Nattawut Tells Red Shirts To Refrain Rallying At D S I This Thursday

[15Peter20]

Why do red shirts always need to be told not to protest?

Because if they're not told, then that's the problem?

Seriously though, there are sections of the red shirt movement which will demonstrate far more readily than the rest of it. I imagine the demonstration in front of the DSI was not going to be a massive gathering, maybe just a few hundred or a thousand or so of the more jittery types in the movement - the more active activists if you like.

These smaller groups need to be reigned in as their presence could be a contributor to a violent outcome - they either attack or are attacked. So I believe Nattawut was just trying to dissuade this smaller group from demonstrating as the issue is not contentious enough to risk any confrontation or antagonism being splashed all over the news. He wants this to pass without incident.

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

Edited December 12, 2012 by 15Peter20

[righteous]

Why do red shirts always need to be told not to protest?

Because if they're not told, then that's the problem?

Seriously though, there are sections of the red shirt movement which will demonstrate far more readily than the rest of it. I imagine the demonstration in front of the DSI was not going to be a massive gathering, maybe just a few hundred or a thousand or so of the more jittery types in the movement - the more active activists if you like.

These smaller groups need to be reigned in as their presence could be a contributor to a violent outcome - they either attack or are attacked. So I believe Nattawut was just trying to dissuade this smaller group from demonstrating as the issue is not contentious enough to risk any confrontation or antagonism being splashed all over the news. He wants this to pass without incident.

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

An upper hand electorally achieved and maintained, I might add.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

The logic escapes me. If frequent calls not to protest are made to show there is no need, that should be obvious and therefor there should be no need to make that call. Unless the red-shirts are on permanent standby mode with orders to be ready to march on one hour notice.

BTW a fine example of how the government uses this 'political pressure' group to maintain the upper hand through their Pheu Thai party list MPs who just happen to be UDD leaders as well. 'peaceful protesters' dropping by if need be, to maintain the upper hand

[rubl]

Why do red shirts always need to be told not to protest?

Because if they're not told, then that's the problem?

Seriously though, there are sections of the red shirt movement which will demonstrate far more readily than the rest of it. I imagine the demonstration in front of the DSI was not going to be a massive gathering, maybe just a few hundred or a thousand or so of the more jittery types in the movement - the more active activists if you like.

These smaller groups need to be reigned in as their presence could be a contributor to a violent outcome - they either attack or are attacked. So I believe Nattawut was just trying to dissuade this smaller group from demonstrating as the issue is not contentious enough to risk any confrontation or antagonism being splashed all over the news. He wants this to pass without incident.

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

An upper hand electorally achieved and maintained, I might add.

A majority in parliament by the Pheu Thai party, not by the red-shirts or by the UDD. At least not officially.

BTW shall we go back to the OP of 'not rallying' ?

Edited December 12, 2012 by rubl

[15Peter20]

begin removed ...

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

The logic escapes me. If frequent calls not to protest are made to show there is no need, that should be obvious and therefor there should be no need to make that call. Unless the red-shirts are on permanent standby mode with orders to be ready to march on one hour notice.

BTW a fine example of how the government uses this 'political pressure' group to maintain the upper hand through their Pheu Thai party list MPs who just happen to be UDD leaders as well. 'peaceful protesters' dropping by if need be, to maintain the upper hand

If the red shirts did demonstrate in front of the DSI, do you think there would have been tens of thousands there? I believe Nattawut was speaking directly to those who would have been bothered to turn up ie activists numbering in the hundreds, and didn't want a needless escalation taking place.

It is obvious - as you say - that demonstrating is not needed in this case, or to put it another way, not enough people care enough about it to demonstrate. The majority of red shirt followers know this, but the small numbers of activists don't and they are the ones who Nattawut was trying to put off, and with good reason I believe. Stoking tensions further cannot serve the government well.

[valerian]

I'm somewhat confused. "meet with DSI officials to hear allegations" I understand, but shouldn't the official charging be done at a court, rather than DSI offices, with DSI investigators submitting the cases to the relevant court?

BTW did k. Nattawut speak as cabinet Dept. Minister, Pheu Thai party list MP or just as UDD (co-)leader ?

I haven't understood any of this as you say above, here are the points that don't make sense to me -

1. A Thai court rules that the Taxi driver was killed by the army - was this an inquest into his death - why didn't they clasify the death, being hit by a stray bullet is hardly murder so why the murder charge.

2. How come Tarit Pengdith of the DSI is not also being charged as he was head of CRES at the time of the Red Shirt Terrorist invasion of Bangkok (using lethal weapons against the army and extreme violence) - if didn't agree with the official operation to remove the protestors as he claims he should have said so at the time and stood down

3. If this charge of murder is lawful - why are the redshirt leaders not being charged with the murder of army personel, why only one murder charge as 90 people lost their lives

4. Why are the courts even allowing this case to be heard

5. What powers does the DSI have - why are they deciding about bail conditions - surely a job for a Thai court

This whole affair makes a mockery of Thai legal process - it's hard to understand how any of this nonesense could proceed with any legal foundation - but TIT were it seems anything goes

If I was AV right now I'd be applying to the high court or even the Constitutional court for a full judicial reveiw of this whole process to determine it's legality under Thai Thai law and the constitution before it makes Thailand and this government look even silly'er in the eyes of the world.

...while he can.

If all goes Thaksins way then there won't be no high court, constitutional court or other checks and balances.

They are not needed nor wanted by the people you see. At least according to Thaksin.

It's so much more efficient if everyone just obeyed him in all matters and on all occasions.

For the benefit of the people of course.

[hyperdimension]

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

An upper hand electorally achieved and maintained, I might add.

"coup"... "election"... "political context". Next we'll hear you say "Arisman is my hero" again:

To be sure an article from the NYT, 2009-04-11:

"Thailand Cancels Summit After Protests

A small group of demonstrators reached the section of the complex where leaders of Asean were eating lunch. Videos showed protesters there being stopped at gunpoint by commandos and dropping to their knees.

Arisman Pongruengrong, one of the protest leaders, said the goal was to force the resignation of Mr. Abhisit, who took office in December.

In a measure of the animosity between the government and its opponents, Mr. Arisman said he had instructed his followers to “catch” the prime minister. “When you see him, catch him and do whatever you like to him,” he said.

"

http://www.nytimes.c...sia/12thai.html

Also from the NY Times article:

The country’s political crisis, now three years running, pits lower-income supporters of

Thaksin Shinawatra

, the prime minister ousted in a September 2006 coup, against the elite that backed the coup.

The protesters who raided the venue on Saturday wore red, the color of backers of Mr. Thaksin, who since being convicted of abuse of power in a highly politicized trial last year has remained overseas.

Thx. for that link to the NY Times article

The two quotes above from the article, obscurely stumbles upon probably the two key issues, that being:

1. References the September 2006 coup
   
2. characterizes correctly, the "highly politicized trial" convicting Thaksin.
   

Obviously #1 prepared the ground for #2.

Both of which were the genesis of everything that followed, up to and including murders at R'song.

This Pattaya thing was the first time Arisman rose to prominence. It was the first time Abhi's fallacious hold on the Prime Ministership was clearly exposed. The thorn Arisman has been in the side of the coupists ever since, explains why they hate this guy so much.

But dam_n, was he effective.

I recall one incident during R'song, when coupist legislators were busy legislating coup stuff. UDD/Red shirts deemed one particular egregious piece of legislation as requiring confrontation. They sent a group of red Shirts to Parliament to do just that.

But their lack of success finally frustrated the Red Shirt leaders to the point they sent Arisman over. Within a very short timeframe, the Red Shirts were in the face of the coupist legislators.

Dam_n, he was effective, and explains why he is my hero.

During the recent confimation of Thida as the head of the UDD, Arisman's name came up as an alternative.

That would'ev put the 'cat amongst the pigeons"

[rubl]

begin removed ...

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

The logic escapes me. If frequent calls not to protest are made to show there is no need, that should be obvious and therefor there should be no need to make that call. Unless the red-shirts are on permanent standby mode with orders to be ready to march on one hour notice.

BTW a fine example of how the government uses this 'political pressure' group to maintain the upper hand through their Pheu Thai party list MPs who just happen to be UDD leaders as well. 'peaceful protesters' dropping by if need be, to maintain the upper hand

If the red shirts did demonstrate in front of the DSI, do you think there would have been tens of thousands there? I believe Nattawut was speaking directly to those who would have been bothered to turn up ie activists numbering in the hundreds, and didn't want a needless escalation taking place.

It is obvious - as you say - that demonstrating is not needed in this case, or to put it another way, not enough people care enough about it to demonstrate. The majority of red shirt followers know this, but the small numbers of activists don't and they are the ones who Nattawut was trying to put off, and with good reason I believe. Stoking tensions further cannot serve the government well.

nowadays most 'rallies' seem to attract a few hundred during the week, with one or two thousand in weekends and holidays. Anyway not all of them are 'activists', I've been told a few times that the majority is peaceful.

I didn't say it's obvious no demo needed; that's what you wrote (see above); I'm just wondering why someone would talk about 'the need or no need to rally' in this case (at the DSI tomorrow).

So let's see, Dept Minister for Transport and Pheu Thai party list MP Nattawut who also happens to be UDD leader tell the 'active' part of his red-shirts there is no need for them at this moment. Interesting to say the least

[15Peter20]

begin removed ...

The fact that calls are often made for red shirts to 'not demonstrate' just shows that there is no need for them to do so in order to maintain the upper hand in the political situation as it stands, as far as their leaders are concerned.

The logic escapes me. If frequent calls not to protest are made to show there is no need, that should be obvious and therefor there should be no need to make that call. Unless the red-shirts are on permanent standby mode with orders to be ready to march on one hour notice.

BTW a fine example of how the government uses this 'political pressure' group to maintain the upper hand through their Pheu Thai party list MPs who just happen to be UDD leaders as well. 'peaceful protesters' dropping by if need be, to maintain the upper hand

If the red shirts did demonstrate in front of the DSI, do you think there would have been tens of thousands there? I believe Nattawut was speaking directly to those who would have been bothered to turn up ie activists numbering in the hundreds, and didn't want a needless escalation taking place.

It is obvious - as you say - that demonstrating is not needed in this case, or to put it another way, not enough people care enough about it to demonstrate. The majority of red shirt followers know this, but the small numbers of activists don't and they are the ones who Nattawut was trying to put off, and with good reason I believe. Stoking tensions further cannot serve the government well.

nowadays most 'rallies' seem to attract a few hundred during the week, with one or two thousand in weekends and holidays. Anyway not all of them are 'activists', I've been told a few times that the majority is peaceful.

I didn't say it's obvious no demo needed; that's what you wrote (see above); I'm just wondering why someone would talk about 'the need or no need to rally' in this case (at the DSI tomorrow).

So let's see, Dept Minister for Transport and Pheu Thai party list MP Nattawut who also happens to be UDD leader tell the 'active' part of his red-shirts there is no need for them at this moment. Interesting to say the least

If a sufficiently large number of people feel strongly enough about a subject, then there is a need to demonstrate. If a small group of hotter-headed people decide to turn up at an event and their presence is likely to increase tension, then that is not needed by anyone.

I suppose it all hinges on how many people you think would turn up at the DSI if Nattawut didn't say what he said. I think not many, but it would have increased tensions, which would not have served anyone particularly well.

With regard to the bit of my post you were kind enough to leave unravaged, it means that they don't have to preach to the converted. They don't have to show whatever support they could muster for a demo at the risk of things getting more heated because they already feel they have the support of the majority of Thais. IMHO.

Hope that keeps things interesting for you.

Edited December 12, 2012 by 15Peter20

[siampolee]

We would do well to remember that the leadership of the Red Shirt movement like their Dubai based sponsor are not too enthusiastic about appearing on the front line unless surrounded by a horde of supporters.

Luxury hotels and top end shopping malls are more convivial places for the sponsor of the Red Shirts and the Red Shirt leadership as previous events have shown us so clearly.

This is the epitome of the Red Shirt leadership below.

Edited December 12, 2012 by siampolee

[rubl]

nowadays most 'rallies' seem to attract a few hundred during the week, with one or two thousand in weekends and holidays. Anyway not all of them are 'activists', I've been told a few times that the majority is peaceful.

I didn't say it's obvious no demo needed; that's what you wrote (see above); I'm just wondering why someone would talk about 'the need or no need to rally' in this case (at the DSI tomorrow).

So let's see, Dept Minister for Transport and Pheu Thai party list MP Nattawut who also happens to be UDD leader tell the 'active' part of his red-shirts there is no need for them at this moment. Interesting to say the least

If a sufficiently large number of people feel strongly enough about a subject, then there is a need to demonstrate. If a small group of hotter-headed people decide to turn up at an event and their presence is likely to increase tension, then that is not needed by anyone.

I suppose it all hinges on how many people you think would turn up at the DSI if Nattawut didn't say what he said. I think not many, but it would have increased tensions, which would not have served anyone particularly well.

With regard to the bit of my post you were kind enough to leave unravaged, it means that they don't have to preach to the converted. They don't have to show whatever support they could muster for a demo at the risk of things getting more heated because they already feel they have the support of the majority of Thais. IMHO.

Hope that keeps things interesting for you.

If people get indoctrinated to a point where even the indoctrinators seem to believe what they are saying, you create a need to demonstrate. Even now lots of red-shirts 'know for sure' that Abhisit said 'kill me some' in 2009. Have you listened to the UDD leader shoutcasts, those hate speeches broadcasted again and again by PTV?

Anyway, k. Nattawut felt a need to protect his ilk as a rally by 'red-shirt activists' with one or two UDD leaders present could be seen as acting against conditions set when they received bail. He already preached enough, now he has to 'de-preach' a bit.

BTW the 'majority of Thai' is like saying 'we all know'; we don't all know and it's not a majority.

[smedly]

If a sufficiently large number of people feel strongly enough about a subject, then there is a need to demonstrate. If a small group of hotter-headed people decide to turn up at an event and their presence is likely to increase tension, then that is not needed by anyone.

I suppose it all hinges on how many people you think would turn up at the DSI if Nattawut didn't say what he said. I think not many, but it would have increased tensions, which would not have served anyone particularly well.

With regard to the bit of my post you were kind enough to leave unravaged, it means that they don't have to preach to the converted. They don't have to show whatever support they could muster for a demo at the risk of things getting more heated because they already feel they have the support of the majority of Thais. IMHO.

Hope that keeps things interesting for you.

it would be my guess from the style of your post that you are either Thaksin S or an Id here to post your ramblings -

[Thaddeus]

If a sufficiently large number of people feel strongly enough about a subject, then there is a need to demonstrate. If a small group of hotter-headed people decide to turn up at an event and their presence is likely to increase tension, then that is not needed by anyone.

I suppose it all hinges on how many people you think would turn up at the DSI if Nattawut didn't say what he said. I think not many, but it would have increased tensions, which would not have served anyone particularly well.

With regard to the bit of my post you were kind enough to leave unravaged, it means that they don't have to preach to the converted. They don't have to show whatever support they could muster for a demo at the risk of things getting more heated because they already feel they have the support of the majority of Thais. IMHO.

Hope that keeps things interesting for you.

Kanute had a large following...... guess what.