No Order To Open Fire On The Crowds In 2010: Abhisit

[tlansford]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

I don't remember the Yellow Shirts wearing Abhisit T-Shirts en masse, or Abhisit giving speeches on their stages, or phone ins, or the Yellow Shirts pushing for legislation to favour Abhisit, or Yellow Shirt leaders expressing their love to Abhisit and running to visit him every possible opportunity, or Yellow Shirt publications waxing poetic about Abhisit, also I don't remember the Red Shirts campaigning to vote against Thaksin (and his proxie) as the Yellow Shirts did against the Democrats, furthermore I'm going out on a limb and say that, were Abhisit be hit by lightning today, the Yellow Shirt movement would continue ticking along just the same without him. Not quite the same bloody thing, is it?

not the same at all. Abhisit went to the GH in person to visit the PAD and apparently his visit provided the protesters the fortitude to go out and attack the police and stop the court-sanctioned dispersal from the GH.

Oh, and that was definitely not "legislation to favour Abhisit" since it wasn't via elections that he was planning to come to power, but in fact via the protests which he was supporting. Although once in power, his government did manage to push through a charter changes related to representation in parliament favorable to him and his party. I forget if they proposed a public referendum on that ... maybe not.

And Thaksin just shows up via video link...

No they are not the same.

But your point says nothing contrary to the point binjalin was making, either. It is just another rant against the red shirts. He has a very good point.

And although it can be inferred from the end of your post that if Thaksin were to be struck by lightning that the UDD would disappear, I would take issue with that since I do not think that would happen at all. But that is not something that neither you nor I can prove.

[Buchholz]

The only one who has said you have to like Thaksin...is you.

Probably why it is "unsound"

.

ok so you don't have to be a 'fan' of or 'favour' him, your words.. makes your case worse tbh.

good of you to go back at what someone actually wrote instead of what you thought they wrote... something you just got through whining about in the other thread when they did it to you.

Favor Thaksin.... as in support Thaksin.

You can't support the Red Shirts in their current permanently tainted form... without supporting Thaksin at the same time.

You don't have to like Thaksin to be supporting him through his Red Shirts.

Find another group if you don't want to support Thaksin. Let me know when you do.

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

similar to neurofiend, but you surpass his "like" even further with your use of "love"

which was said... only by you.

If you support the Red Shirts, one can't help but support Thaksin, who is the main impetus for their actions and the primary beneficiary of their efforts.

Similarly, if you support the American Republican Party and vote for that party then you are supporting Romney who is the impetus for their actions and the primary beneficiary of their efforts.

You don't have to "love" Thaksin to be supporting the Red Shirts, but your support of the Red Shirts is directly beneficial to him.

They remain inseparable.

Similarly, the same is repeated.

Find another group if you don't want to support Thaksin and let me know when you do.

.

[nurofiend]

buchholz you said "sympathize" not "support"

[nurofiend]

you said

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible

[Buchholz]

you said

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible

I should have used support to be more concise and I would just clarify that if sympathize doesn't extend to support, then there's a difference and plausible.

I'd also say that certainly most of what is written here is in support that extends beyond sympathize.

I can sympathize with the rural poor, but I don't support the Red Shirt distortion of their issue, and similarly don't support Thaksin.

.

[Thaddeus]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

I don't remember the Yellow Shirts wearing Abhisit T-Shirts en masse, or Abhisit giving speeches on their stages, or phone ins, or the Yellow Shirts pushing for legislation to favour Abhisit, or Yellow Shirt leaders expressing their love to Abhisit and running to visit him every possible opportunity, or Yellow Shirt publications waxing poetic about Abhisit, also I don't remember the Red Shirts campaigning to vote against Thaksin (and his proxie) as the Yellow Shirts did against the Democrats, furthermore I'm going out on a limb and say that, were Abhisit be hit by lightning today, the Yellow Shirt movement would continue ticking along just the same without him. Not quite the same bloody thing, is it?

Quite.

For the benefit of some others.

It is easily possible to sympathise with the rural poor, without supporting the Redmob or Thaksin in any way.

It is scarcely believable to sympathise with the Redmob without supporting Thaksin.

In all the Redmob rallies, I see nothing about PTP being called to quest on fulfilling all their pre-election promises, only one of them.

And just to bring it back on topic, the open fire on crowds argument is only happening for one reason.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Thaddeus

[rixalex]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep?

Yellow shirts AKA PAD, campaigned at the last election for people to NOT vote for Abhisit and Suthep. When have the red shirts ever campaigned for people to NOT vote for Thaksin's party?

[binjalin]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

I don't remember the Yellow Shirts wearing Abhisit T-Shirts en masse, or Abhisit giving speeches on their stages, or phone ins, or the Yellow Shirts pushing for legislation to favour Abhisit, or Yellow Shirt leaders expressing their love to Abhisit and running to visit him every possible opportunity, or Yellow Shirt publications waxing poetic about Abhisit, also I don't remember the Red Shirts campaigning to vote against Thaksin (and his proxie) as the Yellow Shirts did against the Democrats, furthermore I'm going out on a limb and say that, were Abhisit be hit by lightning today, the Yellow Shirt movement would continue ticking along just the same without him. Not quite the same bloody thing, is it?

Quite.

For the benefit of some others.

It is easily possible to sympathise with the rural poor, without supporting the Redmob or Thaksin in any way.

It is scarcely believable to sympathise with the Redmob without supporting Thaksin.

In all the Redmob rallies, I see nothing about PTP being called to quest on fulfilling all their pre-election promises, only one of them.

And just to bring it back on topic, the open fire on crowds argument is only happening for one reason.

let's get this crystal clear please? stop using the term 'redmob'? there are many, indeed hundreds of thousands, of red supporters (probably millions) who are not part of any 'mob' and what about the 'yellowmob'? no comment on their actions which started all this trouble?

you think any yellows sympathize with the rural poor? maybe when they are speeding by in their nice new porches? they spare a thought? I see only one party with any concern - PTP and perfect they may not be but they are the only one's who actually care (generalization there maybe some who do not) but I see the Dems as only caring about BKK and there rich patrons.

[binjalin]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep?

Yellow shirts AKA PAD, campaigned at the last election for people to NOT vote for Abhisit and Suthep. When have the red shirts ever campaigned for people to NOT vote for Thaksin's party?

it is not Thaksin's party - I believe if he dropped dead tomorrow they would carry on

[Thaddeus]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep? or the Republicans without loving Mitt? or... or... or... there are many who sympathize with the red cause without wishing K. Thaksin's return and IF there were a credible alternative party who wished to see cultural and economic improvement then MAYBE most would switch but there is NOT and most would continue to support the PTP against the rich, elitist yellows as evidenced by their defeat (against TVF posters predictions) at the election.

I don't remember the Yellow Shirts wearing Abhisit T-Shirts en masse, or Abhisit giving speeches on their stages, or phone ins, or the Yellow Shirts pushing for legislation to favour Abhisit, or Yellow Shirt leaders expressing their love to Abhisit and running to visit him every possible opportunity, or Yellow Shirt publications waxing poetic about Abhisit, also I don't remember the Red Shirts campaigning to vote against Thaksin (and his proxie) as the Yellow Shirts did against the Democrats, furthermore I'm going out on a limb and say that, were Abhisit be hit by lightning today, the Yellow Shirt movement would continue ticking along just the same without him. Not quite the same bloody thing, is it?

Quite.

For the benefit of some others.

It is easily possible to sympathise with the rural poor, without supporting the Redmob or Thaksin in any way.

It is scarcely believable to sympathise with the Redmob without supporting Thaksin.

In all the Redmob rallies, I see nothing about PTP being called to quest on fulfilling all their pre-election promises, only one of them.

And just to bring it back on topic, the open fire on crowds argument is only happening for one reason.

let's get this crystal clear please? stop using the term 'redmob'? there are many, indeed hundreds of thousands, of red supporters (probably millions) who are not part of any 'mob' and what about the 'yellowmob'? no comment on their actions which started all this trouble?

you think any yellows sympathize with the rural poor? maybe when they are speeding by in their nice new porches? they spare a thought? I see only one party with any concern - PTP and perfect they may not be but they are the only one's who actually care (generalization there maybe some who do not) but I see the Dems as only caring about BKK and there rich patrons.

Careful, your prejudice is showing.

"you think any yellows sympathize with the rural poor? maybe when they are speeding by in their nice new porches?"

If you lump all of them together like that, and really believe it, I now can quite easily understand your delusion.

[whybother]

rubbish - so you can't sympathize with the yellows without loving Abhisit and Suthep?

Yellow shirts AKA PAD, campaigned at the last election for people to NOT vote for Abhisit and Suthep. When have the red shirts ever campaigned for people to NOT vote for Thaksin's party?

it is not Thaksin's party - I believe if he dropped dead tomorrow they would carry on

"it is not Thaksin's party"

Sent from my shoe phone

[Buchholz]

you think any yellows sympathize with the rural poor? maybe when they are speeding by in their nice new porches?

I know yellow shirts who are rural poor.... and while one does have a new porch, none of them have new, nor old for that matter, Porsches.

.

[ThaiOats]

Yellow shirts are not necessarily rich or elite. They are Royalists who believe they are defending the institution against corrupted politicians and people who mean to do harm to the country. Just because they and the Democrats have the same goal in protecting the country, does not mean they have he same ideals and channels.

For example, I have a customer who is what you might call Super Yellow. Every day time she comes in, I'm always reminded about how sorry she felt for a certain VIP whose hard work is being destroyed. She doesnt even know about BlueSky channel and the Democrats rallies until I told her. She and most of her Yellow friends pay attention to ASTV, Sondi's channel. She actually hate politicians but Thaksin takes the cake.

Notice, the yellow shirts arent calling for Democracy as they believe the other alternative is better. To think and believe that the Democrats and the Yellow shirts have the same ideals would be fooling yourself.

On the other hand, the Redmob is being used to further he agenda of one man withour realising it. They say they want True Democracy which means the power rests with the people and not through reprensentatives and definately not under a .....

[metisdead]

No matter how veiled the insinuations are, do not go there:

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule will result in immediate ban.

From this point on, anymore veiled insinuations/speculations, suspensions will be issued.

[nurofiend]

you said

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible

I should have used support to be more concise and I would just clarify that if sympathize doesn't extend to support, then there's a difference and plausible.

I'd also say that certainly most of what is written here is in support that extends beyond sympathize.

I can sympathize with the rural poor, but I don't support the Red Shirt distortion of their issue, and similarly don't support Thaksin.

.

i consider sympathizing more understanding where they are coming from, rather than supporting everything they want.

speaking for myself, i would say that i sympathize with reds in certain aspects, as in i feel they have been hard done by ie like about how in general the rural poor are looked upon in thai society and how their chosen governments were twice taken away from them.

without getting into all the ins and outs of why the latter happened, i can see and understand how it would feel from their perspective.

they're just the main two reasons off the top off my head.

there are plenty of things i don't agree with about ptp and udd alike, and i've openly criticised both on this forum, so i definitely don't consider myself a supporter.

[Thaddeus]

you said

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible

I should have used support to be more concise and I would just clarify that if sympathize doesn't extend to support, then there's a difference and plausible.

I'd also say that certainly most of what is written here is in support that extends beyond sympathize.

I can sympathize with the rural poor, but I don't support the Red Shirt distortion of their issue, and similarly don't support Thaksin.

.

i consider sympathizing more understanding where they are coming from, rather than supporting everything they want.

In that case, I have a small suggestion for you, find out what the ordinary rural Thais want, and support that, not a handful of hate makers backed by a flock of balloon chasers.

[nurofiend]

In that case, I have a small suggestion for you, find out what the ordinary rural Thais want, and support that, not a handful of hate makers backed by a flock of balloon chasers.

no, i don't think i'll change my views on what i outlined in the rest of the post just to please you.

i don't have to support anyone.

but thanks for the suggestion.

[ThaiOats]

you said

As for sympathize for the Reds, but don't favor Thaksin.... that's another implausible

I should have used support to be more concise and I would just clarify that if sympathize doesn't extend to support, then there's a difference and plausible.

I'd also say that certainly most of what is written here is in support that extends beyond sympathize.

I can sympathize with the rural poor, but I don't support the Red Shirt distortion of their issue, and similarly don't support Thaksin.

.

i consider sympathizing more understanding where they are coming from, rather than supporting everything they want.

speaking for myself, i would say that i sympathize with reds in certain aspects, as in i feel they have been hard done by ie like about how in general the rural poor are looked upon in thai society and how their chosen governments were twice taken away from them.

without getting into all the ins and outs of why the latter happened, i can see and understand how it would feel from their perspective.

they're just the main two reasons off the top off my head.

there are plenty of things i don't agree with about ptp and udd alike, and i've openly criticised both on this forum, so i definitely don't consider myself a supporter.

We would have to agree that the Reds are fighting for Democracy, who they think is being held captive by the elite, rich and the ammart right? For anyone who doesn't think so would most likely not be a Red Shirt and therefore do not think that Thailand is being held captive by the antagonists mentioned, correct? Some people also conclude that the rural poor are exclusively, Red Shirts and that anyone else is the opposite. You sympathize with the Rural poor, so do you mean to say you sympathize with every rural poor or just the ones in the Red Shirt movement? If it's the former, then surely you would sympathize with the other rural poor who are not Red shirt mobs, who do not believe they are being held captive by the elites and have their own reasons for not supporting the Red Shirts. So the scenario of Rural Poor vs the Elite becomes rather unreal, UNLESS, there is a group of rural poor being manipulated to creating such a scenario. I'll call this group the Red Mob and the scenario of the Red Mob vs the Elite becomes very real.

Now I want to take a look at these other rural poor are not being "duped", I use the term "dupe" because I'm sure attempts were made but they held fast to their belief. Who then, would be the ones manipulating them to believe that the ammarts are NOT in control? Surely it can't be the ammart and elites because to be an ammart and elite, you wouldn't care about the poor people as some might argue, and wouldn't even talk with the poor people, to say the opposite would mean that the Ammart and Elite DO care for the rural poor, but that's not what the pro-UDD are saying. Then why are they not Red? Could it be possible that these other rural poor have a mind of their own and choose NOT to believe that they are being held captive and are against the Red Mob / PTP government. The result can then become Rural Poor vs the Red Mob/PTP.

What are the differences then between the Rural Poor and the Red Mob? This is where Thaksin comes in. The Red Mob is a product of Thaksin and his cronies manipulative efforts to take advantage of the naive. These efforts include money, propaganda and creating an enemy to which the Red Mob Rural Poor must "eradicate". The OTHER rural poor aka normal poor people, either a:) were not approached, therefore not manipulated approached and not manipulated by Thaksin cronies, because if they were approached and manipulated, they would be Red Shirts. WHAT IF... the ammart, elite and the democrats (however unlikely because as I mentioned earlier, this group of people don't care about the poor) used their own propaganda to manipulate people against Thaksin? What group do these manipulated rural poor belong to? Not the yellow-shirts because as someone mentioned, these yellow shirts are ELITES, RICH people, no poor people are YELLOW Shirt. Is it then plausible that these rural poor have just one belief that they were already aware of even before being manipulated; that is to be against Thaksin and the Red mob? Apply the same logic then to all class of Thai people.

This was off topic but thought I'd see what this leads to about the yellows being elite, rich and the country being held captive. This isn't about the rural poor vs the elite, it's about the People (rich, middle class, poor) vs the Red Mob. Now ask yourself, who do you sympathize with, the people or the Red Mob.

Edited July 3, 2012 by ThaiOats

[nurofiend]

We would have to agree that the Reds are fighting for Democracy, who they think is being held captive by the elite, rich and the ammart right? For anyone who doesn't think so would most likely not be a Red Shirt and therefore do not think that Thailand is being held captive by the antagonists mentioned, correct? Some people also conclude that the rural poor are exclusively, Red Shirts and that anyone else is the opposite. You sympathize with the Rural poor, so do you mean to say you sympathize with every rural poor or just the ones in the Red Shirt movement? If it's the former, then surely you would sympathize with the other rural poor who are not Red shirt mobs, who do not believe they are being held captive by the elites and have their own reasons for not supporting the Red Shirts. So the scenario of Rural Poor vs the Elite becomes rather unreal, UNLESS, there is a group of rural poor being manipulated to creating such a scenario. I'll call this group the Red Mob and the scenario of the Red Mob vs the Elite becomes very real.

no i don't think the first part is correct. you have basically said that in order for a poor person to believe that 'democracy' in this country is controlled and manipulated by the rich and elite, that they would therefore be a member of the red shirts. i disagree completely with that sweeping statement.

You sympathize with the Rural poor, so do you mean to say you sympathize with every rural poor or just the ones in the Red Shirt movement?

both

i sympathize with rural poor in general for obvious reasons, i sympathize with the reds because i think they were dealt a short hand numerous times.

If it's the former, then surely you would sympathize with the other rural poor who are not Red shirt mobs, who do not believe they are being held captive by the elites and have their own reasons for not supporting the Red Shirts

you're trying to simplify it by saying if such and such is this, then it automatically means that such and such is that.

i'm not into that kind of summarizing of situations.

you are saying because other rural poor are not red shirts then they can't be of the opinion that democracy is unfairly being manipulated by the rich and the elite.

just as i sympathize with the reds, i would say that there are rural poor who are not members themselves, that do too.

So the scenario of Rural Poor vs the Elite becomes rather unreal

how is it unreal? it's certainly only one of many aspects of the situation and it's certainly not all it's about.

but saying it's unreal is saying it doesn't exist, are you saying this doesn't exist at all?

Edited July 3, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

Now I want to take a look at these other rural poor are not being "duped", I use the term "dupe" because I'm sure attempts were made but they held fast to their belief. Who then, would be the ones manipulating them to believe that the ammarts are NOT in control? Surely it can't be the ammart and elites because to be an ammart and elite, you wouldn't care about the poor people as some might argue, and wouldn't even talk with the poor people, to say the opposite would mean that the Ammart and Elite DO care for the rural poor, but that's not what the pro-UDD are saying. Then why are they not Red? Could it be possible that these other rural poor have a mind of their own and choose NOT to believe that they are being held captive and are against the Red Mob / PTP government. The result can then become Rural Poor vs the Red Mob/PTP.

do you truly believe that the only rural poor who voted ptp were members of the red shirts?

because if you do then there must be at least, well 15,744,190 million people voted ptp, so lets modestly say 10 million were rural poor, do you believe there are 10 million members of the red shirts?

This isn't about the rural poor vs the elite

no, it's obviously not that simple.

it's about the People (rich, middle class, poor) vs the Red Mob.

no...it's obviously not.....

Edited July 3, 2012 by nurofiend

[whybother]

it's about the People (rich, middle class, poor) vs the Red Mob.

no...it's obviously not.....

How can it NOT be that?

Are you suggesting that people aren't against the red shirts?

Sent from my shoe phone

[nurofiend]

it's about the People (rich, middle class, poor) vs the Red Mob.

no...it's obviously not.....

How can it NOT be that?

Are you suggesting that people aren't against the red shirts?

Sent from my shoe phone

try reading it again and work out how i'm not suggesting what you said, and if you still don't get it, read it again.

[whybother]

try reading it again and work out how i'm not suggesting what you said, and if you still don't get it, read it again.

So when you say "its obviously not the people against the red shirts", you don't actually mean that "its obviously not the people against the red shirts"?

Sent from my shoe phone

[ThaiOats]

no i don't think the first part is correct. you have basically said that in order for a poor person to believe that 'democracy' in this country is controlled and manipulated by the rich and elite, that they would therefore be a member of the red shirts. i disagree completely with that sweeping statement.

You sympathize with the Rural poor, so do you mean to say you sympathize with every rural poor or just the ones in the Red Shirt movement?

both

i sympathize with rural poor in general for obvious reasons, i sympathize with the reds because i think they were dealt a short hand numerous times.

If it's the former, then surely you would sympathize with the other rural poor who are not Red shirt mobs, who do not believe they are being held captive by the elites and have their own reasons for not supporting the Red Shirts

you're trying to simplify it by saying if such and such is this, then it automatically means that such and such is that.

i'm not into that kind of summarizing of situations.

you are saying because other rural poor are not red shirts then they can't be of the opinion that democracy is unfairly being manipulated by the rich and the elite.

just as i sympathize with the reds, i would say that there are rural poor who are not members themselves, that do too.

So the scenario of Rural Poor vs the Elite becomes rather unreal

how is it unreal? it's certainly only one of many aspects of the situation and it's certainly not all it's about.

but saying it's unreal is saying it doesn't exist, are you saying this doesn't exist at all?

So you're saying that there are non red shirts who believe that the country is being controlled by elite correct? These people, are they then, regular people who believe that the elite are the ruling class but choose not to be a Red Shirt? Why do they not choose to be a Red Shirt if they're not being manipulated and share the same belief that Thailand is being controlled by the elites? Is it possible then that they choose not to be manipulated by Thaksin and join the Red Shirts, which I've already mentioned and feel that he is the problem? Suppose these non red shirt, anti-Elite poor people attend a Red Shirt rally, what would be the difference between the two group? If it's because they don't want to align themselves to a particular group, then you would have to ask why and it's very likely that they don't condone the actions of said movement, be it Yellow or Red. Hence, again, these people fall into the "People" group since they are NOT Red.

If some of the Red Shirts were not manipulated, why then, are they not in the "People" group since they share the same ideals of "country being run by elites"? What differentiates the two is what I'm asking? If you're saying I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your answers.

As for you asking "that do you truly believe that the only rural poor who voted ptp were members of the red shirts?", I already said you can apply this logic to all class. What I'm further investigating are the claims by you (somewhat) and other PRO-UDD that these Red Shirts are poor and they themselves are NOT rich and Elite. Unless you mean to say that there ARE rich and elite in the Red Shirt then that's a contradiction where the Red Shirts are fighting against themselves. As we know, contradiction cannot exist.

[nurofiend]

try reading it again and work out how i'm not suggesting what you said, and if you still don't get it, read it again.

So when you say "its obviously not the people against the red shirts", you don't actually mean that "its obviously not the people against the red shirts"?

Sent from my shoe phone

uh goddddddd

the point he was making that i replied to, is that the situation is everyone else in thailand vs the reds.

and it's not.

[nurofiend]

So you're saying that there are non red shirts who believe that the country is being controlled by elite correct? These people, are they then, regular people who believe that the elite are the ruling class but choose not to be a Red Shirt? Why do they not choose to be a Red Shirt if they're not being manipulated and share the same belief that Thailand is being controlled by the elites? Is it possible then that they choose not to be manipulated by Thaksin and join the Red Shirts, which I've already mentioned and feel that he is the problem? Suppose these non red shirt, anti-Elite poor people attend a Red Shirt rally, what would be the difference between the two group? If it's because they don't want to align themselves to a particular group, then you would have to ask why and it's very likely that they don't condone the actions of said movement, be it Yellow or Red. Hence, again, these people fall into the "People" group since they are NOT Red.

If some of the Red Shirts were not manipulated, why then, are they not in the "People" group since they share the same ideals of "country being run by elites"? What differentiates the two is what I'm asking? If you're saying I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your answers.

As for you asking "that do you truly believe that the only rural poor who voted ptp were members of the red shirts?", I already said you can apply this logic to all class. What I'm further investigating are the claims by you (somewhat) and other PRO-UDD that these Red Shirts are poor and they themselves are NOT rich and Elite. Unless you mean to say that there ARE rich and elite in the Red Shirt then that's a contradiction where the Red Shirts are fighting against themselves. As we know, contradiction cannot exist.

i was fair enough to take up your points one by one, could you not do me the courtesy of doing the same for mine instead of asking a million new questions.

i'm not trying to be offensive to you but your reply contains about ten more questions to me, so before i'll answer them for you, i'll wait until you respond to the divided out points that i answered you with and the questions that i asked you.

Edited July 3, 2012 by nurofiend

[ThaiOats]

try reading it again and work out how i'm not suggesting what you said, and if you still don't get it, read it again.

So when you say "its obviously not the people against the red shirts", you don't actually mean that "its obviously not the people against the red shirts"?

Sent from my shoe phone

uh goddddddd

the point he was making that i replied to, is that the situation is everyone else in thailand vs the reds.

and it's not.

What other scenario might there be? It can be You vs Me and what are the differences between you and me in this political situation? You obviously believe that the rural poor, Reds or whatever are getting shafted by the Elites. You can choose to be a Red Shirt or not. If not, then you are the people as am I. I may be a yellow shirt who condone elitists running the country that would put me in "People", or I may not be a yellow shirt who doesn't condone the country being ruled by elites and still be "People". The minute I say "I support Thaksin" (manipulated), I'm a Red Shirt OR I choose to be a Red Shirt and not support Thaksin. Which brings me to think, why be a Red Shirt then unless you're somehow being manipulated? What about supporting Thaksin willingly and not be a red shirt, is that possible? Sure! If you support Thaksin and not be a red shirt, then I ask you, why do you claim to be fighting for democracy?

Even if you're not a Red Shirt who is Pro Democracy against elites and have no qualms with the Red Shirt, you ought to ask why aren't you one? What is it about being a Red Shirt that you don't want to affiliate with in this political situation?

[ThaiOats]

So you're saying that there are non red shirts who believe that the country is being controlled by elite correct? These people, are they then, regular people who believe that the elite are the ruling class but choose not to be a Red Shirt? Why do they not choose to be a Red Shirt if they're not being manipulated and share the same belief that Thailand is being controlled by the elites? Is it possible then that they choose not to be manipulated by Thaksin and join the Red Shirts, which I've already mentioned and feel that he is the problem? Suppose these non red shirt, anti-Elite poor people attend a Red Shirt rally, what would be the difference between the two group? If it's because they don't want to align themselves to a particular group, then you would have to ask why and it's very likely that they don't condone the actions of said movement, be it Yellow or Red. Hence, again, these people fall into the "People" group since they are NOT Red.

If some of the Red Shirts were not manipulated, why then, are they not in the "People" group since they share the same ideals of "country being run by elites"? What differentiates the two is what I'm asking? If you're saying I'm wrong, I'd like to hear your answers.

As for you asking "that do you truly believe that the only rural poor who voted ptp were members of the red shirts?", I already said you can apply this logic to all class. What I'm further investigating are the claims by you (somewhat) and other PRO-UDD that these Red Shirts are poor and they themselves are NOT rich and Elite. Unless you mean to say that there ARE rich and elite in the Red Shirt then that's a contradiction where the Red Shirts are fighting against themselves. As we know, contradiction cannot exist.

i was fair enough to take up your points one by one, could you not do me the courtesy of doing the same for mine instead of asking a million new questions.

i'm not trying to be offensive to you but your reply contains about ten more questions to me, so before i'll answer them for you, i'll wait until you respond to the divided out points that i answered you with and the questions that i asked you.

I'm not very savvy when it comes to using TV's quoting mechanisms. I apologize for that but I do hope that you're able to make sense of what I wrote.

[nurofiend]

try reading it again and work out how i'm not suggesting what you said, and if you still don't get it, read it again.

So when you say "its obviously not the people against the red shirts", you don't actually mean that "its obviously not the people against the red shirts"?

Sent from my shoe phone

uh goddddddd

the point he was making that i replied to, is that the situation is everyone else in thailand vs the reds.

and it's not.

What other scenario might there be?

that everyone who is not a red shirt isn't automatically opposed to them.

[Yunla]

you think any yellows sympathize with the rural poor? maybe when they are speeding by in their nice new porches?

I know yellow shirts who are rural poor.... and while one does have a new porch, none of them have new, nor old for that matter, Porsches.

.

Most of the yellow shirts/ DP voters I know are blue-collar/working-class urban poor, with families, in Bangkok, struggling with rising prices and being completely and totally failed and betrayed by the "we speak for the poor people" PTP and the supposed philanthropic Robin-Hood-in-lipstick, Yingluck person who is squandering all the crucial parliamentary work-time at the moment. All my poor working-class DP voting friends, are entirely pro-reform for rural infrastructure spending and helping rural people, and they were very happy when Abhisit put through bills in parliament and his spending policy on eradicating rural poverty and infrastructure development to produce long-term improvement for rural areas.

Its actually extremely predjudical to differentiate between urban poor and rural poor as many people do with the DP/PTP debate, working-class life is hard as nails if you are surrounded by blocks of decaying flats or by trees. The notion that PTP speak for the poor, and DP speak for the mystery elites, is absolute sludge of the highest order. The cities have millions of poor urban factory-workers who are completely poor by any standard, and many of them vote for DP. To a lot of people including my Thai friends, being working-class does not mean a rejection of the higher institutions of Thailand. Many people are poor, vote DP out of love for the very elites and traditions that the red thugs threatened to murder during their 2010 mass-march, arson & killing speeches. A lot of poor urban people vote DP because they see the DP as defenders of a far older and higher establishment, while at the same time offering to marry the existing elites with a modern democratic meritocracy. This is progressive educated thinking, don't burn everything down and overthrow it with force, work alongside the existing establishment for the betterment of everybody. Essential to this social theory is the concept of gradual change like osmosis, things happen slowly over time if you peacefully put them side by side, step back and let Time work its magic. But that requires patience and understanding, which is lacking in some modern philosophies.

The difference with rural red-shirts is not poverty, because there is a lot of poverty I can see from my window here in Bangkok right now. The difference with the rural poor is lack of progressive modern education, and also tribal bullying and coercion. In the city if you are poor and don't like the people around you, you can move to a different soi. In many poor rural areas people are often trapped in tribal families where petty dictators hold sway over everything including voting loyalties, and because they have been doing that forever it is taken as a given and is unquestioned. These type of complex factors are why you get these lazy blanket statements by PTP and their online followers, that all poor people love redmob and love Thaksin when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Yunla