Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts Clash On Darunee Case

[SomTumTiger]

"they"?

The other paper has now done three articles on the incident. I don't think "they" (whoever that means) did anything. Articles do get pulled from time to time and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error.

One of the main issues regarding the incident now seems to revolve around the police and how they didn't inform either group that there was no court case that day (the reason for both rallies). Even before the first group (the yellow shirts) arrived, the case had been already been decided that a continuance was issued and the case would be heard at the end of October. They failed to inform the yellow shirts as well as the red shirts who came later. The police also are being questioned as to the poor job they did keeping the two groups separate.

.

Thai police are fracking terrible. Two chimpanzees with batons could do a better job, and cheaper.

[Buchholz]

it's uncommon, but I've seen that occur before when a media source wants to redo an article.

nope, no redoing of the article

i guess it was just too red friendly and they rang the alarm bells.

"they"?

The other paper has now done three articles on the incident. I don't think "they" (whoever that means) did anything. Articles do get pulled from time to time and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error.

"they", as in the editors

"and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error."

and that corresponds to this how? the article was completely deleted, no corrections or re-writes.

If the information in the article was in error, that section is corrected and the re-write is put out, even with a different headline, such as seems to be the case with this article.

The other information in the article is certainly contained in the subsequent three articles or are you saying that not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles?

Anyway, the point seems rather minor in the context of the new focus on the issue concerning the police's involvement, or lack there of.

If they had simply informed the protesters outside that the case had be postponed, every one goes home and violence doesn't occur (at least on that day).

It'll be interesting on the day the case comes up (I believe it's Oct. 29), if there's a repeat of the fracas or if the police enforce Chalerm's new policy of first group on the scene gets exclusive protest rights to the area and any subsequent group is told to leave.

If that had been the case in this incident 4 days ago, the yellow shirts arrived first.

.

[Buchholz]

"they"?

The other paper has now done three articles on the incident. I don't think "they" (whoever that means) did anything. Articles do get pulled from time to time and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error.

One of the main issues regarding the incident now seems to revolve around the police and how they didn't inform either group that there was no court case that day (the reason for both rallies). Even before the first group (the yellow shirts) arrived, the case had been already been decided that a continuance was issued and the case would be heard at the end of October. They failed to inform the yellow shirts as well as the red shirts who came later. The police also are being questioned as to the poor job they did keeping the two groups separate.

.

Thai police are fracking terrible. Two chimpanzees with batons could do a better job, and cheaper.

Not if one of those is a prospective Cabinet minister:

http://www.thaivisa....t/#entry5704064

.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

"they"?

The other paper has now done three articles on the incident. I don't think "they" (whoever that means) did anything. Articles do get pulled from time to time and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error.

"they", as in the editors

"and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error."

and that corresponds to this how? the article was completely deleted, no corrections or re-writes.

If the information in the article was in error, that section is corrected and the re-write is put out, even with a different headline, such as seems to be the case with this article.

The other information in the article is certainly contained in the subsequent three articles or are you saying that not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles?

Anyway, the point seems rather minor in the context of the new focus on the issue concerning the police's involvement, or lack there of.

If they had simply informed the protesters outside that the case had be postponed, every one goes home and violence doesn't occur (at least on that day).

It'll be interesting on the day the case comes up (I believe it's Oct. 29), if there's a repeat of the fracas or if the police enforce Chalerm's new policy of first group on the scene gets exclusive protest rights to the area and any subsequent group is told to leave.

If that had been the case in this incident 4 days ago, the yellow shirts arrived first.

.

no, i suppose i'm not saying that "not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles"?

but i suppose you didn't realistically think that's what i was saying either..

anyway, the colours clash article pretty much backs up what i've been saying all along.

[Buchholz]

"they", as in the editors

"and it's been my experience that they do so when they are re-written with either additional information or to correct articles that were in error."

and that corresponds to this how? the article was completely deleted, no corrections or re-writes.

If the information in the article was in error, that section is corrected and the re-write is put out, even with a different headline, such as seems to be the case with this article.

The other information in the article is certainly contained in the subsequent three articles or are you saying that not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles?

Anyway, the point seems rather minor in the context of the new focus on the issue concerning the police's involvement, or lack there of.

If they had simply informed the protesters outside that the case had be postponed, every one goes home and violence doesn't occur (at least on that day).

It'll be interesting on the day the case comes up (I believe it's Oct. 29), if there's a repeat of the fracas or if the police enforce Chalerm's new policy of first group on the scene gets exclusive protest rights to the area and any subsequent group is told to leave.

If that had been the case in this incident 4 days ago, the yellow shirts arrived first.

no, i suppose i'm not saying that "not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles"?

but i suppose you didn't realistically think that's what i was saying either..

anyway, the colours clash article pretty much backs up what i've been saying all along.

Well, except it does not for your most-posted-on aspect of the incident.

it was the smashing up of a car by the yellow shirts that began the violence.

but that's ok. Anyway, what exactly does that article back up what you've "been saying all along" in this thread?

.

[rixalex]

There is no monopoly of virtue but taking the broad view I believe that morality and fairness lies with the redshirt movement than its violent opponents.

Personally, i don't take that as being a broad view, i take that as being an extremely gullible and ill-informed view. But just my opinion. And to even quietly utter the words morality and fairness in relation to any of the players in this, frankly takes quite some gall.

As for the violent opponents bit, that comment carries with it an implication that the violence has been one-sided. I think we know that not to be the case, don't we?

We will see what the future brings but I would guess that the redshirts will evolve into something more middle class, less extreme and more pragmatic.

Ah yes, that old chestnut that we have been hearing for how many years now, about how this movement with at times extremely violent tendencies, set up, funded and led by an anti-democratic, on the run, convicted criminal, as a means of revenge against the powers that brought him down, and a means of regaining lost power and money, will eventually morph from that ugly violent self-serving beast into something beautiful; a real grass roots movement for the betterment of all Thai people and the advancement of democracy.

Yeah well, as you say, "we shall see". In the meantime, it is what it is: a sledgehammer for Thaksin to get his point across when his other proxy outfits fail to.

Edited September 28, 2012 by rixalex

[rixalex]

i guess it was just too red friendly and they rang the alarm bells.

Doesn't make much sense. Whilst "red friendly" articles might not be common in The Nation, they do appear fairly often.

Indeed The Nation even has on its staff "red friendly" reporters, such as Senior Reporter Pravit Rojanaphruk. He's pretty outspoken on most things, and i find it hard to imagine him letting slide the sort of blatant censorship you suspect as having gone on here.

[jayboy]

...this movement with at times extremely violent tendencies, set up, funded and led by an anti-democratic, on the run, convicted criminal, as a means of revenge against the powers that brought him down, and a means of regaining lost power and money...

Back to the nursery level again.Ah well - if only everything was so simple and cartoon like.

[rixalex]

...this movement with at times extremely violent tendencies, set up, funded and led by an anti-democratic, on the run, convicted criminal, as a means of revenge against the powers that brought him down, and a means of regaining lost power and money...

Back to the nursery level again.Ah well - if only everything was so simple and cartoon like.

Sometimes things actually are fairly simple.

Your mentality on this reminds me of UFO spotters, or crop circle fanatics, who see some flattened grass, and take it is having some great deeper meaning; a message being sent from afar, a sign from a higher being. So desperate for confirmation and affirmation of their beliefs, they see what they want to see... when all it ever was, was a patch of grass a dog had scooted on after pooping.

Your disgust and hatred for certain established elements in Thailand, that you have prayed for so long would be risen up against by someone, anyone, has you, in your desperation, seeing the red shirts for something they most certainly are not.

[jayboy]

...this movement with at times extremely violent tendencies, set up, funded and led by an anti-democratic, on the run, convicted criminal, as a means of revenge against the powers that brought him down, and a means of regaining lost power and money...

Back to the nursery level again.Ah well - if only everything was so simple and cartoon like.

Sometimes things actually are fairly simple.

Your mentality on this reminds me of UFO spotters, or crop circle fanatics, who see some flattened grass, and take it is having some great deeper meaning; a message being sent from afar, a sign from a higher being. So desperate for confirmation and affirmation of their beliefs, they see what they want to see... when all it ever was, was a patch of grass a dog had scooted on after pooping.

Your disgust and hatred for certain established elements in Thailand, that you have prayed for so long would be risen up against by someone, anyone, has you, in your desperation, seeing the red shirts for something they most certainly are not.

Let me know when you return to normal service.You used to be someone with whom a reasonable discussion was possible.

Incidentally I don't hate anybody.It's true I have a dislike for power hungry and corrupt generals as well as quasi fascist groups - so should all reasonable people.I am well aware of the Thaksin's faults and the excesses of the redshirt movement.I do believe in a constututional monarchy, the rule of law through undirected courts, representative democracy etc..a traditional liberal if you like.

I do with many caveats support the redshirt movement (most well educated foreigners do) and I reject the cartoonish explanations for its existence you referred to in a previous post.And by the way political and historical processes are never simple - except in the minds of the obsessed like the US tea party movement

[whybother]

<snip>

I do with many caveats support the redshirt movement (most well educated foreigners do) and I reject the cartoonish explanations for its existence you referred to in a previous post.And by the way political and historical processes are never simple - except in the minds of the obsessed like the US tea party movement

Yes. I support the red shirts too. 100%. Except for their association with Thaksin. So maybe it's 10%.

[rixalex]

Let me know when you return to normal service.You used to be someone with whom a reasonable discussion was possible.

Oh well.

For my part, i have always enjoyed discussion with you, especially since i learnt to simply smile at the condescending, patronising overtones that pervade most of your posts, and take that aspect of them as being an eccentricity rather than a sad lack of manners and respect.

Incidentally I don't hate anybody.

Hatred is all so irrational, uncouth and unsophisticated isn't it. You are quick to label those here (who you are fond of describing as being the usual suspects) as having a hatred for Thaksin, because this is a way of belittling their argument, but when it comes to your own feelings on people such as generals, feelings that you express week in, week out, with an equally strong passion as those who speak out against Thaksin, this is, we are told, not "hatred". No, of course not. You're much too high-brow for that.

I do with many caveats support the redshirt movement (most well educated foreigners do)

most well educated foreigners do

This sounds like another one of those highly accurate and scientific jayboy polls, that already brought us classics such as, most Thai people want Thaksin back, and more recently, most of the army are red supporters.

[jayboy]

Let me know when you return to normal service.You used to be someone with whom a reasonable discussion was possible.

Oh well.

For my part, i have always enjoyed discussion with you, especially since i learnt to simply smile at the condescending, patronising overtones that pervade most of your posts, and take that aspect of them as being an eccentricity rather than a sad lack of manners and respect.

Incidentally I don't hate anybody.

Hatred is all so irrational, uncouth and unsophisticated isn't it. You are quick to label those here (who you are fond of describing as being the usual suspects) as having a hatred for Thaksin, because this is a way of belittling their argument, but when it comes to your own feelings on people such as generals, feelings that you express week in, week out, with an equally strong passion as those who speak out against Thaksin, this is, we are told, not "hatred". No, of course not. You're much too high-brow for that.

I do with many caveats support the redshirt movement (most well educated foreigners do)

most well educated foreigners do

This sounds like another one of those highly accurate and scientific jayboy polls, that already brought us classics such as, most Thai people want Thaksin back, and more recently, most of the army are red supporters.

By way of clarification

1.The victory time and time again of Thaksin oriented parties at general elections suggests that many millions of Thais would like Thaksin back.

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

3.Most well educated foreigners - and I mean those who have worked at a senior level in the Kingdom for many years - tend to recoil from Thaksin but have much sympathy for redshirt objectives.

You and others may wriggle and writhe at these conclusions but the first two cannot really be faulted.The third point is I agree rather subjective but I have plenty of anecdotal evidence for it.

[rixalex]

By way of clarification

1.The victory time and time again of Thaksin oriented parties at general elections suggests that many millions of Thais would like Thaksin back.

1. There is a big difference between many millions of Thais and the millions of Thais required to substantiate the "most Thais" statement.

2. General elections show support for Thaksin's policies. Whether or not they show support for the man himself and his plight, is a somewhat different matter. I would imagine though, if PTP shared your optimism regarding Thaksin's popularity, they would have been calling for some sort of referendum on the Thaksin issue. I believe the idea has been put forward before from various quarters but has only been met by silence from the PTP side. Rather telling i would say.

Just my suggestion, but i think you would be on much more solid footing, if you simply left it at, "a lot of Thais want Thaksin back".

[rixalex]

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

[OzMick]

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

Not even then. In my experience of "red" areas, those most likely to reject Thaksin and the red creed are the younger family members.

Of course my observations on the ground don't match the view from Jayboy's ivory tower of academia and the lofty tomes he studies to get his sanitised version of the red horde.

[rixalex]

3.Most well educated foreigners - and I mean those who have worked at a senior level in the Kingdom for many years - tend to recoil from Thaksin but have much sympathy for redshirt objectives.

If the red shirt objectives were what they say they are, i think the red shirts would have enormous support right across the board, be they high-brow scholars like yourself and your chums, or be they bar-stool bottom-of-the-barrel idiots like the rest of us. But alas, the objectives are not what they say they are.

All one needs to do is ignore what they say, and observe what they do.

[TheKrayTriplet]

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

You could probably work it out yourself by looking at the deployment of troops during the events of 2010. I mean someone had to look after the barracks, yes?

[Noistar]

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

Not even then. In my experience of "red" areas, those most likely to reject Thaksin and the red creed are the younger family members.

Of course my observations on the ground don't match the view from Jayboy's ivory tower of academia and the lofty tomes he studies to get his sanitised version of the red horde.

You mean they can't present a reasoned argument.

Seems to be a 'red' forte, being unable to debate. Starts at the top (well Yingluck), and works its way down to the foghorn, do what we want.

Perhaps performing their duties as politicians would help.

Never happen.

I despair, but there is nothing to stop Thailand destroying itself. RIP

[Nickymaster]

2.Since most ordinary soldiers are from social classes and regions sympathetic to redshirts it's a reasonable conclusion that this might affect their political sympathies.

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

You could probably work it out yourself by looking at the deployment of troops during the events of 2010. I mean someone had to look after the barracks, yes?

Edited September 28, 2012 by Nickymaster

[rixalex]

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

You could probably work it out yourself by looking at the deployment of troops during the events of 2010. I mean someone had to look after the barracks, yes?

By work it out you mean take a guess based on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions, and then go around stating your guess as if it were a proven fact?

[nurofiend]

no, i suppose i'm not saying that "not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles"?

but i suppose you didn't realistically think that's what i was saying either..

anyway, the colours clash article pretty much backs up what i've been saying all along.

Well, except it does not for your most-posted-on aspect of the incident.

it was the smashing up of a car by the yellow shirts that began the violence.

but that's ok. Anyway, what exactly does that article back up what you've "been saying all along" in this thread?

.

that it was the smashing up the car that took it to another level, you know people actually getting injured, i think i used the term 'real ugly' meant as relative to previous to the car smashing when there was just a bit of pushing and pulling.

that's what i meant by what started the violence.

i would call what happened previous to the car smashing, a minor brush, i would call would call what happened post car smashing, violence.

call the breaking up of the car a flashpoint if you like.

sorry, but the yellows come off as worse and the more violent out of this.

these petty discussions is the reason that i didn't want to drag myself into this thread.

but when someone replies to you and you disagree, it's difficult to just leave it out there as it looks like acceptance of their point.

[nurofiend]

i guess it was just too red friendly and they rang the alarm bells.

Doesn't make much sense. Whilst "red friendly" articles might not be common in The Nation, they do appear fairly often.

Indeed The Nation even has on its staff "red friendly" reporters, such as Senior Reporter Pravit Rojanaphruk. He's pretty outspoken on most things, and i find it hard to imagine him letting slide the sort of blatant censorship you suspect as having gone on here.

different newspaper though.

[Buchholz]

no, i suppose i'm not saying that "not one sentence of the removed article is in any of those other articles"?

but i suppose you didn't realistically think that's what i was saying either..

anyway, the colours clash article pretty much backs up what i've been saying all along.

Well, except it does not for your most-posted-on aspect of the incident.

it was the smashing up of a car by the yellow shirts that began the violence.

but that's ok. Anyway, what exactly does that article back up what you've "been saying all along" in this thread?

.

that it was the smashing up the car that took it to another level, you know people actually getting injured, i think i used the term 'real ugly' meant as relative to previous to the car smashing when there was just a bit of pushing and pulling.

that's what i meant by what started the violence.

i would call what happened previous to the car smashing, a minor brush, i would call would call what happened post car smashing, violence.

call the breaking up of the car a flashpoint if you like.

sorry, but the yellows come off as worse and the more violent out of this.

these petty discussions is the reason that i didn't want to drag myself into this thread.

but when someone replies to you and you disagree, it's difficult to just leave it out there as it looks like acceptance of their point.

There's no evidence that the fracas dramatically escalated (or was a "flashpoint") after the truck windshield was broken.

There were minimal injuries on either side, around 5 people with minor injuries.

In light of previous incidents, I don't consider that as "real ugly"

"the yellows came off as worse"

Not really, they were the first group there.

The fracas was a minor scrap, involving both sides.

There was equal squabbling and shoving from both sides.

,

[TheKrayTriplet]

Complete agree, but again, when you start using terms like "most", you start venturing deeper and deeper into unverified speculation.

Perhaps if you provided statistics as to the regional breakdown concerning the birth places of all current members of the military, you might be able to lend some weight to your "most of the army" claim.

You could probably work it out yourself by looking at the deployment of troops during the events of 2010. I mean someone had to look after the barracks, yes?

By work it out you mean take a guess based on a variety of unsubstantiated assumptions, and then go around stating your guess as if it were a proven fact?

OK, carry on your spat.

[Noistar]

The point of the oriinal quote was simply to point out that there are elite Red Shirts to counter a claim the elites are all yellow shirts.

It's quite an easy point, really. Even 473geo got it.

On the contrary it's a fatuous point in which once again meaning is distorted by sloppy use of English and I'm afraid a rather crude understanding of the dynamics to the current political struggle.

If you are suggesting that within the redshirt leadership there are wealthy individuals, that would be correct.Within redshirt supporters as a whole there are far more educated and prosperous people than is often realised or admitted.As a matter of fact rather like the English and American Civil Wars there are often supporters of different causes within one family.It suits the interests of some to maintain otherwise.However in the context of the Thai political crisis it's quite clear that one side has contempt for democracy and progress towards equality and one side doesn't.Then there are the Whigs who stand for the old order but have the intelligence and sense of self interest who understand compromise and slow dilution of wealth/political power is necessary for their interests to survive the transition to a better Thailand more or less unscathed.Of course there are exceptions and overlapping areas as there always are.But the overall position is clear.

However there will always be an element that thinks only in childish terms."Ooh look the redshirts have rich people too, so they're just elite as well, innit" or similar dimbulb stuff.

Dismissing the yellows/Democrats as having a 'contempt for democracy and ...... equality' while supporting the reds/PTP as being the inverse would appear to be a sweeping and biased, statement to say the least!

The ruling party's aims seem to mirror those of a Thai who is currently 'off-site'). Using their electoral majority they are following a 'can do/will do' philosophy.

Their apparent 'non-contempt' of democracy allows them to ignore parliamentary procedure by failing to allow the Opposition to perform their Democratically Elected role - note "Democratically Elected". Fact. If this is an example of not treating Democracy contemptuously, then I'd be hard-pressed to find a more definitive example.

Throwing back to the usual Abhisit/army/2007 Constitution ploy doesn't alter the fact that the ruling party are acting like a dictatorship, throwing their toys out the pram at the merest hint of 'can't'.

Thailand will not receive a balance to the benefit of everyone if it is forever swinging left & right so dramatically.

The reds/ruling party are not sweetness and light. Someone with deep pockets is hiding behind this naive view you hold. Their agenda is not to benefit the Thai nation.

We will see what the future brings but I would guess that the redshirts will evolve into something more middle class, less extreme and more pragmatic.

What is 'middle class'? There is scant evidence of the ruling party driving their red-shirt supporters towards the ability to make reasoned decisions.

Instead, the ruling party have disappeared down another path which promises this 'utopia' which KT has determined.

[gopis108]

For a nation of so-called BUDDHISTS---there is too much violence in Thailand--three guesses WHY__The reason is actually very easily understood by attending any ready food Market anywhere in Thailand-NOTHING BUT FLESH-ie MEAT-LOrd BUddhas whole purpose of visiting this earth was to promote AHIMSA ---non-violence-and what did he recommend-no meat eating ---no killing-no violence.If we Eat like vicious animals we shall surely achieve the result which is animal births in the future after we leave this human body-Human beings are expected to become civilized and stop eating flesh and become peaceful and sensible and progress to better and better human bodies,until achieving the spirit body which will end our temporary births in the whell of Samsara.Cheers.

[metisdead]

Copy and pasting content from Bangkok Post is not allowed as per forum rule 31. Posts have been removed.

[nurofiend]

Copy and pasting content from Bangkok Post is not allowed as per forum rule 31. Posts have been removed.

ok, apologies.

my point has been proven now anyway.

cheers.

[nurofiend]

There's no evidence that the fracas dramatically escalated (or was a "flashpoint") after the truck windshield was broken.

there is evidence of what i said in the bangkok post buchlolz.

Edited October 1, 2012 by nurofiend