Thai Democrats Blocking Reconciliation: Natthawut

[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

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.

Sorry your response is just a rant......

[geriatrickid]

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.

Yes, quite good. I concur. Thai people think so too judging from her increasing popularity reported in polling.

[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.

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?

Yes I think we established that Yingluck won and Abhisit lost at the polls, some time ago, and whilst i do feel that PTP's tactics in both the use of a banned politician as their effective leader, and the use of blatant campaign lies, would on another occasion have got them in trouble, and did contribute significantly to the number of seats they won, what is done is done, and the time is to move on, accepting what they got away with. I certainly would not support a group taking to the streets of Bangkok and overrunning the place, burning things down, or taking over international airports, in protest, although i would accept that if they did, their grounds for doing so would be at least as valid as the grounds the red shirts had in 2010.

Yingluck can consider herself lucky that unlike her predecessor, she doesn't have a billionaire convicted on the run criminal funding and leading an insurrection against her.

[rixalex]

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?

Who is arguing that the Dems campaign wasn't a poor, disorganised failure?

Just because PTP's campaign owed a lot to blatant lying, doesn't suddenly make the Dems campaign a stellar one.

[rixalex]

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.

Sorry your response is just a rant......

Yours is a cop out.

[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.

Yes, quite good. I concur. Thai people think so too judging from her increasing popularity reported in polling.

Some people i'm sure would swoon to see her tying her own laces in the morning. The recent FCCT event was evidence that those people do certainly exist.

I guess in a world in which the likes of the Tellytubbies and the Clangers can hit the top of the charts, nothing should surprise us.

[Siripon]

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?

Who is arguing that the Dems campaign wasn't a poor, disorganised failure?

Just because PTP's campaign owed a lot to blatant lying, doesn't suddenly make the Dems campaign a stellar one.

The Democrats' campaign was run by Korbsak and was a failure, as was his supervision of the Sufficiency Economy commnunity fund which ended up being plagued by corruption. Apparently Apisit still has faith in him, unlike some of his colleagues.

[473geo]

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.

Sorry your response is just a rant......

Yours is a cop out.

You see something new in his post... usual release of random thought....did you even read it?

[Siripon]

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.

Sorry your response is just a rant......

Yours is a cop out.

You see something new in his post... usual release of random thought....did you even read it?

His post is spot on,Thaksin and every Thai who knows their history know that it's almost impoosible for a Thai government to survive after deaths during demonstrations. He absolutely needed some martyrs and of course they've used the deaths in every occasion possible since then to try to discredit the Democrat government.

But educated Thais saw through his cynical game.

[473geo]

His post is spot on,Thaksin and every Thai who knows their history know that it's almost impoosible for a Thai government to survive after deaths during demonstrations. He absolutely needed some martyrs and of course they've used the deaths in every occasion possible since then to try to discredit the Democrat government.

But educated Thais saw through his cynical game.

If Abhisit had dissolved the house there and then there would have been no deaths......correct?

If Abhisit had dissolved the house he may have stood a good chance of re-election........

Why did the educated Thai not advise Abhisit take this route instead of sending in the troops? Given what you have stated above

And try this for size....I believe that dissolving the house immediately was the course of action that was favoured by Abhisit.........

[rixalex]

You see something new in his post... usual release of random thought....did you even read it?

I don't see much of anything new in your posts.

Yes i did read it. As Siriporn says, it is spot on. It answers to your suggestion that defaced Democrat posters during the last election reflected a general public mood of outrage at the clampdown. It did not. It reflected part of an ongoing campaign of violence and intimidation, led and funded by Thaksin. In this case he used the death of red shirts - deaths for which he bears significant responsibility - for political point scoring.

[473geo]

You see something new in his post... usual release of random thought....did you even read it?

I don't see much of anything new in your posts.

Yes i did read it. As Siriporn says, it is spot on. It answers to your suggestion that defaced Democrat posters during the last election reflected a general public mood of outrage at the clampdown. It did not. It reflected part of an ongoing campaign of violence and intimidation, led and funded by Thaksin. In this case he used the death of red shirts - deaths for which he bears significant responsibility - for political point scoring.

Wait a minute!!

Did this discussion not start out with you stating it was the populist policies that got PTP elected...not the fatalities at the protest.......

[rixalex]

If Abhisit had dissolved the house there and then there would have been no deaths......correct?

If Abhisit had dissolved the house he may have stood a good chance of re-election........

Why did the educated Thai not advise Abhisit take this route instead of sending in the troops? Given what you have stated above

And try this for size....I believe that dissolving the house immediately was the course of action that was favoured by Abhisit.........

Conceding to the demands of a small violent group that had taken Bangkok hostage, would have only perpetuated the cycle of mob rule.

It's something similar to the moral quandary of paying hostage takers for the release of a hostage. It saves one life, but puts ten more in danger.

Abhisit's mistake, in my view, was not calling elections of his own accord, shortly after he took power. Once the red shirts decided to try and use violence and intimidation to force him into the decision, i think it became his duty for the sake of not just him, but the sake of all future PMs and all future governments, to tell them to go to h3ll. Being the polite and diplomatic man that he is, he didn't do that. Instead he offered them what amounted to a massive compromise on his part, and a small compromise on the part of the reds. No, they couldn't have immediate elections, but his term of about 18 months would be slashed to 3. The reds should have shaken his hand on the deal and packed up and gone home. I'm sure if the reds had been able to make the decision for themselves and their families, that is exactly what they would have done. But it wasn't their decision, it was Thaksin's, and he was ready and willing to sacrifice some lives. Yes that would be awfully sad for him, but on the bright side, it would do a wonderful job of showing to the world, what he had been trying to tell everyone since going on the run, what a horrible and evil bunch were behind his downfall.

[473geo]

If Abhisit had dissolved the house there and then there would have been no deaths......correct?

If Abhisit had dissolved the house he may have stood a good chance of re-election........

Why did the educated Thai not advise Abhisit take this route instead of sending in the troops? Given what you have stated above

And try this for size....I believe that dissolving the house immediately was the course of action that was favoured by Abhisit.........

Conceding to the demands of a small violent group that had taken Bangkok hostage, would have only perpetuated the cycle of mob rule.

It's something similar to the moral quandary of paying hostage takers for the release of a hostage. It saves one life, but puts ten more in danger.

Abhisit's mistake, in my view, was not calling elections of his own accord, shortly after he took power. Once the red shirts decided to try and use violence and intimidation to force him into the decision, i think it became his duty for the sake of not just him, but the sake of all future PMs and all future governments, to tell them to go to h3ll. Being the polite and diplomatic man that he is, he didn't do that. Instead he offered them what amounted to a massive compromise on his part, and a small compromise on the part of the reds. No, they couldn't have immediate elections, but his term of about 18 months would be slashed to 3. The reds should have shaken his hand on the deal and packed up and gone home. I'm sure if the reds had been able to make the decision for themselves and their families, that is exactly what they would have done. But it wasn't their decision, it was Thaksin's, and he was ready and willing to sacrifice some lives. Yes that would be awfully sad for him, but on the bright side, it would do a wonderful job of showing to the world, what he had been trying to tell everyone since going on the run, what a horrible and evil bunch were behind his downfall.

If the 'educated' Thai and the government anticipated the conflict the likelyhood of deaths........and did not do everything within their power to avoid this scenario are they not culpable?

Can you tell me what was gained by not dissolving the house immediately and setting an election date

Sometimes extraordinary circumstances require a little thinking outside the box, this was a highly volatile and escalating situation

[rixalex]

Wait a minute!!

Did this discussion not start out with you stating it was the populist policies that got PTP elected...not the fatalities at the protest.......

I don't believe that the clampdown cost Abhisit a lot of votes. I think a terrible campaign by him and the Dems, combined with an unethical one by PTP, was what swung it. None of the above contradicts that view. Yes Thaksin tried to use the deaths to discredit the Dems, and part of this attempt by him was to fund an operation going around defacing Dem's posters and in the process intimidate anyone who dared support them - but did the deaths and the way the Dems dealt with the protesters play a major part in the way people voted? In my opinion, no.

[rixalex]

Conceding to the demands of a small violent group that had taken Bangkok hostage, would have only perpetuated the cycle of mob rule.

It's something similar to the moral quandary of paying hostage takers for the release of a hostage. It saves one life, but puts ten more in danger.

Abhisit's mistake, in my view, was not calling elections of his own accord, shortly after he took power. Once the red shirts decided to try and use violence and intimidation to force him into the decision, i think it became his duty for the sake of not just him, but the sake of all future PMs and all future governments, to tell them to go to h3ll. Being the polite and diplomatic man that he is, he didn't do that. Instead he offered them what amounted to a massive compromise on his part, and a small compromise on the part of the reds. No, they couldn't have immediate elections, but his term of about 18 months would be slashed to 3. The reds should have shaken his hand on the deal and packed up and gone home. I'm sure if the reds had been able to make the decision for themselves and their families, that is exactly what they would have done. But it wasn't their decision, it was Thaksin's, and he was ready and willing to sacrifice some lives. Yes that would be awfully sad for him, but on the bright side, it would do a wonderful job of showing to the world, what he had been trying to tell everyone since going on the run, what a horrible and evil bunch were behind his downfall.

If the 'educated' Thai and the government anticipated the conflict the likelyhood of deaths........and did not do everything within their power to avoid this scenario are they not culpable?

Can you tell me what was gained by not dissolving the house immediately and setting an election date

Sometimes extraordinary circumstances require a little thinking outside the box, this was a highly volatile and escalating situation

All your points raised i addressed above.

In the UK just recently, the government refused to pay a ransom to free a citizen from Somali hostage takers. Her own family had to find the money. Supposing they hadn't been able to, and supposing the hostage had been killed? Would that make the UK government culpable for not having done everything in their power to avoid it? Perhaps they would have been, but the trade for paying the ransom, may well have been ten other lives down the road, as hostage taking became more popular.

Supporting the idea that mob rule should win whatever demands they care to make, on the basis that short term, it might save some lives, complete overlooks the long term consequences of that capitulation.

[473geo]

Conceding to the demands of a small violent group that had taken Bangkok hostage, would have only perpetuated the cycle of mob rule.

It's something similar to the moral quandary of paying hostage takers for the release of a hostage. It saves one life, but puts ten more in danger.

Abhisit's mistake, in my view, was not calling elections of his own accord, shortly after he took power. Once the red shirts decided to try and use violence and intimidation to force him into the decision, i think it became his duty for the sake of not just him, but the sake of all future PMs and all future governments, to tell them to go to h3ll. Being the polite and diplomatic man that he is, he didn't do that. Instead he offered them what amounted to a massive compromise on his part, and a small compromise on the part of the reds. No, they couldn't have immediate elections, but his term of about 18 months would be slashed to 3. The reds should have shaken his hand on the deal and packed up and gone home. I'm sure if the reds had been able to make the decision for themselves and their families, that is exactly what they would have done. But it wasn't their decision, it was Thaksin's, and he was ready and willing to sacrifice some lives. Yes that would be awfully sad for him, but on the bright side, it would do a wonderful job of showing to the world, what he had been trying to tell everyone since going on the run, what a horrible and evil bunch were behind his downfall.

If the 'educated' Thai and the government anticipated the conflict the likelyhood of deaths........and did not do everything within their power to avoid this scenario are they not culpable?

Can you tell me what was gained by not dissolving the house immediately and setting an election date

Sometimes extraordinary circumstances require a little thinking outside the box, this was a highly volatile and escalating situation

All your points raised i addressed above.

In the UK just recently, the government refused to pay a ransom to free a citizen from Somali hostage takers. Her own family had to find the money. Supposing they hadn't been able to, and supposing the hostage had been killed? Would that make the UK government culpable for not having done everything in their power to avoid it? Perhaps they would have been, but the trade for paying the ransom, may well have been ten other lives down the road, as hostage taking became more popular.

Supporting the idea that mob rule should win whatever demands they care to make, on the basis that short term, it might save some lives, complete overlooks the long term consequences of that capitulation.

If you choose to make decisions that are highly likely to condemn people to death, you must accept being culpable, if you choose to support such a stance with a view to avoid any repetition in the future so be it.........you will risk being held responsible for attempting to protect the future from similar occurences in favour of loss of life

But given the amount of protests in Thailand over recent years one could be forgiven for thinking the propensity for demonstrations has not declined whatever the conclusion, or loss of life

[rixalex]

If you choose to make decisions that are highly likely to condemn people to death, you must accept being culpable, if you choose to support such a stance with a view to avoid any repetition in the future so be it.........you will risk being held responsible for attempting to protect the future from similar occurences in favour of loss of life

But given the amount of protests in Thailand over recent years one could be forgiven for thinking the propensity for demonstrations has not declined whatever the conclusion, or loss of life

I think there was a high chance, had Abhisit folded to the protesters demands and organised immediate elections, that with the heightened state of unrest, the elections would have been fraught with irregularities (more irregularities than usual i mean!) and difficulties, and whatever the result would have been, it would have been contested by the losing side as being unfair, and that would have led to a new round of street protests; protesters fuelled in the knowledge that if you create sufficient disruption, there will be those echoing your sentiments of "if the government doesn't give in to what the protesters want, blood will be on the government's hands",

[473geo]

If you choose to make decisions that are highly likely to condemn people to death, you must accept being culpable, if you choose to support such a stance with a view to avoid any repetition in the future so be it.........you will risk being held responsible for attempting to protect the future from similar occurences in favour of loss of life

But given the amount of protests in Thailand over recent years one could be forgiven for thinking the propensity for demonstrations has not declined whatever the conclusion, or loss of life

I think there was a high chance, had Abhisit folded to the protesters demands and organised immediate elections, that with the heightened state of unrest, the elections would have been fraught with irregularities (more irregularities than usual i mean!) and difficulties, and whatever the result would have been, it would have been contested by the losing side as being unfair, and that would have led to a new round of street protests; protesters fuelled in the knowledge that if you create sufficient disruption, there will be those echoing your sentiments of "if the government doesn't give in to what the protesters want, blood will be on the government's hands",

I don't think a hypothetical 'high chance' quite balances out a decision to follow a path that leads to escalated confrontation and certain deaths........and according to many plays right into the hands of your opponent..

I also don't think Abhisit made that decision either....do you?

[TAWP]

Never negotiate with terrorists.

[473geo]

Never negotiate with terrorists.

I believe negotiation resolved the IRA bombing problem, that was taking innocent lives.....

[rixalex]

I don't think a hypothetical 'high chance' quite balances out a decision to follow a path that leads to escalated confrontation and certain deaths........and according to many plays right into the hands of your opponent..

What you support is the state capitulating whenever it is being threatened with lives being lost. I don't share your support for that path.

I also don't think Abhisit made that decision either....do you?

To be honest, i don't know. I suspect, nor do you.

[473geo]

I don't think a hypothetical 'high chance' quite balances out a decision to follow a path that leads to escalated confrontation and certain deaths........and according to many plays right into the hands of your opponent..

What you support is the state capitulating whenever it is being threatened with lives being lost. I don't share your support for that path.

I also don't think Abhisit made that decision either....do you?

To be honest, i don't know. I suspect, nor do you.

I think there is a 'high chance' don't you?

[rixalex]

I think there is a 'high chance' don't you?

Anything is possible.

[rixalex]

Never negotiate with terrorists.

I believe negotiation resolved the IRA bombing problem, that was taking innocent lives.....

I hate it but accept that, regretfully, negotiation with terrorists can be a solution... but negotiation can only begin once violence is taken off the table. All the while terrorists are saying, "you do this, or we'll bomb, kill, burn etc" negotiation is not possible. Folding to demands is, and that is no way forward.

[tlansford]

Never negotiate with terrorists.

the red shirts are not terrorists.

But that is a common line of argument...

[TAWP]

Never negotiate with terrorists.

the red shirts are not terrorists.

But that is a common line of argument...

If you place bombs, shoot grenades, attack innocent and spread terror at civilian locations then you are by definition terrorists.

[CalgaryII]

Could 'reconciliation' and "negotiation" be considered close functional cousins?.....Negotiation did not occur at R'song when one considers the sequence:..... an offer>>>>acceptance subject to modification>>>>an armed response rendering the aforementioned offer a mafia one......... If reconciliation was impossible then, how can it be possible now?....... It cannot, imho.

Political protesters do not terrorists make, although those they protest against will have a number of less-than-complimentary characterizations of them to be sure - terrorists being a mild one and self-servingly portraying them as anarchistic another one.

Maybe when all was said and done, the voters in their wisdom aligned things correctly, which may be a form of reconciliation in its' effect.

Edited March 31, 2012 by CalgaryII

[AleG]

Could 'reconciliation' and "negotiation" be considered close functional cousins?.....Negotiation did not occur at R'song when one considers the sequence:..... an offer>>>>acceptance subject to modification>>>>an armed response rendering the aforementioned offer a mafia one......... If reconciliation was impossible then, how can it be possible now?....... It cannot, imho.

Political protesters do not terrorists make, although those they protest against will have a number of less-than-complimentary characterizations of them to be sure - terrorists being a mild one and self-servingly portraying them as anarchistic another one.

Maybe when all was said and done, the voters in their wisdom aligned things correctly, which may be a form of reconciliation in its' effect.

BS, as usual.

The negotiation happened on live TV, so simply making up stuff is not going to work.

[WackySomchai]

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?

The parrott was handed the job beacuse she is a parrott of the fugitive fuhrer.