Everyone Entitled To Dress In Red: Democrats

[hellodolly]

On the other hand money can by a lot of people. Look at some of the lawyers from the western world Thaksin has bought.

The fortune of those who back the Democrats dwarf Thaksins, only they are smart enough to use a proxy to do their politics.

(so there is no misunderstanding I am referring to the private sector only)

I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed

This we can agree on

My My clever aren't we cut and paste.

Beats facing reality dosen't it.

I am not talking about the private sector. I am talking about Thaksin the De Facto PM and the people his money will buy. I made no accusations why so defensive?

[ThaiOats]

Ok and by your reasoning the hypothetical instances I've given are just as good. It's not really black and white when we're using comparatives since we can sit here all day and try to list all the violence that unfolded. If your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good then there's no way I can convince you of my views which were the opposite since we have different beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing though... if there was a military coup in which Thaksin wasn't convicted for corruption, filling his key positions with his relative and such, I would definitely not have the same views as I do now.

"if your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good"

well they're not.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence."

the military were there before any burnings or shooting weren't they? so i guess you think they had no justification when they rolled out!

the red shirts were deemed terrorists before they even arrived too.

"If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements."

it is yes, but my question was if the red shirts did the exact same thing as pad re the airport, would the military have acted differently...

do you think so?

i think so.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

I didn't mention anything about shooting and if you're going to try to convince me that red shirts were peaceful prior to April 10, take a look. The first part of this link is to remind some of us.

For those still doubting that armed militants with black shirts didn't exist.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/04/11/world/20100411THAILAND2_index.html

Edited August 3, 2012 by ThaiOats

[rubl]

"army or no army?"

In relation to what? Sorry, no point

there is a point, you just didn't get it.

"I am no red shirt but given a choice..."

unfinished sentence, sorry no point

there is a point, you just didn't get it.

"if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool."

No point. Assumption which is difficult to prove or disprove as the situation under which it might have occurred didn't.

no point? no point in having an opinion is that it?

one's own thought is permitted to answer these points.

what do you think?

"and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool."

Mmmh, half point. Would have been a full point if you had left out "for each instance".

why? what difference does it make pointing out that they were seperate incidents?

it doesn't take away from the fact that the difference in attitude was based on whether it was pad or udd.

"and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest."

No point. Another assumption/leading question which ignores that at the time the police was in 'full control' and the red-shirts didn't 'do the airport' so no idea what might have happened.

again rubl, i'm asking for a poster to allow himself to think for himself and form an opinion.

have you got one?

"each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act"

Half point at the most since the army was not 'protesting/fighting' on the PAD side. Furthermore the sentence has the suggestion of 'us poor reds against the army' to justify UDD violence.

now you're just being ridiculous.. as if i meant the army were fighting by their side, you know i didn't, so why bother posting such nonsense.

and no i didn't mean it as a justification for red violence, i meant that "each group has their violent element" ok?

"but one group had the military on their side" as in they stood back from intervening.. ok?

"so there was no need for them to act" as in the violent element within pad didn't have to concern themselves about fighting with the military as they knew they were on their side.

and pad did know the military were on their side (NO not fighting with them)

so answer me this, do you think if the army had the same sympathies towards udd as they did towards pad that there would have been the same violence in 2010?

just your opinion please.

My dear fiend, let me first try to assure you I'm not being argumentative here and I do try to stick to the topic. My friend and mentor who's name starts with a P urged me so.

I must admit I'm a bit surprised at your response. Just like I (like to) believe the questions/points you (tried to) raised represent your opinion, my responses represent my opinion. We do not have to agree, or we may just agree to disagree.

Your last question is irrelevant and does start to get argumentative though. You set some conditions and ask me to give my opinion on what was not the case. It doesn't work that way. Now if you would ask me my opinion on just everyone wearing any colour shirt, well then .. I would tell you to re-read the posts in this topic. I gave my opinion on that already.

Now you may or may not choose to reply on this, but finishing this post I'll log-off. I just walked around the corner to buy a beer and feel like watching a nice movie. Maybe a historical one with Romans slaughtering Barbarians, maybe Sharpe sending off a few Frenchies? I think I'll settle on "Kelly's Heroes", even though it has Moriarty with his negative waves

[firestar]

On the other hand money can by a lot of people. Look at some of the lawyers from the western world Thaksin has bought.

The fortune of those who back the Democrats dwarf Thaksins, only they are smart enough to use a proxy to do their politics.

(so there is no misunderstanding I am referring to the private sector only)

I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed

This we can agree on

My My clever aren't we cut and paste.

Beats facing reality dosen't it.

I am not talking about the private sector. I am talking about Thaksin the De Facto PM and the people his money will buy. I made no accusations why so defensive?

Were did I cut and paste anything? I just split your post.

Defensive about what? yes Thaksin has the money to "buy people" (this is an accusation btw) and there is little doubt he did.

[nurofiend]

Ok and by your reasoning the hypothetical instances I've given are just as good. It's not really black and white when we're using comparatives since we can sit here all day and try to list all the violence that unfolded. If your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good then there's no way I can convince you of my views which were the opposite since we have different beliefs.

I'll tell you one thing though... if there was a military coup in which Thaksin wasn't convicted for corruption, filling his key positions with his relative and such, I would definitely not have the same views as I do now.

"if your views of the Red shirts were all rosy and good"

well they're not.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence."

the military were there before any burnings or shooting weren't they? so i guess you think they had no justification when they rolled out!

the red shirts were deemed terrorists before they even arrived too.

"If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements."

it is yes, but my question was if the red shirts did the exact same thing as pad re the airport, would the military have acted differently...

do you think so?

i think so.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

I didn't mention anything about shooting and if you're going to try to convince me that red shirts were peaceful prior to April 10? The first part of this link is to remind some of us.

http://www.nytimes.c...sia/11thai.html

For those still doubting that armed militants with black shirts didn't exist.

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

which to me suggests that it was a reactive move rather than a preemptive move.

[ThaiOats]

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

which to me suggests that it was a reactive move rather than a preemptive move.

Are you implying that the Red Shirts didn't bring any weapons to protest before the military got involved?

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

Edited August 3, 2012 by ThaiOats

[nurofiend]

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

which to me suggests that it was a reactive move rather than a preemptive move.

Are you implying that the Red Shirts didn't bring any weapons to protest before the military got involved?

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

no, i'm suggesting the military didn't roll out as a reaction to violence.

[firestar]

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

Pad guards, the Srivichai Warriors, were armed when they stormed NBT the public television. The military didn't react then.

I don't think anyone is condoning the red shirts to be honest, only highlighting the fact there is two sides to every story.

[ThaiOats]

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

which to me suggests that it was a reactive move rather than a preemptive move.

Are you implying that the Red Shirts didn't bring any weapons to protest before the military got involved?

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

no, i'm suggesting the military didn't roll out as a reaction to violence.

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

[ThaiOats]

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

Pad guards, the Srivichai Warriors, were armed when they stormed NBT the public television. The military didn't react then.

I don't think anyone is condoning the red shirts to be honest, only highlighting the fact there is two sides to every story.

Right, because the Police had it under control did they not?

[nurofiend]

"If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence." was what I said.

which to me suggests that it was a reactive move rather than a preemptive move.

Are you implying that the Red Shirts didn't bring any weapons to protest before the military got involved?

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

no, i'm suggesting the military didn't roll out as a reaction to violence.

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

they were rolled out to stop the protest.

and if you hate it, then don't do it... saying you hate it doesn't absolve you from taking part in it.

it just makes you contradictious.

[nurofiend]

The military reacted to the Red Shirts.

Pad guards, the Srivichai Warriors, were armed when they stormed NBT the public television. The military didn't react then.

I don't think anyone is condoning the red shirts to be honest, only highlighting the fact there is two sides to every story.

Right, because the Police had it under control did they not?

and the police were given enough of a chance to control 2010 before the army rolled out, were they?

Edited August 3, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

[firestar]

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

That's the whole debate.

Why when the protest was still peaceful did hundred of soldiers advance on protester camps near Phan Fah bridge and Ratchadamnoen road, but allowed PAD supporters to occupy Government House or make their way to Suvarnabhumi?

[ThaiOats]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

Just as how some people can't believe that there are those who defend Thaksin and this push for faux democracy.

[nurofiend]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

Just as how some people can't believe that there are those who defend Thaksin and this push for faux democracy.

what do you mean by defending 'this push for faux democracy'? can you be more precise?

as for thaksin, my position is certainly not set on defence. there are plenty of things i am critical of about him.

[firestar]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

Just as how some people can't believe that there are those who defend Thaksin and this push for faux democracy.

It is a battle between two rival oligarchies, at the risk of repeating myself no one is condoning Thaksin, but why blindly follow a rival elite jockeying for position under pretext of "fighting thaksin"?

[ThaiOats]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

Just as how some people can't believe that there are those who defend Thaksin and this push for faux democracy.

It is a battle between two rival oligarchies, at the risk of repeating myself no one is condoning Thaksin, but why blindly follow a rival elite jockeying for position under pretext of "fighting thaksin"?

I'm not blindly following a rival elite. You won't see me wearing a blue sky channel t-shirt or a t-shirt with Abhisit's face on it, you might ask that of the other party. Let me put it this way.. just because they are elite does not mean they are evil or cannot act justly. People considering them elite puts them into a position of non-elite or poor-class etc., but that's because you put yourself there. I doubt many of us who are against Thaksin are pointing our fingers and calling the other people "non-elite" or whatever you might call the opposite of elite.

Again, ask yourself what you might consider elite and if Thaksin isn't one. If you ask me, I'd like Chuan Leekpai to be back on the PM's seat but he along with other Democrats chose Abhisit to lead. So who else do we have?

[firestar]

I doubt many of us who are against Thaksin are pointing our fingers and calling the other people "non-elite" or whatever you might call the opposite of elite.

Again, ask yourself what you might consider elite and if Thaksin isn't one.

I thought by saying "two rival oligarchies" I made it pretty clear this included Thaksin.

If you ask me, I'd like Chuan Leekpai to be back on the PM's seat but he along with other Democrats chose Abhisit to lead. So who else do we have?

Fair enough. Personally I'd be hard pressed to choose a PM even under the "lesser evil" principle.

[ThaiOats]

I doubt many of us who are against Thaksin are pointing our fingers and calling the other people "non-elite" or whatever you might call the opposite of elite.

Again, ask yourself what you might consider elite and if Thaksin isn't one.

I thought by saying "two rival oligarchies" I made it pretty clear this included Thaksin.

If you ask me, I'd like Chuan Leekpai to be back on the PM's seat but he along with other Democrats chose Abhisit to lead. So who else do we have?

Fair enough. Personally I'd be hard pressed to choose a PM even under the "lesser evil" principle.

My apologies for missing the oligarchy part on my first read through.

[Moruya]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests.

And i suppose the difference in military presence and action had nothing to do with that...

pad leaders also used threats of violent action against the government and police.. they left the military out funnily enough.

it's this black and white 'one group is more violent than the other' stance that i find questionable, both groups have violent elements and their actions have been situational.

there's no question that the results of red protests has resulted in more violence than yellow protests, but you have to look at the differences in the situations and ask the hypotheticals to get a fair viewpoint imo.

The worst thing is trying to convince yourself of these clear untruths

[Moruya]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

The police fled when the reds rioted in 2010.

[Moruya]

they were rolled out to stop the protest.

and if you hate it, then don't do it... saying you hate it doesn't absolve you from taking part in it.

it just makes you contradictious.

"Contradictory" would be a better choice of word

[Moruya]

So what do you think is the reason the military rolled out? And I hate to bring this into an off topic discussion.

That's the whole debate.

Why when the protest was still peaceful did hundred of soldiers advance on protester camps near Phan Fah bridge and Ratchadamnoen road, but allowed PAD supporters to occupy Government House or make their way to Suvarnabhumi?

Nobody realised quite how useless the police force was

[Moruya]

i can't believe people would argue against the difference in military attitude towards each protest group.

Just as how some people can't believe that there are those who defend Thaksin and this push for faux democracy.

It is a battle between two rival oligarchies, at the risk of repeating myself no one is condoning Thaksin, but why blindly follow a rival elite jockeying for position under pretext of "fighting thaksin"?

The term oligarchy means "the ruling few" and typically implies tyranny.

[Moruya]

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear. Tell me Korn didn't say or do that. Tell me The Nation didn't print that. Tell me TV didn't post this. Now if Buchholz doesn't dig out that tired old photograph of Pol. Col. Thingummy dressed all in red with a "funny" caption my day would not be complete.

Note to Korn: Psst, Blue is a democrat Party colour, Blue is a colour on the national flag. People are entitled to dress in Blue too.

What a complete waste of space.................

As probably the most eloquent of the conjoined Propagate Thaksin People and Destroy Democracy Demonically twisted pair coupling, this is your most useless post. Ever

Sad that you seem unable to realise that criticism of A does not mean support of B.

In this "wonderful" country, where sometimes even the rules of physics do not seem to apply, not everything is black or white, or clearly transparent.

I'm from Liverpool, where again did Dorothy come from ?

Dorothy means "gift from God"

[Moruya]

Does it matter?

The point is double standards of many TV posters are amazing.

Violence versus nonviolence?

I am no yellow shirt but given a choice...

army or no army?

I am no red shirt but given a choice...

if you think pad wouldn't have been more violent if they had the same army aggression against them then you are a fool.

and if you argue that there was no difference in attitude by the army towards each group for each instance, then again, you are a fool.

and if you think the reds would've got the same treatment from the military had they done the exact same thing re the airport, then, well you know the rest.

each group has their violent element, but one group had the military on their side, so there was no need for them to act.

Taking bits of facts, mangling them and hacking them about into a fiction that exists in a post in this magnificent organ can never make it a fact in anyone's mind but yours

[Moruya]

ahh.... the ol' chestnut.... "they're equally violent".... "they're both the exact same"

What balderdash that's had all the holes punched into the nonsense countless times in countless threads.

You're reduced to having to try conjure up hypothetical situations that never happened with actual real life situations that actually occurred in such a desperate attempt to show equality and rationalize the Red Shirts overwhelmingly more violent history.

Unfortunately for your attempt, the real events highlight the dissimilarity in the level and frequency of violence.

.

If you are going to label the red shirt movement as having an " overwhelmingly more violent history." you might want to compare that "history" with the history of the Royal Thai Army and its dealings with Thai civilians and see what happens when the two overlap. Invariably it is the Thai citizens that lose (often their lives).

It is the plain knowledge of what the RTA are capable of that forms my opinion of Abhisit who was also well aware of that capability and propensity for violence but still elected to let loose the dogs of war. As you know I do not rate him highly on the human rights front.

How do you rate Thaksin on the "human rights front"?

[Moruya]

the myth that the pad were non-violent is also just that, a myth.

But that doesn't stop people from claiming it...

The fact that the violence escalated over time results in the fact that the last conflict was the most violent.

And one of the reasons that it was so violent was due to the decisions of the government, but people here like to blame only one side... no surprise.

Why didn't Korn say everyone has the right to wear yellow, too? Maybe because that would have been as ... intelligent as the statement he already laid...

Think I've heard someone recently pointed out a few hyperbole, so I'd like to do the same.

If the Red-shirts didn't bring any weapons including oil to burn down buildings, the military probably wouldn't have any justification to roll out and counter armed violence.

If the Yellow shirts brought weapons to the airport and burned down some if its towers, then it's highly probable that the military would've applied the same counter measurements.

The thing is, we can't prove any of those situations because they didn't happen. As for Korn not mentioning the Yellow-shirts, I don't believe they're making any radical claims like the Red Shirts are. The Red shirts claim that they are the voice of Thailand, but they're not and that's what Korn is pointing out. Listen to their leaders and rally and you'll find differences.

The PAD pretty much kept out of politics after they achieved their goal of ousting a corrupted PM. They stayed quiet until the ugly rear its head back in... what about the Red Shirts? They stayed in even after they got PTP into the government seat but they're still not satisfied until opposition was 'eradicated' and their Dear Leader comes back and then what? You think they'll just go away quietly?

The PAD were violent yes, but there's a degree of violence and it was much less violent than the Red Shirt protests. For crying out loud the whole city burned!

For crying out loud the whole city did not burn. This was not Dresden. The propoganda might have worked once but two years later it's recognised for what it is.

Places around most of the country were burning

[Moruya]

On the other hand money can by a lot of people. Look at some of the lawyers from the western world Thaksin has bought.

The fortune of those who back the Democrats dwarf Thaksins, only they are smart enough to use a proxy to do their politics.

(so there is no misunderstanding I am referring to the private sector only)

I admit I am not the sharpest tool in the shed

This we can agree on

The only dwarves here are both poisonous and red