Red Shirts Told To Fight 'Attempts To Unseat Govt'

[nurofiend]

As to what do they do? The PTP should just do it's best in governing the country. The yellow came out and the Democrats' misconduct were caused by the controversial bill and the government's push to bring Thaksin back. The PTP are supposed to represent the majority of the Thai people, so why don't they just put the country first by acting with transparency and heeding the advices from others? If you think about it, PTP can really shine if they actually act in the best interest of the country.

The same argument can be made of the Democrats when suggesting that they try to win the heart of the majority. PT is steps ahead in sense they only have to win the hearts and trust of the minorities... but that's not on the agenda.

As for the policies they've implemented, how many were successful and do you think will be beneficial in the long term?

re policies, i'm only really aware of the ones we all read in the headlines ie tablets, minimum wage etc

i can't judge their success yet as they haven't even been in office a year, i'll give their policies a bit more time before i make a judgment... and that's not avoidance, it's my genuine view.

the minimum wage might turn into a disaster in hindsight depending on the future economy or it might not have negative consequences and actually benefit poor people!

only time can answer that.

as for the rest of the post, i agree with your point that if they just concentrated on the country and ignored thaksin they could do great things.

i believe he is their biggest hindrance but also their biggest help.

[nurofiend]

I'll agree with you that it continued to spiral down after 06 until 09 because Thaksin still had his hands in politics then. How do we know that the country won't go on an upward trend if we don't take Thaksin out of the picture?

and how was 2010 for you?

we don't know that but how would you get him out of the picture? besides death, it's not happening.

[nurofiend]

But what does tax evasion have to do with any politically motivated crimes? Ok hate speeches, inciting a mob to violence and burning down the city during a protest meeting could be considered politically motivated. But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty? Does that also mean that the Dem MP who may have allegedly murdered someone get off scott free? The murder was not politically motivated. The whole thing is simply a white wash and is a complete pile of tosh.

But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty?

if it was just that in of itself then i would fully agree.

but if you were to say that you know for a fact that this charge wasn't put forward to get at thaksin and add some legitimacy for the coup, rather than upholding the law.. then you would be lying..

And of course, you know differently, and can prove it...... don't you.

if you think so...

[Thaddeus]

You don't know what I think.

[nurofiend]

i don't care either.

[ThaiOats]

I'll agree with you that it continued to spiral down after 06 until 09 because Thaksin still had his hands in politics then. How do we know that the country won't go on an upward trend if we don't take Thaksin out of the picture?

and how was 2010 for you?

we don't know that but how would you get him out of the picture? besides death, it's not happening.

So now there's the dilemma that we've been talking about. We can't get him out unless he chooses to get (not happening) or his supporters kick him out (also unlikely). Why do you think people (not all) have such hatred towards him including foreign expats who've never met the man personally? He's built this image for himself.

[nurofiend]

I'll agree with you that it continued to spiral down after 06 until 09 because Thaksin still had his hands in politics then. How do we know that the country won't go on an upward trend if we don't take Thaksin out of the picture?

and how was 2010 for you?

we don't know that but how would you get him out of the picture? besides death, it's not happening.

So now there's the dilemma that we've been talking about. We can't get him out unless he chooses to get (not happening) or his supporters kick him out (also unlikely). Why do you think people (not all) have such hatred towards him including foreign expats who've never met the man personally? He's built this image for himself.

i truly believe that an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

as we see from posts even in this thread, the rallies etc (things that affect the average person living in thailand) are all blamed on him.

i don't believe the corruption that he is accused of, qualifies the level of hate he receives,

i believe it's the public incidents that people blame on him that colours peoples view.

that's just my opinion and it's not to say there are no justifiable reasons for disliking him, but we're discussing the level of hate he gets.

it's easy to just blame him for everything, but i don't believe that's the full or fair picture.

[waza]

I'll agree with you that it continued to spiral down after 06 until 09 because Thaksin still had his hands in politics then. How do we know that the country won't go on an upward trend if we don't take Thaksin out of the picture?

and how was 2010 for you?

we don't know that but how would you get him out of the picture? besides death, it's not happening.

So now there's the dilemma that we've been talking about. We can't get him out unless he chooses to get (not happening) or his supporters kick him out (also unlikely). Why do you think people (not all) have such hatred towards him including foreign expats who've never met the man personally? He's built this image for himself.

i truly believe that an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

as we see from posts even in this thread, the rallies etc (things that affect the average person living in thailand) are all blamed on him.

i don't believe the corruption that he is accused of, qualifies the level of hate he receives,

i believe it's the public incidents that people blame on him that colours peoples view.

that's just my opinion and it's not to say there are no justifiable reasons for disliking him, but we're discussing the level of hate he gets.

it's easy to just blame him for everything, but i don't believe that's the full or fair picture.

I would call that a fair statement. However, I would say that everything that Thaksin received he deserved and everything he caused wasn't justified. Thailand is in turmoil because of his greed and ego.

Edited June 5, 2012 by waza

[gregb]

I'll agree with you that it continued to spiral down after 06 until 09 because Thaksin still had his hands in politics then. How do we know that the country won't go on an upward trend if we don't take Thaksin out of the picture?

and how was 2010 for you?

we don't know that but how would you get him out of the picture? besides death, it's not happening.

So now there's the dilemma that we've been talking about. We can't get him out unless he chooses to get (not happening) or his supporters kick him out (also unlikely). Why do you think people (not all) have such hatred towards him including foreign expats who've never met the man personally? He's built this image for himself.

i truly believe that an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

as we see from posts even in this thread, the rallies etc (things that affect the average person living in thailand) are all blamed on him.

i don't believe the corruption that he is accused of, qualifies the level of hate he receives,

i believe it's the public incidents that people blame on him that colours peoples view.

that's just my opinion and it's not to say there are no justifiable reasons for disliking him, but we're discussing the level of hate he gets.

it's easy to just blame him for everything, but i don't believe that's the full or fair picture.

You've obviously never met Thaksin, or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.

Lack of comfort is not even close to the reason he is despised and feared. I hate him because I know what he is. I know the evil he represents and the damage he will inflict on good people who are genuinely trying to help. Thaksin only wants to help himself. He defers to nobody else and he cares about nobody else.

Many support him because they believe the lies he tells. He fits the very definition of a demagogue and is extremely good at manipulation and intimidation. Others support him because they crave the spoils from his conquests more than they care about the people they damage along the way. Some actually think they can use him to obtain their goals of defeating the existing power base and then discard him. They are even more naive than those who just believe his lies outright.

Your belief about what motivates his enemies is so far from reality that it doesn't deserve to be considered by those who know better.

Edited June 5, 2012 by gregb

[Buchholz]

I think there is only one Thai person posting on this thread. Wildorchid.

yeah, right...

[nurofiend]

You've obviously never met Thaksin, or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.

Lack of comfort is not even close to the reason he is despised and feared. I hate him because I know what he is. I know the evil he represents and the damage he will inflict on good people who are genuinely trying to help. Thaksin only wants to help himself. He defers to nobody else and he cares about nobody else.

Many support him because they believe the lies he tells. He fits the very definition of a demagogue and is extremely good at manipulation and intimidation. Others support him because they crave the spoils from his conquests more than they care about the people they damage along the way. Some actually think they can use him to obtain their goals of defeating the existing power base and then discard him. They are even more naive than those who just believe his lies outright.

Your belief about what motivates his enemies is so far from reality that it doesn't deserve to be considered by those who know better.

well i suppose the proof of that is the fact that you're considering it.

what has meeting thaksin got to do with it? did he punch you in the eye or something?

i could almost feel the venomous spit from your post, i find it quite funny tbh.

what i said is my opinion, and i fully stand by it... whether it applies to you or not, i could not give a donkeys!

[Yunla]

i truly believe that an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

as we see from posts even in this thread, the rallies etc (things that affect the average person living in thailand) are all blamed on him.

i don't believe the corruption that he is accused of, qualifies the level of hate he receives,

i believe it's the public incidents that people blame on him that colours peoples view.

that's just my opinion and it's not to say there are no justifiable reasons for disliking him, but we're discussing the level of hate he gets.

it's easy to just blame him for everything, but i don't believe that's the full or fair picture.

I'm interested in how you seperate the the "turmoil" he caused / causes to normal Thai people and the effects the same turmoil has on foreigners. How can you actually analyze that really. Bad leadership, especially law-breaking gangsterist leadership, has a tremendously harmful effect on the entire structure of society, it affects everyone except those who can afford to live completely removed from society in their little Hi-So bubble.

Its not even about "comfort" either, grand-larceny at state level completely unbalances investment markets and can ruin years of hard work that foreigners have put into their Thai investment portfolio. Thats not about comfort, thats just about investors requiring a stable financial arena, with people in power acting responsibly to provide economic security for Thai and foreigner alike.

There is also another issue for me about how you assume that visitors to Thailand, are somehow immune to seeing Thai people getting screwed by their elected politicians. I for one am not concerned with my own comfort, nor indifferent to the suffering around me. It breaks my heart to see how most working Thais lives are so unnecessarily hard, and then I see Thaksins big grinning face as he runs off with all his stolen billions and uses it to fund armed uprisings using the most unfortunate people in the land as his sacrificial pawns.

I am a long-term visitor to Thailand since my Mother came here on the hippy-trail in 1973 with me on her back in a tie-dye carrier, and I am totally a foreigner on short-term basic visas, and I confirm that when I watched the horrific redmob events of 2010, thoughts of my own comfort never entered my mind once. In 2008 I had a flight to UK booked during the airport sit-down protest & my flight was delayed by three weeks and I didn't care one jot because I'm a visitor here and my comfort and convenience takes second place to the native Thais and their democratic right to a stable secure future.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Yunla

[mca]

You've obviously never met Thaksin, or you wouldn't be saying such nonsense.

Can you tell me under what circumstances you had the opportunity to meet Thaksin? That would make an interesting viewpoint.

[nurofiend]

i truly believe that an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

as we see from posts even in this thread, the rallies etc (things that affect the average person living in thailand) are all blamed on him.

i don't believe the corruption that he is accused of, qualifies the level of hate he receives,

i believe it's the public incidents that people blame on him that colours peoples view.

that's just my opinion and it's not to say there are no justifiable reasons for disliking him, but we're discussing the level of hate he gets.

it's easy to just blame him for everything, but i don't believe that's the full or fair picture.

I'm interested in how you seperate the the "turmoil" he caused / causes to normal Thai people and the effects the same turmoil has on foreigners. How can you actually analyze that really. Bad leadership, especially law-breaking gangsterist leadership, has a tremendously harmful effect on the entire structure of society, it affects everyone except those who can afford to live completely removed from society in their littlle Hi-So bubble.

Its not even about "comfort" either, grand-larceny at state level completely unbalances investment markets and can ruin years of hard work that foreigners have put into their Thai investment portfolio. Thats not about comfort thats just about investors requiring a stable financial arena, with people in power acting responsibly to provide economic security for Thai and foreigner alike.

There is alsoo another issue for me about how you assume that visitors to Thailand, are somehow immune to seeing Thai people getting screwed by their elected politicians. I for one am not oncerned with my oown comfort nor indifferent to the suffering around me. it breaks my heart to see how most working Thais lives so hard and then I see K.Thaksins big grinning face as he runs off with all his stolen billions and uses it to fund armed uprisings using the most unfortunate people in the land as his sacrificial pawns.

I am a long-term visitor to Thailand since my Mother came here on the hippy-trail in 1973 with me on her back, and I am totally a foreigner on short-term basic visas, and I confirm that when I watched the horrific redmob events of 2010, thoughts of my own comfort never entered my mind once. In 2008 I had a flight booked during the airport sit-down protest & my flight was delayed by three weeks and I didn't care one jot because I'm a visitor here and my comfort and convenience takes second place to the native Thais and their democratic right to a stable secure future.

"I'm interested in how you seperate the the "turmoil" he caused / causes to normal Thai people and the effects the same turmoil has on foreigners. How can you actually analyze that really. Bad leadership, especially law-breaking gangsterist leadership, has a tremendously harmful effect on the entire structure of society, it affects everyone except those who can afford to live completely removed from society in their littlle Hi-So bubble"

i clearly meant the political turmoil ie protests and violence.. not his policies during office

"Its not even about "comfort" either, grand-larceny at state level completely unbalances investment markets and can ruin years of hard work that foreigners have put into their Thai investment portfolio. Thats not about comfort thats just about investors requiring a stable financial arena, with people in power acting responsibly to provide economic security for Thai and foreigner alike."

by "comfort" i meant quality of life in general, this obviously includes financial comfort... or quality of life.

"There is alsoo another issue for me about how you assume that visitors to Thailand, are somehow immune to seeing Thai people getting screwed by their elected politicians."

honestly, sometimes i have to double check to see if people are reading the same post that i made.

where did i make this assumtion, please lead the way!

and to the rest of your post, i truly admire your selflessness, you seem like a shining example of a great human being. it's honourable that you didn't feel any bit put out or annoyed by any of the previous crises, but a lot of people did, me included.

Edited June 5, 2012 by nurofiend

[GentlemanJim]

But what does tax evasion have to do with any politically motivated crimes? Ok hate speeches, inciting a mob to violence and burning down the city during a protest meeting could be considered politically motivated. But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty? Does that also mean that the Dem MP who may have allegedly murdered someone get off scott free? The murder was not politically motivated. The whole thing is simply a white wash and is a complete pile of tosh.

But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty?

if it was just that in of itself then i would fully agree.

but if you were to say that you know for a fact that this charge wasn't put forward to get at thaksin and add some legitimacy for the coup, rather than upholding the law.. then you would be lying..

What a silly think to say. I never said that did I, and if you said it was then you would be lying, so why say it?......oh yes, it's your style of trying to find a negative with every statement by every poster.

[Yunla]

it's honourable that you didn't feel any bit put out or annoyed by any of the previous crises, but a lot of people did, me included.

I'm not different to most people at all, which is why I disputed your original post in which you clearly said

why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

Basically, that statement which is the one I responded to, has a lot of implications. It implies that if they were in "comfort" (which you didn't define other than using the word "comfort") then they would not hate Thaksin and would not be affected by the turmoil he caused to this nation.

I reject your notion that people don't read your posts, I read it and replied to the line above. Your statement is based on the premise that if foreigners' own comfort/security etc.etc were not affected by the nosediving economy and dead bodies in the streets and massive oligarchical plundering of the state coffers by Thaksin (and his family), so long as those foreigners own interests and comfort was undisturbed they would not hate him or have any problem with living here and watching him inciting murder in 2010 and hugging Hun Sen who is massmurderer & mass-torturer. That is the direct implication of your original statement. Ergo : no comfort = unhappy farang, comfort = happy farang. My contention is that many normal foreigners visiting Thailand including my own humble self are very anti-corruption and anti-dictatorial and they don't like to see the local population being repressed and robbed.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Yunla

[nurofiend]

But what does tax evasion have to do with any politically motivated crimes? Ok hate speeches, inciting a mob to violence and burning down the city during a protest meeting could be considered politically motivated. But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty? Does that also mean that the Dem MP who may have allegedly murdered someone get off scott free? The murder was not politically motivated. The whole thing is simply a white wash and is a complete pile of tosh.

But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty?

if it was just that in of itself then i would fully agree.

but if you were to say that you know for a fact that this charge wasn't put forward to get at thaksin and add some legitimacy for the coup, rather than upholding the law.. then you would be lying..

What a silly think to say. I never said that did I, and if you said it was then you would be lying, so why say it?......oh yes, it's your style of trying to find a negative with every statement by every poster.

hey that's not a personal attack now gentleman is it?

i was speaking hypothetically to make the point... the aim wasn't for a 'who said what' type of argument.

i don't think it was a silly thing to say, but oh well.

[nurofiend]

>snipped for quote count

I'm not different to most people at all, which is why I disputed your original post in which you clearly said

why a lot of expats hate him is the affect that the turmoil had on them personally and to their own comfort in the country.

Basically, that statement which is the one I responded to, has a lot of implications. It implies that if they were in "comfort" (which you didn't define other than using the word "comfort") then they would not hate Thaksin and would not be affected by the turmoil he caused to this nation.

I reject your notion that people don't read your posts, I read it and replied to the line above. Your statement is based on the premise that if foreigners' own comfort/security etc.etc were not affected by the nosediving economy and dead bodies in the streets and massive oligarchical plundering of the state coffers by Thaksin (and his family), so long as those foreigners own interests and comfort was undisturbed they would not hate him or have any problem with living here and watching him inciting murder and hugging cambodian generals who are guilty of massmurder etc. That is the direct implication of your original statement. Ergo : no comfort = unhappy farang, comfort = happy farang. My contention is that many normal foreigners visitng Thailand including my own humble self are very anti-corruption and anti-dictatorial and they don't like to see the local population being repressed and robbed.

i said an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him, your quote makes it look like i'm suggesting it's the only reason.

Basically, that statement which is the one I responded to, has a lot of implications. It implies that if they were in "comfort" (which you didn't define other than using the word "comfort") then they would not hate Thaksin and would not be affected by the turmoil he caused to this nation.

i thought people would know what i meant by comfort, i mean their quality of life... that includes things like blocked streets, not being able to take a train, loss of business.. whatever it may be that was affected due to the protests and civil unrest.

My contention is that many normal foreigners visitng Thailand including my own humble self are very anti-corruption and anti-dictatorial and they don't like to see the local population being repressed and robbed

see this is the kind of moral highground... stuff... that really irks me.

are you suggesting that people who don't feel an intense venemous level of hate for thaksin (and please remember the whole point was about the level of hate) are not anti-corruption and anti-dictatorial and they do like to see the local population being repressed and robbed?

you seem to be trying to spin it into me saying that expats don't give a crap about the country as long as their happy, which is absolute bs with a capital b and not what i was saying at all.

[GentlemanJim]

But how does tax evasion for personal gain (very significant gain) fall in to the area of a political amnesty?

if it was just that in of itself then i would fully agree.

but if you were to say that you know for a fact that this charge wasn't put forward to get at thaksin and add some legitimacy for the coup, rather than upholding the law.. then you would be lying..

What a silly think to say. I never said that did I, and if you said it was then you would be lying, so why say it?......oh yes, it's your style of trying to find a negative with every statement by every poster.

hey that's not a personal attack now gentleman is it?

i was speaking hypothetically to make the point... the aim wasn't for a 'who said what' type of argument.

i don't think it was a silly thing to say, but oh well.

Well not if you apply your own standard no.

What point were you trying to make and why did it need making?

[Thaddeus]

if it was just that in of itself then i would fully agree.

but if you were to say that you know for a fact that this charge wasn't put forward to get at thaksin and add some legitimacy for the coup, rather than upholding the law.. then you would be lying..

What a silly think to say. I never said that did I, and if you said it was then you would be lying, so why say it?......oh yes, it's your style of trying to find a negative with every statement by every poster.

I can answer that....

i don't care either.

[nurofiend]

Well not if you apply your own standard no.

What point were you trying to make and why did it need making?

two for two, nice!

the point was that it could be seen as a politically motivated charge and conviction, rather than just the upholding of law.

[Yunla]

i said an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him, your quote makes it look like i'm suggesting it's the only reason.

Not at all, my original reply quoted your entire post. But my first question to you which you completely ignored, is how can you actually "separate" the fact that foreigners are affected by turmoil to themselves, with the fact that Thaksin's actions are causing systemic chaos across the board. Similarly, although I haven't asked this until now, why (and how) would you seperate "levels of hatred" for Thaksin from the fact that he (and his family and his 'red commanders') have caused so much harm to this nation both internally and on the international stage.

Why would you even start to analyse levels of hatred to him, when he is a [fact] dangerous fleeing criminal, and in 2010 he was on TV and bigscreen stages ordering his armed red commanders to burn Bangkok to the ground and crush the 'elites'.

When the 90+ people died as a result of that, Thaksin became complicit in murder of every single person who died. If he had not funded the red mob, organised a red-leadership and incited them on TV, those 90+ would not have died. Why would you even try to suggest that this kind of monstrous brutality doesn't affect "a lot" of foreigners unless it breaches their comfort zone, and why would you complain about levels of hatred that people feel towards a dangerous fleeing criminal who incites murder and embraces massmurdering torturers.

see this is the kind of moral highground... stuff... that really irks me.

are you suggesting that people who don't feel an intense venemous level of hate for thaksin (and please remember the whole point was about the level of hate) are not anti-corruption and anti-dictatorial and they do like to see the local population being repressed and robbed?

you seem to be trying to spin it into me saying that expats don't give a crap about the country as long as their happy, which is absolute bs with a capital b and not what i was saying at all.

This quote clashes with your initial post which is the one I replied to. You said a "lot of" expats hate him only when it affects them personally, and would by implication not do so just because he incites murder and steals money from the state.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Yunla

[GentlemanJim]

Well not if you apply your own standard no.

What point were you trying to make and why did it need making?

two for two, nice!

the point was that it could be seen as a politically motivated charge and conviction, rather than just the upholding of law.

But Thaksin's tax evasion could only be seen as being politically motivated by himself and his cronies. It was not politically motivated, he didn't pay any tax , he evaded it. So far Thaksin has got away incredibly lightly. In the USA people have been banged up for 10 years for being involved in insider trading deals that are nowhere near the same scale as Thaksin's, and non of his insider trading was politically motivated either, the motivation for all of it was greed. Yes his actions were carried out whilst in a position of political power, but that is a far cry from being politically motivated.

The burning down of Bangkok and killing of others was not politically motivated, it was an act of terrorism and vandalism. Would you let off the Iranian no legs bomber because it was politically motivated, or Al Quieda terrorists? The Nuremberg trials set the precedent, involvement in a crime due to following orders or suggestions of others does not absolve you of the crime.

[nurofiend]

i said an aspect of why a lot of expats hate him, your quote makes it look like i'm suggesting it's the only reason.

Not at all, my original reply quoted your entire post. But my first question to you which you completely ignored, is how can you actually "seperate" the fact that foreigners are affected by turmoil to themselves, with the fact that Thaksin's actions are causing systemic chaos across the board. Similarly, although I haven't asked this until now, why (and how) would you seperate "levels of hatred" for Thaksin from the fact that he (and his family and his 'red commanders') have caused so much harm to this nation both internally and on the international stage. Why would you even start to analyse levels of hatred to him, when he is a [fact] dangerous fleeing criminal, and in 2010 he was on TV and bigscreen stages ordering his armed red commanders to burn bangkok to the ground and crush elites. When the 90+ people died as a result of that Thaksin became complicit in murder of every single person who died. If he had not funded the red mob and iincited them on TV, those 90+ would not have died. Why would you even try to suggest that this kind of monstrous brutality doesn't affect "a lot" of foreigners unless it breaches their comfort zone, and why would you complaiin about levells of hatred that people feel towards a dangerous fleeing criminal who incites murder.

see this is the kind of moral highground... stuff... that really irks me.

are you suggesting that people who don't feel an intense venemous level of hate for thaksin (and please remember the whole point was about the level of hate) are not anti-corruption and anti-dictatorial and they do like to see the local population being repressed and robbed?

you seem to be trying to spin it into me saying that expats don't give a crap about the country as long as their happy, which is absolute bs with a capital b and not what i was saying at all.

This quote clashes with your initial post which is the one I replied to. You said a "lot of" expats hate him only when it affects them personally, and would by implication not do so just because he incites murder and steals money from the state.

But my first question to you which you completely ignored, is how can you actually "seperate" the fact that foreigners are affected by turmoil to themselves, with the fact that Thaksin's actions are causing systemic chaos across the board

i quoted someone mentioning the level of hate expats feel towards him, so i talked about it... i never claimed to be able to single out how it affects each section of society differently.

You said a "lot of" expats hate him only when it affects them personally

not what i said

the point was that IMO a big aspect of why some expats feel so strongly in their hate for him is because of how the instability that is blamed on him affected their own quality of life, i made it extremely clear that this wasn't the only reason that people don't like him and it was nothing about them not caring about the country.

and i stand by that opinion no matter how unpopular it will obviously be on this forum.

[Yunla]

the point was that IMO a big aspect of why some expats feel so strongly in their hate for him is because of how the instability that is blamed on him affected their own quality of life, i made it extremely clear that this wasn't the only reason that people don't like him and it was nothing about them not caring about the country.

and i stand by that opinion no matter how unpopular it will obviously be on this forum.

I did read your first post and I understood that you were not saying all foreigners are only motivated by self-interest, or that they all don't care about Thai people. I never accused you of anything, and I also don't see why your opinions should make you unpopular - foruming ideas and discussing them is not a negative thing in itself. I am new to this forum and only passing through, but I have been a regular on a sociology forum since 1989 and I don't judge people on their beliefs because beliefs can change and so can people.

I was picking up on the points you raised because I have yet to meet a single farang who feels their own life (including all aspects of 'comfort' in Thailand) is the main factor in deciding if they agree or disagree with Thaksins crimes. Everyone I know thinks he's corrupt to his boots and is dangerous. I've said before I don't hate him but I do fear where his Ego (which gets the capital 'e') has led Thailand in the past and where it promises to lead Thailand in the near future.

The most dangerous people in human history were all egomaniacs and there is no other word for a billionaire who escaped justice and chooses to return to the scene of his crimes to appease his ego. He could be living under a new name with his billions on some faraway desert island, but his ego prevents him doing that and that is why he is 'hated' by so many.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Yunla

[Thaddeus]

the point was that IMO a big aspect of why some expats feel so strongly in their hate for him is because of how the instability that is blamed on him affected their own quality of life, i made it extremely clear that this wasn't the only reason that people don't like him and it was nothing about them not caring about the country.

and i stand by that opinion no matter how unpopular it will obviously be on this forum.

From the general perspective of most of the ex-pats I know, their dislike for him has absolutely nothing to do with how he has affected their quality of life, most of them should thank him for keeping Thailand a relatively cheep place to live and not let it turn into another Singapore, which it has always had the ability to do when not crippled by the self serving interests of a handful of people.

From a personal point of view, and call me crazy if you like, I have always found egotistical, mass murdering, pathological liars to be quite distasteful, no matter what their name is or which country they are trying to crush..... the day I start liking one, I will start to question my own sanity, and more importantly, my reason for doing so.

[nurofiend]

the point was that IMO a big aspect of why some expats feel so strongly in their hate for him is because of how the instability that is blamed on him affected their own quality of life, i made it extremely clear that this wasn't the only reason that people don't like him and it was nothing about them not caring about the country.

and i stand by that opinion no matter how unpopular it will obviously be on this forum.

I did read your first post and I understood that you were not saying all foreigners are only motivated by self-interest, or that they all don't care about Thai people. I never accused you of anything, and I also don't see why your opinions should make you unpopular - foruming ideas and discussing them is not a negative thing in itself. I am new to this forum and only passing through, but I have been a regular on a sociology forum since 1989 and I don't judge people on their beliefs because beliefs can change and so can people.

I was picking up on the points you raised because I have yet to meet a single farang who feels their own life (including all aspects of 'comfort' in Thailand) is the main factor in deciding if they agree or disagree with Thaksins crimes. Everyone I know thinks he's corrupt to his boots and is dangerous. I've said before I don't hate him but I do fear where his Ego (which gets the capital 'e') has led Thailand in the past and where it promises to lead Thailand in the near future. The most dangerous people in human history were all egomaniacs and there is no other word for a billinaire who escaped justice and chooses to return to the scene oof his crimes to appease his ego. He could be living under a new name with his billions on some faraway desert island, but his ego prevents him doing that and that is why he is 'hated' by so many.

it would be an unpopular opinion on here considering most of the forum is expat thaksin haters, that's all.

don't worry, popularity on here isn't a concern of mine.

I have yet to meet a single farang who feels their own life (including all aspects of 'comfort' in Thailand) is the main factor in deciding if they agree or disagree with Thaksins crimes

same here

i'm talking about the level of hate they feel, and i do think it's intensified to the degrees that we so often see because of the impact they feel he's had on their lives.

also, the impact that instability has on expats lives and on the country itself aren't by any means always exclusive.

I've said before I don't hate him but I do fear where his Ego..

well plenty do absolutely 100% venomously hate him, with a huge passion...

look, i think most expats reading, while they probably won't openly admit their annoyance of being inconveined or affected by protests and unrest, did feel that way plenty of times.

it's not selfish, it's human nature.

and i don't think it's such an out there opinion to think that this could intensify their hate to a far higher degree than if what they view as his corrupt actions had no affect on their lives!

[animatic]

"The process of robbing people has begun again," said Thaksin, wearing a red shirt.

THAT is hard to argue against.

Post-Doctoral level hypocrisy on display by Dr. T.

[kimamey]

"Red Shirts Told To Fight 'Attempts To Unseat Govt'" Right, because only the red shirts are allowed to unseat govt?

Just curious, if TS is so passionate about bringing a red army to fight, why is it he doesn't show up to lead the charge? He seems to feel he is invincable, so he should feel brave enough to come to Bangkok and get on the stage live, instead of using that monkey that lost his PM seat to, again, see if he can distroy the city again with his bunch of inciters!! TS, come to town and show us what you got, if you dare!

No matter how much sense it would make, the fact is you're expecting too much from a lower life form. They placed a picture of Abhisit and threw shoes at it in their Red gathering. What's next, more HIV infected blood?

Why not ??

At least you get something to moan about, other than about 15 million "lower life forms........."

Pouring blood and throwing shoes at a picture......The gall of it !!!!

How dare they.

It's obviously far more disrespectful than the unelected government of the day shooting people in the head.

Exactly which members of the government shot people in the head?

[kimamey]

In response to Gentleman Jim.

Sure, she is the PM and does not have to read every line of every piece of potential legislation prior to debate.

It is the duty of parliament to do that and to then to debate and accept or change such potential legislation, within the framework of the parliamentary rules.

Sadly, that appears to be too difficult for AV and his party who prefer boorish, thuggish and juvenile actions instead of debate and amendment.

No doubt they have their reasons for such tactics but they don't look very mature, responsible or parliamentarian.............

Clear now ?

A quite unbelievable response.

She stated she has not seen the Reconciliation bill, a piece of legislation bringing the country to the brink of civil war, and she is PM. Making an excuse for her (which I knew you would) is the height of folly. Thanks for not letting us down.

Also she hasn't seen any of them but knows they will be good but she does think everyone else should read them before making comments.