PTP ran with, they would not have won the election, and we'd be sitting here wondering whether the vote was a reflection of how the public had supported the clampdown fatalities. The only known truth is, until we travel around the nation and ask every person why they voted the way they did, we'll never know.

[473geo]

I think you would struggle to prove a consensus insisting a violent solution was acceptable.....other than those who after the event would like to propogate the inference this was the case....by some way of attempted mitigation.......which as you rightly say has no real bearing on the magnitude of any crime

Well, we are agreed on it having no bearing, so even though i would disagree that a considerable proportion of the population did not think that a violent solution was acceptable - i would say a considerable proportion of the population realised that violence to some degree was inevitable in the process of a forced eviction - let us not waste time on arguing over something we both agree is an irrelavance. Any attempted mitigation of any government act or policy, by use of the argument of large public support, is in my view a nonsense.

However is there not the possibilty that the public did indeed accept the drug war deaths more readily than the 2010 'clampdown' fatalities, so their opinion was indeed reflected in the voting?

You could speculate that, just as i could speculate that without the far-fetched populist policies that PTP ran with, they would not have won the election, and we'd be sitting here wondering whether the vote was a reflection of how the public had supported the clampdown fatalities. The only known truth is, until we travel around the nation and ask every person why they voted the way they did, we'll never know.

Except the Democrats.....all be it a bit late in the day..... decided they too would raise the minimum wage....but this populist policy obviously did not swing the voters.....so are you placing too much emphasis on the populist poicies?

You are giving PTP the credit for running a smarter election campaign than the Democrats......possibly true.....but in my opinion the clampdown would have swayed some element of voters......in short was the PTP campaign that much superior to the Dems in content, presentation, and delivery.........or did the 2010 crackdown provide a powerful assist.......I'll leave that call up to the individual

[ianf]

You are presumably referring to the drugs war with its needless killings, certainly the blackest mark against Thaksin given his personal direction of it.However there has never been a suggestion that he faces charges for reasons everybody is familiar with notably the almost universal support of the Thai people including the ruling class.Doesn't excuse it but is certainly relevant.

To me, whether a policy has widespread support or not, makes no difference whatsoever to the level of culpability bestowed on those who actually get to sit down and study the idea, and then implement it, should it turn out being a morally bankrupt idea. The public does not sit down and study with all the facts at hand. The public is presented with carefully crafted sound bites that ignore any potential problems, and simply highlight potential benefits. If someone tells you that they have a plan to come down hard on drug dealers, and if necessary use lethal force to get drugs off the streets, who wouldn't like the sound of that? This is what the Thai public was presented with, and who would blame them for liking the idea? Now, what they were presented with, and what actually transpired, were two very different things. What actually happened, was that a good number of entirely innocent people were killed, and a good number of other people were killed simply to settle scores, or in order to clear the path for new dealers.

Should the public have known that this would happen? No, i don't think it is the public's job to think through every possible eventuality. This is what the politicians are paid to do.

Should the public in some way share the blame with those who implemented the policy? This is what you seem to suggest. If you are not suggesting the blame be shared, you are surely at the very least suggesting the blame be lessened for those at the top. To me, this is a complete nonsense.

Incidentally, I think you would have found, were people polled at the time, that there was the same widespread support for the government using whatever means necessary to clear the streets of Bangkok of red protesters in 2010, as there was widespread support for the "war on drugs". For me, in both cases, a complete irrelevance.

The drug war has been discussed ad nauseum. Mr. Thaksin was cleared. Many of the deaths blamed on the government were druggies settling scores or killing non implicated persons. The drug cartels were engaged in a well funded insurrection. The police and the military carried out the drug war and they were in charge of all operations. Those very same officials went on to loyally serve successive governments including Abhisit's democrats who took no action.

It makes me wonder why some of the so-called drug dealers who were eliminated turned out to be opponents of Thaksin.

[ianf]

I think you would struggle to prove a consensus insisting a violent solution was acceptable.....other than those who after the event would like to propogate the inference this was the case....by some way of attempted mitigation.......which as you rightly say has no real bearing on the magnitude of any crime

Well, we are agreed on it having no bearing, so even though i would disagree that a considerable proportion of the population did not think that a violent solution was acceptable - i would say a considerable proportion of the population realised that violence to some degree was inevitable in the process of a forced eviction - let us not waste time on arguing over something we both agree is an irrelavance. Any attempted mitigation of any government act or policy, by use of the argument of large public support, is in my view a nonsense.

However is there not the possibilty that the public did indeed accept the drug war deaths more readily than the 2010 'clampdown' fatalities, so their opinion was indeed reflected in the voting?

You could speculate that, just as i could speculate that without the far-fetched populist policies that PTP ran with, they would not have won the election, and we'd be sitting here wondering whether the vote was a reflection of how the public had supported the clampdown fatalities. The only known truth is, until we travel around the nation and ask every person why they voted the way they did, we'll never know.

Except the Democrats.....all be it a bit late in the day..... decided they too would raise the minimum wage....but this populist policy obviously did not swing the voters.....so are you placing too much emphasis on the populist poicies?

You are giving PTP the credit for running a smarter election campaign than the Democrats......possibly true.....but in my opinion the clampdown would have swayed some element of voters......in short was the PTP campaign that much superior to the Dems in content, presentation, and delivery.........or did the 2010 crackdown provide a powerful assist.......I'll leave that call up to the individual

There was intimidation in the election campaign with many poor villagers frightened of not voting red. Up and down the country nearly every Democrat Party poster was defaced. The promises of higher wages and free computers were all part of a campaign full of subtlety orchestrated by farang PR experts working with the Pied Piper on a scale that could not be matched by the Democrats. I would call it a stolen election, but actually it was done in a very clever way.

[rixalex]

Except the Democrats.....all be it a bit late in the day..... decided they too would raise the minimum wage....but this populist policy obviously did not swing the voters.....so are you placing too much emphasis on the populist poicies?

Perhaps where the Dems went wrong on this issue was in promising something that was realistic and implementable.

[473geo]

Except the Democrats.....all be it a bit late in the day..... decided they too would raise the minimum wage....but this populist policy obviously did not swing the voters.....so are you placing too much emphasis on the populist poicies?

Perhaps where the Dems went wrong on this issue was in promising something that was realistic and implementable.

Nope where they went wrong was following the same line as some of the 'experts' on Tvisa who thought there was no suitable leader for PTP and becoming complacent......then a PTP masterstroke Yingluck emerged.....and the rest is history

I am sure that history is littered with political parties who retained their integrity while knowing this would lead to a loss of the election.......indeed Abhisit was probably instructed by his financial backers "whatever you do, never get elected on ambitious promises, far better to lose and return to the opposition bench"

[hyperdimension]

Except the Democrats.....all be it a bit late in the day..... decided they too would raise the minimum wage....but this populist policy obviously did not swing the voters.....so are you placing too much emphasis on the populist poicies?

Perhaps where the Dems went wrong on this issue was in promising something that was realistic and implementable.

... which was too plain and boring for the masses who want to get rich quick, not slow, regardless of the consequences to the Thai economy.

[animatic]

This coming from someone how worked incredibly hard to create the very divide he comments on.

Hypocrisy 301

Doctoral thesis for advanced class.

Ask not what you can do for your country,

but ask how much graft you can rake off your country.

Edited March 30, 2012 by animatic

[473geo]

There was intimidation in the election campaign with many poor villagers frightened of not voting red. Up and down the country nearly every Democrat Party poster was defaced. The promises of higher wages and free computers were all part of a campaign full of subtlety orchestrated by farang PR experts working with the Pied Piper on a scale that could not be matched by the Democrats. I would call it a stolen election, but actually it was done in a very clever way.

And you can think of no logical reason why the posters containing Abhisit and his followers asking for votes in certain areas might cause offence following the fatalities in the clampdown, is this not a perfect example of how high feelings were running at the time?.....construed as being insignificant by Rixalex

Edited March 30, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Except the Democrats.....all be it a bit late in the day..... decided they too would raise the minimum wage....but this populist policy obviously did not swing the voters.....so are you placing too much emphasis on the populist poicies?

Perhaps where the Dems went wrong on this issue was in promising something that was realistic and implementable.

... which was too plain and boring for the masses who want to get rich quick, not slow, regardless of the consequences to the Thai economy.

Oh well back too the drawing board and the opposition bench, after all taking part is the aim, to win is not essential.....I'm sure the Dems financial backers were satisfied with a defeat

[rixalex]

Nope where they went wrong was following the same line as some of the 'experts' on Tvisa who thought there was no suitable leader for PTP and becoming complacent......then a PTP masterstroke Yingluck emerged.....and the rest is history

Some people certainly did misjudge the way the voting would go. That was proven at the polls. Other people certainly did misjudge the job that Yingluck was capable of doing. That is being proven by her performance.

[rixalex]

Oh well back too the drawing board and the opposition bench, after all taking part is the aim, to win is not essential.....I'm sure the Dems financial backers were satisfied with a defeat

I don't think they were satisfied with defeat, i think they were disatisfied that PTP got away with what appeared to be blatant breaking of electoral laws.

[473geo]

Nope where they went wrong was following the same line as some of the 'experts' on Tvisa who thought there was no suitable leader for PTP and becoming complacent......then a PTP masterstroke Yingluck emerged.....and the rest is history

Some people certainly did misjudge the way the voting would go. That was proven at the polls. Other people certainly did misjudge the job that Yingluck was capable of doing. That is being proven by her performance.

Yingluck was handed the job of getting PTP elected, Abhisit was given the job of getting the Dems elected.......

Yingluck 1 Abhisit 0 ..........I think don't you?

Edited March 30, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Oh well back too the drawing board and the opposition bench, after all taking part is the aim, to win is not essential.....I'm sure the Dems financial backers were satisfied with a defeat

I don't think they were satisfied with defeat, i think they were disatisfied that PTP got away with what appeared to be blatant breaking of electoral laws.

Bitter and disappointed are probably the words you are looking for........lost and looking to blame others......obviously cannot learn by their mistakes if they cannot acknowledge a poor, disorganised, failure of a campaign......doesn't look good does it?

[TAWP]

"I think it is time to put Thailand before the bickering over Thaksin-related issues," he said.

One way of doing that is to leave Thaksin out of any discussion relating to reconciliation.

Leave Thaksin in Dubai. Stop visiting him or ringing him up every five minutes. Then you can move forward and put Thailand before the bickering over Thaksin-related issues.

Why is it, then, that The Nation & Co. talk about Thaksin 10x to 20x more often than Voice TV ???

IMO, the Dems bring him up at every opportunity.

Why ?

I watch Voice TV at times and have connections to them professionally - and I don't agree with your assessment.

[ianf]

There was intimidation in the election campaign with many poor villagers frightened of not voting red. Up and down the country nearly every Democrat Party poster was defaced. The promises of higher wages and free computers were all part of a campaign full of subtlety orchestrated by farang PR experts working with the Pied Piper on a scale that could not be matched by the Democrats. I would call it a stolen election, but actually it was done in a very clever way.

And you can think of no logical reason why the posters containing Abhisit and his followers asking for votes in certain areas might cause offence following the fatalities in the clampdown, is this not a perfect example of how high feelings were running at the time?.....construed as being insignificant by Rixalex

Most people know that the Reds went marching to Bangkok threatening mayhem. You only have to look at a recent video clip on this forum to see first hand evidence of what was threatened. Abhisit showed incredible patience but once the reds started burning, looting and shooting then the Government hand no option but to disperse the mobs. It was a "come on" by the red leadership and off course the cowards then used their own people as cannon fodder. So I don't believe for one minute that there were spontaneous acts against Democrat posters - their destruction was pa rt of an organised campaign of intimidation.