Bangkok: Huge Turnout Expected At Red-Shirt Rally Today

[phiphidon]

Its your lack of any such statement, over the past year, that is far more damning, actually.

I beg to differ but I'm not going to waste time trying to tell you otherwise.

Its your lack of any such statement, over the past year, that is far more damning, actually.

Your opinion and you're welcome to it, doesn't make it the truth though.

[SomTumTiger]

Its your lack of any such statement, over the past year, that is far more damning, actually.

I beg to differ but I'm not going to waste time trying to tell you otherwise.

Its your lack of any such statement, over the past year, that is far more damning, actually.

Your opinion and you're welcome to it, doesn't make it the truth though.

If only the reverse were also true...lol

[rubl]

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

You lost any legitimacy of knowledge in the first line, let alone the rest of your sentence.

Second line, PPD. Also rather than 'lost legitimacy of knowledge' I'd say opinionated and somewhat ignorant

[philw]

one sentence only:

Giles is not a journalist, he's an academic, and a progressive Red Shirt activist - a completely different matter.

So, Giles is not a real red-shirt

""I would question how many per cent of real red shirts use the Internet socially. It might be folks acting stealthily - PAD or even Democrat people, who want to divide us, as we've seen the Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva trying to do," Pheu Thai MP Vorachai said."

No offence, but some posters here are not journalists or even reporters either, just photographers as they have frequently said.

Dear dutch uncle, please bone up on your English language skills.

Nowhere does NN say what you imply.

Your last sentence is pointless venom, sad really.

I didn't realize Rubl was from the Netherlands - cite your source please.

Why not ask him ?

[rubl]

Dear dutch uncle, please bone up on your English language skills.

Nowhere does NN say what you imply.

Your last sentence is pointless venom, sad really.

I didn't realize Rubl was from the Netherlands - cite your source please.

Why not ask him ?

Totally off topic, but by popular request:

Yes, I'm a national from the Netherlands or to paraphrase John F. Kennedy "Ik ben een Nederlander"

[Nisa]

I would have thought with the Reds in power they wouldn't have a need for these occupations of BKK but I guess they are never going to be happy as long as they continue to put this blind trust and worship into their Elite leaders who they believe somehow relate and care about their plight because they provide instant gratification items to win votes without any long term solutions.

[yeeowww]

As I recall the Red Tshirt Gang cried the worst when "nothing happened" in the first year under the previous administration. The point is that there were claims made by Thaksin that specifically gave time tables and which were promised in less than 10 months. Please re-read my post and reply specifically to the questions posed before skirting the issues and asking me what makes me sad about this pathetic government.

" It's been 10 months now and I can tell you that this has been the absolute WORST 10 months of my previous 7 years here."

Judging from the above you arrived in Thailand in July 2005, correct? Now tell me who was PM in the period July 2005 up until the coup in September 2006. Thaksin Shiniwatra is the correct answer.

Now this period, so we're told by the coup supporters, is where Thaksin finally lost it, was acting like an autocrat and the only saviour of democracy was (ironically) a coup to oust him. The subsequent years saw a disastrous military junta government who were politically inept, the Asian Financial Crisis, 2 more governments brought down, a military backed democrat party coalition with corrupt coalition partners installed, street demonstrations put down with Thais killing Thais,

And yet, the previous 10 months have been your worst here?

Absolutely. The downward spiral continues. I was actually hoping for good things after the "clone" was seated... but I was mistaken. My business has posted it's worst numbers in 6 years and no relief in sight. But I suppose you retirees who sit around and do little to nothing each day don't really resonate with the severity of the situation. So where is the Thaksin redemption promised? No where. It's all empty drivel and I am suffering tremendously because of all this Shinawatra stupidity and lunacy. He can deliver nothing to the masses and the sooner he evaporates the better off this country will be.

Ah so it's personal.

Are you kidding me "PP" ?! You just felt compelled to retort with something even if it was as banal as that, scoffing at me because my life has been destroyed because of that jerk Thaksin. Of course it's personal! What about this entire epic catastrophe to Thailand hasn't been personal to each and every person who lives here? All of our lives have been thrown into a tailspin because of him. Hmmm... I wonder if it was personal to any of the rally attendees? I beg you to go ask every single one who went if they were there for personal reasons! Geez... If you can't add something intelligent to the point, please don't say anything at all.

[KunMatt]

Now how about looking in reverse - Have the Red Shirts ever acknowledged that they are responsible for some of the deaths? The DSI claims that at least 12 people were killed by the Red Shirt side. Yet they still play the complete victim asking for justice against authorities but not against members of their own group, their leaders, nor Thaksin who organized it all including the deadly military weapons.

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

You lost any legitimacy of knowledge in the first line, let alone the rest of your sentence.

Why's that then?? It seems like you just like to refute anything which proves the Reds did anything wrong and avoid any debate.

So let' s go through them one by one to hear your version:

Were there 10 or so Reds killed in the burning of Central World?

Was Seh Daeng assassinated inside the Red's safe zone with an accurate one shot to the head after an argument with the Red leaders?

Were there soldiers and civilians shot by Reds and Blacks?

Did the Reds fire grenades into public areas causing chaos?

I believe the answer to these, and many more, is a well known yes. If not, please explain why I have no legitimate knowledge.

Edited May 23, 2012 by KunMatt

[volk666]

For all this talk about red awakening and amazing level of political awareness and discussion they still don nazi t-shirts for their memorials and elect same corrupt rulers.

Some people might be fascinated with all the red achievements but the big picture is that what the reds think does not matter at all. Country is ruled not by street talk and awareness and the decisions that affect even the lives of the same politically active reds are not made at their rallies.

It's not the grassroots change that is important, it's the change among the ruling elites and people put in places of power. Yes, it's nice that in some places red shirts challenge PTP chosen candidates in local elections and they might celebrate it as the first step towards real democracy but they are simply delusional if they think the real power is within their grasp.

They've just been given plastic knives and plastic fruit to fool around with while the adults are running the kitchen.

Even if they think they can just displace the existing elites and put their own people in place and everything will become peachy they are setting themselves for the biggest disappointment of their lives. Soviets and numerous other countries tried that already - it doesn't work.

"Yellows" lived through this stage twenty years ago, they disposed the dictator, selected people of their choice in parliament and even pushed through the 1997 constitution. A whole lot of good it did to them.

Never mind Thaksin, now they are being told to surrender to the will of the red power that, to top if off, speaks with the voice of corrupt politicians they've been fighting with all their lives. Twenty years ago these politicians got power by bribing the rulers with Rolls Royces, now they get power by soliciting support from the masses with the bribes in form of populist policies.

Nothing changed, perhaps politicians got a lot more cynical, that's all.

[rubl]

Only 12??

Just the deaths of the Red Shirts who were killed in their own arson attack of Central World plus the assassination of Seh Daeng is about 12 already before you've even started to count the soldiers, civvies, reporters and their own red shirts that were shot by the reds and blacks, or the people killed and maimed by the grenade attacks.

You lost any legitimacy of knowledge in the first line, let alone the rest of your sentence.

Why's that then?? It seems like you just like to refute anything which proves the Reds did anything wrong and avoid any debate.

So let' s go through them one by one to hear your version:

Were there 10 or so Reds killed in the burning of Central World?

Was Seh Daeng assassinated inside the Red's safe zone with an accurate one shot to the head after an argument with the Red leaders?

Were there soldiers and civilians shot by Reds and Blacks?

Did the Reds fire grenades into public areas causing chaos?

I believe the answer to these, and many more, is a well known yes. If not, please explain why I have no legitimate knowledge.

I'm afraid I have to side with phiphidon in this.

- at least ONE body was found, in ZEN I think, but might be CW. Don't know about more

- Everyone acknowledged that SehDaeng was shot in the head at the edge of the red zone during an interview. It seems about 70-30 if the army or his friends shot him

- the DSI lays the death of 12 people at the feet of the UDD

- non-red-shirts got killed/injured by grenade attacks, most likely by some of SehDaeng's rohin

It'sa pity that in all this the grassroot, peaceful red-shirts got to become synomim with UDD and terrorists.

[rubl]

More facts, while we just are at listing up what occurred: on more than a few occasions soldiers fired indiscriminately at unarmed protesters, journalists, bystanders, ambulances, killing and wounding many (seen it myself). Your previous claims that journalists were killed by Red Shirt militants is wrong. The two dead journalists were killed by soldiers, the evidence is overwhelming. Only one of the injured journalists was injured by Red Shirt militants during a grenade attack against soldiers (not far from me), the remainder was injured by soldiers (several of them also very close to me). I myself came several times under fire by soldiers, to the most part in situations where there were no armed Red Shirt militants anywhere.

Whereas I do not agree which KhunMatt's facts or tone, your post contains similar 'we all know' facts.

Like 'The two dead journalists were killed by soldiers, the evidence is overwhelming.' is still opinion.

The 'I myself came several times under fire by soldiers' may be true, even 'to the most part in situations where there were no armed Red Shirt militants anywhere.' may be true. Mind you as all here know there were no armed red shirt militants

Edited May 23, 2012 by rubl

[metisdead]

One post has been removed as the replies to the post were made inside the quoted post in effect altering the quoted post. Even though underscore was used, this is still not allowed. Learn to use the Quote function when replying to certain parts of a quoted post.

[Thaddeus]

I would like to know in your position as a reporter why is it never mentioned how and why the armed peaceful protest that included a invasion of a hospital was started.

Why is it always made out to look like the Government was in the wrong.

Your reasoning for this as a professional would be appreciated.

I think especially in the case of the Chula hospital invasion it has generally been reported that the Red Shirts were clearly in the wrong, and even the Red Shirts have publicly acknowledged this (see Dr. Weng's apology).

Nevertheless, while the Red Shirt's invasion was out of order, it should not be forgotten that the government placed soldiers in the hospital (Matichon has published photos at the time), which is also wrong.

Should not any gov't place soldiers to protect helpless patients from red shirt criminals attacking them?

Disingenuous, provocative nonsense.

Disingenuous, provocative nonsense is what started this whole travesty in the first place.

[rubl]

Whereas I do not agree which KhunMatt's facts or tone, your post contains similar 'we all know' facts.

Like 'The two dead journalists were killed by soldiers, the evidence is overwhelming.' is still opinion.

The 'I myself came several times under fire by soldiers' may be true, even 'to the most part in situations where there were no armed Red Shirt militants anywhere.' may be true. Mind you as all here know there were no armed red shirt militants

Again, with your misplaced sarcasm you are barking up the wrong tree as i have never said that there were no armed Red Shirt militants. And as to the two dead journalists, no, it is not just opinion. Fabio's case has been forwarded by the prosecution to the courts now as well - i believe the first court date is on July 23rd, and the prosecution has done so as it has more than enough evidence (and yes, i know, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat...), and as to Hiro, there are also more than enough witnesses in that case.

But please, be content with your opinions.

Barking, barking up the WRONG tree?

Anyway, indeed July 23rd, enough evidence, or as you wrote 'overwhelming'. I withdraw my remark on you needing to follow 'sarcasm 101' again, clearly not needed

"2012-05-18: Eyewitnesses have come forward in the case of slain Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi, his sister said today, ensuring that his case will be heard before Thai courts.

...

We don’t have the man who killed Fabio. We don’t have this kind of evidence, but until now we have general witnesses that can say, at that moment, the army were shooting… We haven’t identified the shooter, but we have elements to think that the shooting came from the Army side.

...

"

http://prachatai.com/english/node/3222

Edited May 23, 2012 by rubl

[gand]

Would there not be the expectation of being shot and killed if you put yourself in a crowd of people in which some had AR-15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s, HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers?

[rubl]

Would there not be the expectation of being shot and killed if you put yourself in a crowd of people in which some had AR-15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s, HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers?

Talk about barking up the wrong tree. This obviously and clear for all to see and therefore needing no further explaination is an incorrect surmise. I have it on good faith ffrom some esteemed people, members and other fools that there were no armed red-shirt militants.

Please don't forget this, there's overwhelming evidence

Edited May 23, 2012 by rubl

[gand]

Would there not be the expectation of being shot and killed if you put yourself in a crowd of people in which some had AR-15s, TAR-21s, M16s, AK-47s, HK-33 assault rifles, and M79 grenade launchers?

Talk about barking up the wrong tree. This obviously and clear for all to see and therefore needing no further explaination is an incorrect surmise. I have it on good faith ffrom some esteemed people, members and other fools that there were no armed red-shirt militants.

Please don't forget this, there's overwhelming evidence

hahaha we are drowning in overwhelming evidence that they had zero weapons, ya right, lol

[nurofiend]

ho ho ho, you guys

[OzMick]

You seem to be suffering from a humour deficit. Is this a short term malaise or a chronic condition?

[mca]

Are you kidding me "PP" ?! You just felt compelled to retort with something even if it was as banal as that, scoffing at me because my life has been destroyed because of that jerk Thaksin. Of course it's personal! What about this entire epic catastrophe to Thailand hasn't been personal to each and every person who lives here? All of our lives have been thrown into a tailspin because of him. Hmmm... I wonder if it was personal to any of the rally attendees? I beg you to go ask every single one who went if they were there for personal reasons! Geez... If you can't add something intelligent to the point, please don't say anything at all.

May I ask what specifically caused the problems with your business that can be attributed to Taksin etc?. Genuine question.

[longway]

By only spending your time on the grassroots and their own struggle and ignoring or avoiding the elite power struggles and their machinations, you are only seeing or presenting part of the complete picture and missing or omitting other crucial parts that provide context or background.

First of all - i do not ignore the elites at all. As you can see, in a recent post i was accused of having flown to dubai to photograph Thaksin in his home for a major German news magazine. I have talked with many members of all side's elites. Nevertheless - as long as i cannot properly corroborate the tales they feed me with - i will remain suspicious.

You mentioned Crispin - this writer is the perfect example of what i talked about. He is never in the field, he only gathers his information by a few elite contacts. The result are stories that are like a lottery - sometimes correct, and sometimes absolutely wrong. I remember, for example, how he predicted after the 2008 airport occupation that the Red Shirts and Thaksin would fizzle away, never to return (there is somewhere a video of this, but i am too lazy to look for it). There were more such stories, such as when in 2009 he described the attack on Nipon Promphan in the interior ministry as a hidden attack against a member of the royal family with whom Nipon is reputedly close to. Oh, if Crispin would just have been in the field, and would have seen the chaos of the attack, the attackers only looking for Abhisit, no clue about who Khun Nipon was, or his royal connections. There is loads more, such as his regular "sources in the diplomatic community". Anyone who knows the diplomatic community knows that it is about as divided about the situation as anyone here is, so when you need "a source from the diplomatic community" for whatever point you are trying to make, you just pick and choose. That's one of the little tricks of our dirty little business of journalism...

I do not have any respect for any journalist writing about this Red/Yellow conflict who is not working it in the field. That doesn't mean that this is solely worked from the field - all of us will have also our talks, chats, lunches and dinners with elite level players. We get information, and then we see if it is correct information or not. One thing lots of people don't seem to know - the elites are about as depending on, and spreading rumors as you old neighborhood market lady.

The relations ship between Thaksin and the Red Shirts is far more complex than you make it out here (and i do not have the time to go too deeply into this here right now). 1. Thaksin may look at the Red Shirts as his own street protest group, so what? The Red Shirts define themselves slightly differently, as you can see right now, where there is widespread discontent on all levels with what Thaksin said on Saturday. Also Asia Update has quite openly reported on this discontent, has given much coverage to main proponents of this discontent, such as Payao - Nong Kate's mother. But yes, of course Asia Update is a propaganda TV station (i have used those exact words when i described this TV station in my second book, by the way).

I would suggest though to once a while have a look at Blue Sky TV - the new Democrat Party propaganda station - the hate speech there is quite beyond believe, far beyond Asia Update, and even of ASTV.

2. This conflict isn't just about elite machinations, of good against bad - we are in the middle of massive social transformations. It's a dirty fight, by all sides.

You seem to put much weight on "Sopons" predictions, as if would be gospel. Well, it was not too difficult to predict that the longer the 2010 protests take, the more risk for violence breaking out. I have done the same. Just is Sopon's piece nothing but a little propaganda piece without any insight at all other than floating on the surface, and completely ignoring the violent tactics of the side that writer has openly supported all along.

This is the same problem with many posters here, including you - you ignore, obfuscate or outright deny all crimes committed by the side you support. Many posters of your side even go so low to massively discredit any writer that does not agree with their views, even as low as questioning professionalism and ethical conduct. I have never denied the violent nature of many groups in the Red Shirts, yet i am called "biased" when i have written about the exact same violence by the PAD, members of the Democrat Party, or by the military. I am called a liar when i described soldiers having shot at unarmed protesters, journalists and bystanders - even if it happened in front of my eyes, with photos provided, and at times even videos by others supporting what i have written.

Who really is biased? I have countless times offered to look at evidence you guys can provide me countering what i wrote. So far - nil, zilch.

You accuse me of ignoring elite level players. I have spoken with Thaksin, Yingluck, Abhist, countless Ministers of the past three or four governments, all Red Shirt leaders, most Yellow Shirt leaders, countless MP's of the Democrats and Puah Thai, generals of the military and of the police - and that is the exact reason why i am convinced that the far more exiting political transformations are driven by the grassroots level's rise of political awareness. 3. Elites scheme and play politics - but this conflict is far beyond mere politics. You may not see that now - but in a few years you will realize this.

1. The so what is that however complex the relationship, they have effectively functioned as his street protest group. How he achived that should be a subject worthy of any journalist, academic or commetator, you choosing to ignore that aspect is fine, but you trying to minimise its imporatance is what makes you look highly biased.

2. No shit sherlock.

3. This is exactly what has people concerned, there seems to be so much hatred washing around, and now dozens hae died, how will these changes manifest themselves.

Edited May 24, 2012 by longway

[nicknostitz]

1. The so what is that however complex the relationship, they have effectively functioned as his street protest group. How he achived that should be a subject worthy of any journalist, academic or commetator, you choosing to ignore that aspect is fine, but you trying to minimise its imporatance is what makes you look highly biased.

2. No shit sherlock.

3. This is exactly what has people concerned, there seems to be so much hatred washing around, and now dozens hae died, how will these changes manifest themselves.

He (and others) funded the Red Shirts - again: so what? Every protest group and social movement needs funding and budgets. I have many images how ordinary protesters donated not just their time, but also their money. I have images of people putting money into donation boxes, how they bought seats at tables at fund raising dinner events. The theory of Thaksin's bought protesters does simply not stand up to reality. But to see this one has to leave the aircon office and go into the communities.

What is far more interesting is how Red Shirts transformed themselves over the course over these few years, how they developed from a small anti-coup movement, how certain key events formed the progress of their political ideology and structural changes. Thaksin's interaction is but one aspect. I believe that ignoring the grassroots aspects of this conflict would be not just "biased", but a distortion of the nature of this conflict.

How the future will manifest itself will be interesting to see, and depends on many factors. I would suggest to study the development of many European countries if you want to see the different possible ways this here in Thailand may take.

Edited May 24, 2012 by nicknostitz

[NCFC]

50,000 red-shirt supporters?

Yesterday it was 100,000 then 200,000.

There must be a lot of lost reds somewhere. Check under your beds guys

Thais and mathematics doesn´t go hand in hand.

shame on you

[hyperdimension]

Nirmal Ghosh, for example, has far better contacts to all sides than Crispin. Nirmal's reporting on the conflict has also been always outstanding. And he works it on the streets as well. Giles is not a journalist, he's an academic, and a progressive Red Shirt activist - a completely different matter.

Nirmal hasn't written anything about Thailand's internal conflicts on his Straits Times blog since before the election. His pieces are very light both in content and subject matter. His interviews seem to have been very short casual and friendly chats, as if he was being very deferrent and afraid to challenge. Though I understand that if he was known to be a hard-hitter, he may not have been granted some of the interviews in the first place.

OK Giles is not a journalist, but the common factor is that he is a writer who writes about Thailand's conflicts. You discredited Crispin for not being on the streets, but not everyone who wrote about Thailand's conflicts need to have been on the streets, as there were already others like yourself who provided the raw material from the streets from which other writers could work with and build from. You specialized on the street events and the bottom-level pawns, whereas other writers chose to discuss higher level players and bigger picture issues.

Why should i discuss Thaksin, especially on the level you discuss him here? This does not lead anywhere. None of you have ever spoken with Thaksin. I have, on two occasions, and i cannot say that i would come close to knowing him enough to discuss him.

But did you ever talk about Thaksin with the Red Shirt devotees? Surely they would have been happy to talk about him with you. Or is what they said about Thaksin too embarrassing for you to discuss with us here, as we would just laugh?

People like Thaksin did not become billionaires because they are easy to predict, analyze or understand.

So do you simply give up in trying to analyze or understand him? Don't you find his character intriguing and worth writing about? The Red Shirts themselves certainly find him extremely interesting.

From what I've read, he was already wealthy before he entered politics, but it was through politics and the connections with the right people that he was able to make from it, (as well as some luck - right place, right time), that his wealth skyrocketed. But I don't see why you should avoid investigation or analysis of him just because of his wealth... or is it fear?

I can only talk about Thaksin's intentions or plans when i can see the results of those on the street. Anything else is just pure speculation.

Sopon in 2009 talked about Thaksin's rogue military generals' plans for mayhem and bloodshed. Months later in 2010, you yourself saw mayhem and bloodshed on the street. Were Sopon's writings in 2009 pure speculation of zero value at the time?

[hyperdimension]

A lot of what you have written here is baseless speculation - you know nothing about the violence that has occurred other than what you have read in news stories. You haven't been there, nor have you any idea about who organized what. I cannot work on the level of speculation - i have to investigate, find evidence, and be open when i do not have enough evidence, and can't just replace evidence with speculation.

I followed the 2010 events closely by continuously reading news from a wide range of sources on the internet. I was also watching the television news, which was being broadcast all day. I don't see much wrong with learning about events in this way. The news and images came from people who were in the field like yourself, so what news readers and watchers learned from it may only have been as good as the source. You were probably too occupied on the street each day, and exhausted each night, to have been able to spend much time to read and analyze the events, so you may not have had as wider an understanding of the events as those who had spent most of each day digesting news, commentary and analyses from many different sources. I don't blame you, as I know that you were in difficult and chaotic situations which may have affected your mental abilities, but I'm just highlighting the large difference in perspectives at the time.

You do take it as a fact that Thaksin has organized the violence. Where is you evidence? Where are your sources?

I base it on the many things that I have read and thought about during and after the 2010 events as well as logical deduction. There were military weapons. Military weapons are illegal to even posses by civilians, and they require trained people to use, so there must have been a supplier for both the weapons and militants. Such arrangements are way out of the league of ordinary grassroots people, so it is highly likely that people at elite levels with the right military connections had organized military weapons and their use.

Here is some material supporting my claim that Thaksin was the "big boss" of the 2010 protests and riots:

Chuan: Bangkok violence pre-planned abroad

From Coalition backs road map, undecided on banned politicians:

Red-shirt supporter Maj-General Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawasdipol claimed that former premier Thaksin Shinawatra was the only individual who could order an end to the protest.

[hyperdimension]

Here are some of my comments from 2 years ago:

Here's a quote from an article on Major General Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawatdiphol called On guard at Bangkok's frontlines by Richard S Ehrlich:

He said Thaksin told him on the telephone: "'Don't let a lot of people die. I don't want a lot of deaths. You have to hold back the army.'

"Thaksin has no idea about the tactics of fighting. But he's a nice guy."

That implies that Thaksin thinks it's fine to have some deaths.

Here's a quote from an article titled "Death before amnesty in Thailand" by Shawn W Crispin:

Sacrificial lambs

In the run-up to the first armed exchanges between troops and protesters on April 10, Thaksin told UDD protesters in a phone-in address to prepare for "sacrifices", a speech many foreign diplomats have flagged as significant.

So if it wasn't Thaksin, then who was the mastermind behind the protests and subsequent guerilla warfare (that he had amazingly "predicted" - see Red Shirt figurehead warns of guerilla war)?

The 2010 events must have cost millions, especially when considering that lasted for 2 months. Who are the ones who covered the costs, and why?

[hyperdimension]

You believe that Abhisit and Suthep haven't ordered this or that. Belief, excuse my bluntness, belongs in the church. Personally - i do not believe that Abhisit is a person who orders killings of innocents in cold blood. Suthep though... may i remind you about the Blue Shirts in Pattaya in 2009? Evidence though i haven't. That is why you do not see me writing that Abhisit or Suthep did this or that. This, in my line of work, would be libelous. And it is very very libelous when you accuse Thaksin of having organized the Red Shirt militants without evidence. So, no - i will not discuss Thaksin in this level here on this forum. I am neither interested in fighting a libel suit, nor am i interested in losing myself in speculation.

So are you going to simply conclude with "I don't know"? I thought journalists liked to investigate and write about their findings. You stated that you've spoken with many elites, but were your conversations just light and informal chit-chat, producing nothing that may shed light on the big questions?

You've talked about Suthep and the Blue Shirts in Pattaya before, yet you state that you have no evidence. So you've basically done the same thing as what you accuse of I and others of doing. I base my claims on research of news articles, commentary and analysis of other writers. I may not always be absolutely certain about some things, but when enough pieces fit together or make logical sense then I'd feel that the likelihood is higher. With my belief that Abhisit or Suthep did not order soldiers to kill indiscriminately, one supporting evidence is in the death count - there would have likely been many more deaths if soldiers shot at anything that moved.

Why on earth do you think that many Red Shirts did not know that Thaksin has a large self-interest? Have you never spoken with Red Shirt activists on those issues? Naturally, many Red Shirts love Thaksin (less so now, though). So what, it is their right to support any politician they chose to. Just because you don't like Thaksin, does not mean that you have the right to tell other who they have to vote for.

I would never force anyone to make decisions that they should be making themselves, but if they want to hear my opinions based on my own knowledge and perspectives, then I'd be happy to express them. If I see people walking towards a cliff, I may suggest to them to be careful. Do you prefer to use a completely "hands-off" approach? Let them make mistakes, no matter how big, so that they can learn from them?

just because Thaksin now appears to have made a bit of a U-turn, does not mean that the genie can be put back in the bottle that easily.

The genie should not be put back. People should realize from Thaksin's U-turn that he was never for the people and find better grassroots leaders. Many had protested against the amaart and draconian lese majeste laws, but there is no improvement nor any expectation for improvement with Thaksin now back in power (via his sister).

The grassroots discussion is far more open and advanced than can possibly be written about here. For this you need to be on the street, in the communities, because you will not know anything about this from normal channels of information. The tone of the discussion here in this forum, and especially by your side of the debate, makes it quite clear that you are, again - sorry to be blunt, completely out of touch what is actually going on within the Red Shirts, and draw all your knowledge from articles in the mainstream media and by discussing these issues within a mutual appreciation society equally out of touch. And worse even, you seem to reject all information that does not conform to your preconceived ideas.

I don't "reject all information that does not conform to" my "preconceived ideas". I have asked you questions because I am genuinely interested in your points of view. People like yourself do provide some unique perspectives. Most people rely on journalists to find out what has been going on, because not everyone has the time and effort to do what you do, but we are still interested in knowing what goes on. So it's your job as a professional journalist to provide the rest of us with information.

[hyperdimension]

Yes, i will continue to call this Red and Yellow. Red and Yellow does not just mean "Red Shirts" and "Yellow Shirts". These colors stand for quite different forms of identity as Thais, and philosophies. In discussing with Thais that have chosen this or the other side, they themselves call themselves still "Red" or "Yellow". So, yes, even though the PAD doesn't wear many yellow shirts anymore, and is only a shadow of its former self - we still are in the same color coded conflict.

OK it's up to you if you want to spin it that way. It just seems too simple for what you said yourself was a complex conflict, but I have noticed too that Thais see the conflicts simply as "Red" and "Yellow". For example, on the street before the election I was offered a Pheu Thai campaign pamphlet from a Red Shirt supporter (wearing a red shirt); I declined, and the guy asked (in Thai) "are you Yellow Shirt"?

Edited May 24, 2012 by hyperdimension

[longway]

1. The so what is that however complex the relationship, they have effectively functioned as his street protest group. How he achived that should be a subject worthy of any journalist, academic or commetator, you choosing to ignore that aspect is fine, but you trying to minimise its imporatance is what makes you look highly biased.

2. No shit sherlock.

3. This is exactly what has people concerned, there seems to be so much hatred washing around, and now dozens hae died, how will these changes manifest themselves.

He (and others) funded the Red Shirts - again: so what? Every protest group and social movement needs funding and budgets. I have many images how ordinary protesters donated not just their time, but also their money. I have images of people putting money into donation boxes, how they bought seats at tables at fund raising dinner events. The theory of Thaksin's bought protesters does simply not stand up to reality. But to see this one has to leave the aircon office and go into the communities.

What is far more interesting is how Red Shirts transformed themselves over the course over these few years, how they developed from a small anti-coup movement, how certain key events formed the progress of their political ideology and structural changes. Thaksin's interaction is but one aspect. I believe that ignoring the grassroots aspects of this conflict would be not just "biased", but a distortion of the nature of this conflict.

How the future will manifest itself will be interesting to see, and depends on many factors. I would suggest to study the development of many European countries if you want to see the different possible ways this here in Thailand may take.

Where have I said Thaksin bought protesters? (I certainly believe he has bought some of their leaders) - what I said was minimising the way Thaksin has managed to get the red shirts to act as his street protest group makes you look biased. You have been very evasive and disingenuous here and then gone into you stock jibes that you use about anyone who makes any uncomfortable observations about your reporting style. Its not impressive.

You ask why you are often accused of bias, I made an observation on why people may perceive you in this way. The stock spiel about funding etc does not help you look any less biased.

I don't think I am ignoring the grass-roots aspects, that is also interesting to me, but there are clear interactions that cannot be ignored IMO anyway.

Thank you for your suggestion on reading up about Europe to understand what is happening in thailand, perhaps you can list a few that you think has helped you understand the situation here.

Edited May 24, 2012 by longway

[rixalex]

But did you ever talk about Thaksin with the Red Shirt devotees? Surely they would have been happy to talk about him with you. Or is what they said about Thaksin too embarrassing for you to discuss with us here, as we would just laugh?

You'll find most red sympathisers are generally much less happy discussing Thaksin and his role in all of this, than they used to be, back in those heady days when they were still defending him. Still remain a few stragglers who take it upon themselves to argue against the rising tide of contradicting information and evidence, but they are in the minority. The rest have come to the sorry realisation that that particular fight is a lost cause. Talking about him can only weaken their argument. The strategy now is to avoid discussions of him at all cost, and to pretend that he is no longer relevant or important, despite the fact that at every red gathering, his face and name can be seen everywhere you turn.

Despite rumblings of discontent, he still remains massively popular with the vast majority of red shirts, and you'll see this should he ever pluck up the courage to return as he will receive a heroes welcome, even from those who now express some dissent. Almost to a man, they'll fall dutifully back in line in fear that to not do so, might mean missing out on whatever rewards he dishes out, or even worse, be on the receiving end of some punishment.

Edited May 24, 2012 by rixalex