Bullying Red Shirt Tenants Beat Elderly Landlord

[Ferangled]

It's not that the press manipulates people like us easily. It's because we know what kind of people these red shirts are and stories like these aren't surprising.

My Grandad used to use similar tag lines about all sorts of groups of people, "lad you don't know what kind of people these blacks are..." you could substitute black with arabs, chinese, japanese, germans depending on the topic of conversation. We accepted it because we knew he was a decent guy at heart but had been brought up in very different times... as it appears have many members on TV.

I would love to be so sure in my convictions that I felt I knew exactly what kinds of people the reds and yellows are, but reality is I have only personal experience and a discerning mind to go on. I will never meet 0.1% of the members of either group personally, the accounts of their exploits will be fed to me via deliberately twisted media outlets and the only "truth" available is one that we all reach through a combination of these experiences.

It's great that you feel you are so in touch with Thai life that you know exactly what "these red shirts" are like but please forgive me if your strong convictions are not enough to convince others. Personally my experiences with other farang in Thailand have led me to understand that the vast majority never interact properly with their Thai peers, don't even attempt to learn the language and live life out of foreign enclaves in the Kingdom. With this in mind as someone that speaks, reads and writes Thai fairly proficiently, spends more of my time with Thais than foreigners and have lived here on and off for years, I prefer to trust my own experiences and rely on my own opinions that I form for myself. I refuse to tow any party line and will continue to call BS when I see it.

This piece is deliberate and obvious political BS and is not definitive proof that the Red shirts are all a bunch of violent thugs in fact it serves better as evidence where the real loyalties of certain media outlets lie. Debate this point to your hearts content but don't expect me to alter my views or stop airing them. You can choose to voice your own views and supply reasoning to back them up or you can choose to simply attack other members and make sweeping statements about the Reds... the choice, as they say, is yours but please guys don't get all petty and upset because someone voices an opinion you don't like/ agree with... opinions are like @rseholes, we've all got them!

[Vinny1967]

Firstly there's no proof yet that they were red shirt officials.

Secondly it's about a poor man having the crap knocked out of him by a group of thugs.Happens every day in Thailand and every colour shirt is guilty of it.

Thirdly you lot need to take a look at yourselves.Arguing and bickering here about yellow and red shirts.You're arguing about something you've no control over or any say about.You're like a group of children arguing about who has the best daddy or whatever.If you want to pick sides then go play a playstation

Plenty of things in life we have no control over or say about.. doesn't stop people having an opinion.

Nobody is knocking on your door with any of this... if people expressing an opinion bothers you, perhaps you should do something that doesn't happen to involve reading the political forum... perhaps you should be the one playing the playstation...

I never questioned anybody's right to an opinion.It all just seems pointless arguing over yellow or red shirts when there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Maybe it does bother me to see grown ups bickering over things like this.I thought we all came over here to enjoy ourselves,and not get dragged into the inane world of Thai politics.If you feel so strongly about it and want to do something about,then strap a placard across your chest and go demonstrate outside a government building.See how far it gets you

I'm off to play with my Playstation

[rixalex]

I never questioned anybody's right to an opinion.It all just seems pointless arguing over yellow or red shirts when there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I think they call it a past-time. Some people watch TV, some people go to a concert, some people collect train numbers, some people discuss politics, some people even play playstation. Doesn't have to be some great outcome at the end of any of those things or a point to it all. Passes the time and engages the brain is all. Don't let it bother you if other people pass the time in different ways to you.

[gl555]

It's not that the press manipulates people like us easily. It's because we know what kind of people these red shirts are and stories like these aren't surprising.

My Grandad used to use similar tag lines about all sorts of groups of people, "lad you don't know what kind of people these blacks are..." you could substitute black with arabs, chinese, japanese, germans depending on the topic of conversation. We accepted it because we knew he was a decent guy at heart but had been brought up in very different times... as it appears have many members on TV.

I would love to be so sure in my convictions that I felt I knew exactly what kinds of people the reds and yellows are, but reality is I have only personal experience and a discerning mind to go on. I will never meet 0.1% of the members of either group personally, the accounts of their exploits will be fed to me via deliberately twisted media outlets and the only "truth" available is one that we all reach through a combination of these experiences.

It's great that you feel you are so in touch with Thai life that you know exactly what "these red shirts" are like but please forgive me if your strong convictions are not enough to convince others. Personally my experiences with other farang in Thailand have led me to understand that the vast majority never interact properly with their Thai peers, don't even attempt to learn the language and live life out of foreign enclaves in the Kingdom. With this in mind as someone that speaks, reads and writes Thai fairly proficiently, spends more of my time with Thais than foreigners and have lived here on and off for years, I prefer to trust my own experiences and rely on my own opinions that I form for myself. I refuse to tow any party line and will continue to call BS when I see it.

This piece is deliberate and obvious political BS and is not definitive proof that the Red shirts are all a bunch of violent thugs in fact it serves better as evidence where the real loyalties of certain media outlets lie. Debate this point to your hearts content but don't expect me to alter my views or stop airing them. You can choose to voice your own views and supply reasoning to back them up or you can choose to simply attack other members and make sweeping statements about the Reds... the choice, as they say, is yours but please guys don't get all petty and upset because someone voices an opinion you don't like/ agree with... opinions are like @rseholes, we've all got them!

Oh please! Don't play the race card with us. The fact of the matter is, these red shirts are nothing but thugs. And this through their very own actions. Are you going to tell us now all the crap they have done reported in the press is all fake? All made up, sensationalized by the the pro Democrat press to make them look bad?

I speak the language perfectly but I never learned how to write Thai though. Most of my friends here are Thai and not one of them have anything good to say about the red shirts. I have quite a few friends who are pro PTP because they believe the Dems are all talk but never seem to do anything. But for the most part, they have nothing nice to say about the red shirts. Perhaps maybe its just me because I'm selective with the people I interact with. Excuse me if I don't befriend thugs who beat up on old people.

[scorecard]

And Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Red shirts, Yellow shirts are they "born this way" or because they have chosen to join these groups do the alleged actions of certain members of these groups automatically define the entire group?

No twisting here, you could simply spin your question back to yourself and substitute red for yellow but given your political fervour I thought more obvious examples showing how ridiculous this broad generalisation is might appeal to even your sensibilities... evidently not.

No twisting? Chubby Checker couldn't have done a better job.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ, you can't stop someone being an American, you can't stop someone being black, you can't stop someone being a human.. you can stop a member of a political group being affiliated with that group. How? You kick them out. It's not difficult. It's what any responsible group would do to members that act in a manner the group disapproves of and a manner that the group does not want reflected on them.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ but you can stop someone believing in their chosen political party... if you say so!

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that these alleged members of the red shirts should be "kicked out" for alleged offences and that because they haven't it's fair game to tar all red shirts as violent thugs... how does that logic work with the charges levied against Abhisit and the Democrats?

He is alleged to be responsible for murder, surely by your own logic that makes the entire Democrat party a gang of violent murderous thugs? It must be fair to label them all as such because they haven't distanced themselves from the alleged murderer... no matter that there's been no conviction, he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself from these allegations, the allegations have been made so it's quite right to assume that he is in fact a murderer and by proxy all Dems are murderous thugs.

I'm sorry but I just don't subscribe to your kangaroo court style reasoning.

Can you really make and apples to apples comparison of the red shirts / abhisit & democrats?

How many times did the paymaster incite them to violence, also jatuporn, nattawut, arisman and more : bring gasoline, we'll burn Bangkok down, etc. Pull Abhsist driver out of his car and severly beat him up and the poor man still in rehabiliation, and never a word from any of their leaders to behave / to discuss. And more.

On the other hand, how many times has abhisit tried to encourage the dems to be violent? None.

Apples to Apples? I think not!

Edited January 4, 2013 by scorecard

[Ferangled]

I agree that in the case of this story, it needs to be established whether they were red shirt members or not, and whether they have done what they are being accused of. If it is established that they were and that they did, well then they should be kicked out of the group. If upon being kicked out they wish to still go on believing in that group, fine, up to them, but at least their future actions won't in any way reflect on the group because everyone will know that the group has already kicked them out and wants nothing to do with them.

Sadly though, in the case of all the other past stories involving red shirt members doing something stupid/illgeal/violent, i can't recall one single occasion in which a member has been kicked out. It seems that you can't either...

To be fair though do you recall any yellows being kicked out over their violent behaviour?

I think this is the nub of your problem. You can't offer any argument against what i have said about the principle of members of groups who act violently or illegally, being kicked out of their group and condemned, particularly if they are found to have been committing those acts whilst in some way under the banner of that group - which does appear to be the case here - and you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group. What actually bothers you is that it is somehow not fair to mention any of this without in the same breath mentioning the yellows and how they are equally as guilty. Why didn't you just say that from the start, rather than giving us all this desperate defending of groups who don't expel violent members, and giving us all these excuses as to why they don't/can't, and all the silly twisted analogies, such as the one about blacks who, would you believe, don't expel other black people from continuing to be black when they do bad things?

The yellows are as bad as the reds. There, said it. Can you now agree that if these men are indeed found to be red shirts who used the name of that group whilst doing some illegal violent thoroughly unpleasant stuff, that the red movement should both condemn them and publicly renounce their involvement. Can you also now agree that going on past history, the chances of that actually happening is almost zero? Can you also now agree that not condemning and renouncing such people, does reflect on the whole group, whether that be a fair reflection or not?

Shame you snipped my reply down to the first line because you'll find most of the answers to these questions within my original reply. Amusing the way you are twisting what I have said earlier in the thread and applying your own logic to my thinking but you still seem to miss one crucial point.

Why do you expect anyone to condemn anything that has not actually been proved? No one has been charged yet let alone convicted of anything! Desperate defending of groups that don't expel violent members????!!!! What are you banging on about?! You are simply making things up! There is nothing for anyone to expel anyone for yet. If they are convicted that is a very different story, they haven't even been charged as it is. All these excuses why they don't/ won't? What excuses? What are you talking about man? Are you high on something?

"you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group"

I haven't attempted to offer any explanation at all as this has nothing to do with this topic and I have no idea what "multitude of previous cases" you are talking about. I'm sure if I mention any specifically it will be deemed off topic so what is there to defend?! You have put this forward but you can't even verify whether anyone has ever been expelled or not, you haven't cited any specific incidents, what are you going on about? What am I supposed to defend and why should I?! I have no idea why you feel the onus is on me to defend the reds over anything, I'm simply pointing out the obvious bias in this piece, you know, the article in this topic...

You seem to have launched down some ridiculous hypothetical path and become angry that I won't play your hypothetical games with you, or not to your liking anyway, it's really quite bizarre! I am commenting on this topic, you know the one where we have a bunch of allegations, a very biased "red shirt" focused article, one side of the story, no arrests, no charges, no convictions... which topic are you on exactly, it appears to be one where you are permitted to reference any incident you like but go apoplectic with rage if I even mention the colour yellow?! Whatever you are on, it's been a long week and I could do with some of it...

[Moruya]

It seems to me that you just read the bits of the article that you want to read and agree with and ignore the rest of it blaming the culprits who identified themselves very clearly as red shirt guards. More than a bit one-eyed

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

I must have read a different article to you. You must mean the alleged culprits as I have read nothing that suggests any convictions have been made or even charges brought... indeed we have only a journalists account of what the Landlord and his wife have alleged, we don't even have the other side of the story and no statement from the men being accused.

What exactly leads you to believe that they identified themselves very clearly as red shirt guards? Do you have some additional information to share about this incident or are you going on the journalist's write up of what Mrs Chalee claimed and taking this as as gospel truth?

Does no one else see the rather obvious holes in this story regarding the electrical supply, the apparent initial spark to this confrontation?

"Filing the complaint was the victim’s wife, Mrs. Chalee Chaisang, age 67, living in Laem Chabang, Sriracha. Ms. Chalee said several tenants had been illegally tapping into electricity from an electric pole connected to her house meter. The Sriracha electricity authority had already cut out the meter due to failure to pay the electric bill."

The tenants were illegally tapping electricity from Mrs Chalee's meter. Mrs Chalee didn't pay the bill and had her meter removed as a result. So the property had no electrical supply but the tenants were demanding that they reconnect to a meter that had already been removed? Wow they must have been an unreasonable bunch... perhaps they expected a working electricity supply to be part of their rental package?

How many people here are aware of the regular electricity scams used by Thai Landlords? It's where they charge tenants a vastly inflated unit rate and then pocket the difference between the actual rate and that they are charging onto their tenants. Now was Mrs Chalee renting rooms with no electricity at all? If not why did her tenants feel the need to tap into her electricity supply? Were they perhaps being shafted on the electricity rates which led them to illegally tap into the meter which the Chalee's then had removed to levy control over their tenants and ensure that they paid above the odds for their electricity?

Who knows what really happened but there's certainly more to this incident than it seems and it would appear prudent to wait for both sides of the story before using this as a stick to bash all red shirts with! We have one side of this incident, a deliberately biased write up and no actual supporting facts, the only evidence being the allegations made by the Landlord and his wife. For me that's not enough to hang draw and quarter the men involved, let alone use their alleged actions as definitive proof that all red shirts are violent thugs. That would seem a bit "one-eyed" to me, if that actually means blinkered/ biased...

We don't just have the journalist's view, we have the interviews from the landlords.

The reason the electricity had been cut was that the tenants had been bypassing their own individual meters and stealing from the direct supply.

You talk about hearing only the journalist's "write-up" and then start inventing new branches of the story yourself by saying that the landlord was ripping off the tenents

In short - your post is a pack of one-eyed rubbish

No actually I haven't suggested anything but just injected some reality into proceedings. Landlords scamming tenants on unit prices is common in Thailand. Ignore this reality if you like. This story sticks out like a sore thumb because it's the absolute reverse of the personal experiences most people I know have had renting in Thailand.

I haven't suggested that this is the case in this incident but that perhaps a more reasonable stance might be to listen to both sides of the story and not simply take a journalists account of other people's recollections as fact. Wild thinking!

I'm afraid the journalists view is totally irrelevant and what we have is actually the journalists (very biased) account of the Landlord's story. Not even a witness statement... pretty shaky ground to start throwing wild generalisations around in my opinion.

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

[Ferangled]

And Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Red shirts, Yellow shirts are they "born this way" or because they have chosen to join these groups do the alleged actions of certain members of these groups automatically define the entire group?

No twisting here, you could simply spin your question back to yourself and substitute red for yellow but given your political fervour I thought more obvious examples showing how ridiculous this broad generalisation is might appeal to even your sensibilities... evidently not.

No twisting? Chubby Checker couldn't have done a better job.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ, you can't stop someone being an American, you can't stop someone being black, you can't stop someone being a human.. you can stop a member of a political group being affiliated with that group. How? You kick them out. It's not difficult. It's what any responsible group would do to members that act in a manner the group disapproves of and a manner that the group does not want reflected on them.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ but you can stop someone believing in their chosen political party... if you say so!

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that these alleged members of the red shirts should be "kicked out" for alleged offences and that because they haven't it's fair game to tar all red shirts as violent thugs... how does that logic work with the charges levied against Abhisit and the Democrats?

He is alleged to be responsible for murder, surely by your own logic that makes the entire Democrat party a gang of violent murderous thugs? It must be fair to label them all as such because they haven't distanced themselves from the alleged murderer... no matter that there's been no conviction, he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself from these allegations, the allegations have been made so it's quite right to assume that he is in fact a murderer and by proxy all Dems are murderous thugs.

I'm sorry but I just don't subscribe to your kangaroo court style reasoning.

Can you really make and apples to apples comparison of the red shirts / abhisit & democrats?

How many times did the paymaster incite them to violence, also jatuporn, nattawut, arisman and more : bring gasoline, we'll burn Bangkok down, etc. Pull Abhsist driver out of his car and severly beat him up and the poor man still in rehabiliation, and never a word from any of their leaders to behave / to discuss. And more.

On the other hand, how many times has abhisit tried to encourage the dems to be violent? None.

Apples to Apples? I think not!

Of course I can, you seem to completely miss the point...

The premise is taking an allegation as truth, I could equally have used this as an example; I allege the TV member Scorecard plays tiddlywinks with under age girls and strokes badgers. I and you know that these allegations hold no water and they should not be taken as a gospel truth. That is the point. Anyone can allege anything and when the allegations are made in such an obviously biased fashion by such an obviously biased media outlet, should we not engage our brains and question the motivation before swallowing the allegations as fact?

[Ferangled]

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

Yes I am certainly not above hypocrisy, I am human and it does seem to be part and parcel of our quirky ways... don't worry I'll take your word for it, no need to cite specifics just make a few wild allegations!!! Was that irony? If so please tell me it was deliberate!

You have really never heard of landlords in Thailand grossly overcharging the unit prices of electricity onto tenants? Fiction? No, it's common practice but I recall as a boy I thought closing my eyes made me invisible, clearly you are suffering from similar lapses of logic as an adult... understandable. I once met a man who believed when he closed his eyes the rest of the world ceased to exist, nothing surprise me any more!

[rixalex]

Why do you expect anyone to condemn anything that has not actually been proved? No one has been charged yet let alone convicted of anything! Desperate defending of groups that don't expel violent members????!!!! What are you banging on about?! You are simply making things up! There is nothing for anyone to expel anyone for yet. If they are convicted that is a very different story, they haven't even been charged as it is. All these excuses why they don't/ won't? What excuses? What are you talking about man? Are you high on something?

"you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group"

I haven't attempted to offer any explanation at all as this has nothing to do with this topic and I have no idea what "multitude of previous cases" you are talking about. I'm sure if I mention any specifically it will be deemed off topic so what is there to defend?! You have put this forward but you can't even verify whether anyone has ever been expelled or not, you haven't cited any specific incidents, what are you going on about? What am I supposed to defend and why should I?! I have no idea why you feel the onus is on me to defend the reds over anything, I'm simply pointing out the obvious bias in this piece, you know, the article in this topic...

You seem to have launched down some ridiculous hypothetical path and become angry that I won't play your hypothetical games with you, or not to your liking anyway, it's really quite bizarre! I am commenting on this topic, you know the one where we have a bunch of allegations, a very biased "red shirt" focused article, one side of the story, no arrests, no charges, no convictions... which topic are you on exactly, it appears to be one where you are permitted to reference any incident you like but go apoplectic with rage if I even mention the colour yellow?! Whatever you are on, it's been a long week and I could do with some of it...

The discussion had expanded somewhat, although still on topic, into the perceived unfairness of making sweeping generalisations about an entire group based on the actions of a few members. I agreed with this unfairness, but made the general point about the importance of groups in denouncing and condemning the actions of members, when it is proven that certain members have committed illegal or violent acts, and made the point that if the denouncement and condemnation was not forthcoming, as we have seen on many previous occasions with the red shirt movement, well then the group has no right to complain or sniffle about the damage to its image.

What followed from you was a series of excuses, justifications and daft analogies.

You have no idea why the onus is on you to defend the red shirts.. well there is indeed no onus, just a very predictable and rather tedious expectation from anyone who reads your posts.

[chooka]

Is 53 the new elderly?

[Ferangled]

Why do you expect anyone to condemn anything that has not actually been proved? No one has been charged yet let alone convicted of anything! Desperate defending of groups that don't expel violent members????!!!! What are you banging on about?! You are simply making things up! There is nothing for anyone to expel anyone for yet. If they are convicted that is a very different story, they haven't even been charged as it is. All these excuses why they don't/ won't? What excuses? What are you talking about man? Are you high on something?

"you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group"

I haven't attempted to offer any explanation at all as this has nothing to do with this topic and I have no idea what "multitude of previous cases" you are talking about. I'm sure if I mention any specifically it will be deemed off topic so what is there to defend?! You have put this forward but you can't even verify whether anyone has ever been expelled or not, you haven't cited any specific incidents, what are you going on about? What am I supposed to defend and why should I?! I have no idea why you feel the onus is on me to defend the reds over anything, I'm simply pointing out the obvious bias in this piece, you know, the article in this topic...

You seem to have launched down some ridiculous hypothetical path and become angry that I won't play your hypothetical games with you, or not to your liking anyway, it's really quite bizarre! I am commenting on this topic, you know the one where we have a bunch of allegations, a very biased "red shirt" focused article, one side of the story, no arrests, no charges, no convictions... which topic are you on exactly, it appears to be one where you are permitted to reference any incident you like but go apoplectic with rage if I even mention the colour yellow?! Whatever you are on, it's been a long week and I could do with some of it...

The discussion had expanded somewhat, although still on topic, into the perceived unfairness of making sweeping generalisations about an entire group based on the actions of a few members. I agreed with this unfairness, but made the general point about the importance of groups in denouncing and condemning the actions of members, when it is proven that certain members have committed illegal or violent acts, and made the point that if the denouncement and condemnation was not forthcoming, as we have seen on many previous occasions with the red shirt movement, well then the group has no right to complain or sniffle about the damage to its image.

What followed from you was a series of excuses, justifications and daft analogies.

You have no idea why the onus is on you to defend the red shirts.. well there is indeed no onus, just a very predictable and rather tedious expectation from anyone who reads your posts.

I don't agree with your personal rants but do get your point in terms of accountability and agree with you to a certain extent. Similarly I agree with the previous point you made that in many respects the red and yellows are guilty of the same flaws.

What makes accountability issue difficult to apply however is that political supporters are not necessarily governed or controlled by their chosen party. Anyone can don a red shirt or yellow shirt and join protests, act like an idiot if they choose and generally cause trouble. Any party would do well to distance themselves from such supporters but drawing a line between them is not so clear cut.

In this particular case we are talking ifs and buts, there is no definitive proof and we will have to wait and see how the incident pans out before condemning the actions or inactions of any... as to past incidents I believe each and every one would have to be taken on it's own merit and now is probably not the appropriate place for this discussion.

I know you don't like me making analogies but consider the Armies involvement in 2010. Now I'm convinced that certain soldiers were acting irresponsibly and firing randomly into crowds. This is a belief back up by video evidence and witness statements. I don't believe all soldiers are violent thugs and actually think most simply found themselves in an impossible situation stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak but I do believe there were violent, aggressive members within their ranks. Why have you not applied the same logic on relevant threads about the military? We could say similar about the Thai police surely?

I'm afraid we're firmly back to my original objection which is you can't condemn or judge an entire group over the alleged actions of some alleged members. It is simply ridiculous and those members that do so show themselves up to be overly fervent in their support or condemnation of particular groups. Similarly those that can't see the obvious agenda in this piece need some lessons in rational thought.

[ianf]

We look forward to the assertion that these guys were 'fake' reds.

On the other hand well within the style boundaries of what was going on in 2010.

Theres no facts to say they were red shirt supporters or not just a headline. But assuming they were does that mean all the other colour party's do not contain THUGS like these scum? Or do you and several other posters on this topic beleive all Red Shirts are tard with the same brush?

tarred

[ianf]

Why do you expect anyone to condemn anything that has not actually been proved? No one has been charged yet let alone convicted of anything! Desperate defending of groups that don't expel violent members????!!!! What are you banging on about?! You are simply making things up! There is nothing for anyone to expel anyone for yet. If they are convicted that is a very different story, they haven't even been charged as it is. All these excuses why they don't/ won't? What excuses? What are you talking about man? Are you high on something?

"you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group"

I haven't attempted to offer any explanation at all as this has nothing to do with this topic and I have no idea what "multitude of previous cases" you are talking about. I'm sure if I mention any specifically it will be deemed off topic so what is there to defend?! You have put this forward but you can't even verify whether anyone has ever been expelled or not, you haven't cited any specific incidents, what are you going on about? What am I supposed to defend and why should I?! I have no idea why you feel the onus is on me to defend the reds over anything, I'm simply pointing out the obvious bias in this piece, you know, the article in this topic...

You seem to have launched down some ridiculous hypothetical path and become angry that I won't play your hypothetical games with you, or not to your liking anyway, it's really quite bizarre! I am commenting on this topic, you know the one where we have a bunch of allegations, a very biased "red shirt" focused article, one side of the story, no arrests, no charges, no convictions... which topic are you on exactly, it appears to be one where you are permitted to reference any incident you like but go apoplectic with rage if I even mention the colour yellow?! Whatever you are on, it's been a long week and I could do with some of it...

The discussion had expanded somewhat, although still on topic, into the perceived unfairness of making sweeping generalisations about an entire group based on the actions of a few members. I agreed with this unfairness, but made the general point about the importance of groups in denouncing and condemning the actions of members, when it is proven that certain members have committed illegal or violent acts, and made the point that if the denouncement and condemnation was not forthcoming, as we have seen on many previous occasions with the red shirt movement, well then the group has no right to complain or sniffle about the damage to its image.

What followed from you was a series of excuses, justifications and daft analogies.

You have no idea why the onus is on you to defend the red shirts.. well there is indeed no onus, just a very predictable and rather tedious expectation from anyone who reads your posts.

I don't agree with your personal rants but do get your point in terms of accountability and agree with you to a certain extent. Similarly I agree with the previous point you made that in many respects the red and yellows are guilty of the same flaws.

What makes accountability issue difficult to apply however is that political supporters are not necessarily governed or controlled by their chosen party. Anyone can don a red shirt or yellow shirt and join protests, act like an idiot if they choose and generally cause trouble. Any party would do well to distance themselves from such supporters but drawing a line between them is not so clear cut.

In this particular case we are talking ifs and buts, there is no definitive proof and we will have to wait and see how the incident pans out before condemning the actions or inactions of any... as to past incidents I believe each and every one would have to be taken on it's own merit and now is probably not the appropriate place for this discussion.

I know you don't like me making analogies but consider the Armies involvement in 2010. Now I'm convinced that certain soldiers were acting irresponsibly and firing randomly into crowds. This is a belief back up by video evidence and witness statements. I don't believe all soldiers are violent thugs and actually think most simply found themselves in an impossible situation stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak but I do believe there were violent, aggressive members within their ranks. Why have you not applied the same logic on relevant threads about the military? We could say similar about the Thai police surely?

I'm afraid we're firmly back to my original objection which is you can't condemn or judge an entire group over the alleged actions of some alleged members. It is simply ridiculous and those members that do so show themselves up to be overly fervent in their support or condemnation of particular groups. Similarly those that can't see the obvious agenda in this piece need some lessons in rational thought.

army's involvement

[Banzai99]

Can't understand why you guys get so upset about things you have absolutely no power over.

[Thait Spot]

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

Yes I am certainly not above hypocrisy, I am human and it does seem to be part and parcel of our quirky ways... don't worry I'll take your word for it, no need to cite specifics just make a few wild allegations!!! Was that irony? If so please tell me it was deliberate!

You have really never heard of landlords in Thailand grossly overcharging the unit prices of electricity onto tenants? Fiction? No, it's common practice but I recall as a boy I thought closing my eyes made me invisible, clearly you are suffering from similar lapses of logic as an adult... understandable. I once met a man who believed when he closed his eyes the rest of the world ceased to exist, nothing surprise me any more!

I've lived here 10 years and never experienced it.

Close your eyes and get back to your mangled imagination.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

[rixalex]

What makes accountability issue difficult to apply however is that political supporters are not necessarily governed or controlled by their chosen party. Anyone can don a red shirt or yellow shirt and join protests, act like an idiot if they choose and generally cause trouble. Any party would do well to distance themselves from such supporters but drawing a line between them is not so clear cut.

It is actually very clear cut. You can't, as you say, stop people wearing a certain colour shirt, or believing a certain thing, but you can publicly denounce them and make it clear to the public that whatever these people may say, they are no longer affiliated in any way with the group and they are no longer welcome with the group. Very easy to do. Very clear cut.

As for your analogy about the army, i see no difference with them at all. If a soldier behaves illegally, he should be kicked out of the army. Simple. If he isn't, then yes, his bad actions do reflect on all soldiers and on the entire institution. Same goes for the police.

[rixalex]

Can't understand why you guys get so upset about things you have absolutely no power over.

Do you have power over cancer, traffic jams, corruption, natural disasters, paedophiles... or do none of those things upset you?

[scorecard]

Can't understand why you guys get so upset about things you have absolutely no power over.

Do you have power over cancer, traffic jams, corruption, natural disasters, paedophiles... or do none of those things upset you?

Further Banzai99, I have children and grandchildren born here, and I have concerns for their future in terms of living & participating in a more equal civil society which will not happen (as in the social history of all countries) unless there is strong push for change, therefore I express my concerns and discuss.

Edited January 4, 2013 by scorecard

[hyperdimension]

those that can't see the obvious agenda in this piece need some lessons in rational thought.

The thugs stated that they are red shirt guards in order to appear powerful and intimidate the landlord and his wife into giving them what they want. This is part of the actions and events that took place, and the journalist was stating such facts. Do you have a problem with journalists stating facts? Edited January 4, 2013 by hyperdimension

[pacovl46]

Two words: public flogging!!!

[Siripon]

those that can't see the obvious agenda in this piece need some lessons in rational thought.

The thugs stated that they are red shirt guards in order to appear powerful and intimidate the landlord and his wife into giving them what they want. This is part of the actions and events that took place, and the journalist was stating such facts. Do you have a problem with journalists stating facts?

Exactly1 The same as at Ratchaprasong when 'appointed' red shirt guards acted as if they were real policemen and beyond.

Pure intimidation.

[khunken]

There are a huge number of posts here from an individual whose posts I will not directly comment on due to a mutual agreement despite an apparent similar one with Nickymaster being broken.

The tactics here are to shoot the messenger, twist the story into the landlord cheating the thugs, deny the red-shirt MO, mention the so-called 'kangaroo' aspect, bring Abhisit & the yellow-shirts into the discussion & so on & on.

First, lets separate the red-shirt leaders from the (brainwashed) followers. I'm sure most followers are just ordinary Thais living from hand to mouth & not prone to violence. The leaders, however, are mercenaries, always prone to incite or carry out violence & intimidation. The individuals in this Op are either leader-types or pretending to be. Either way their action should be condemned and arrested & prosecuted. Whether that will happen depends on the colour of the police involved, unfortunately.

Second, the suggestion that the landlord may have been charging too much for electricity is a product of a sick mind. Of course, this happens but there was no evidence of it here & in any case it doesn't justify the violence.

Third, this type of thuggery is & has been common throughout the red shirt movement. Individuals have been killed in Udon & Chiang Mai for not being red. There have been isolated incidents of violence by the yellow-shirts but nothing compared to their red-shirt opponents.

Fourth, I just love the 'kangaroo' bit. The minister of defence knows it only too well.

I feel sorry for those who feel it is their 'duty' to defend the indefensible purely because their heros are involved. Keeping one's mouth shut & fingers off the keyboard is a better strategy than 'doing a Goebbels'.

[Moruya]

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

Yes I am certainly not above hypocrisy, I am human and it does seem to be part and parcel of our quirky ways... don't worry I'll take your word for it, no need to cite specifics just make a few wild allegations!!! Was that irony? If so please tell me it was deliberate!

You have really never heard of landlords in Thailand grossly overcharging the unit prices of electricity onto tenants? Fiction? No, it's common practice but I recall as a boy I thought closing my eyes made me invisible, clearly you are suffering from similar lapses of logic as an adult... understandable. I once met a man who believed when he closed his eyes the rest of the world ceased to exist, nothing surprise me any more!

Your attempts to insult me rather than coherently argue your corner leads me to believe that you are incapable of doing so.

Your attempts to inject your own fiction into the news story leads me to believe that your are not at one with the truth.

The very fact that you sit on here all day going round and round in ever decreasing circles posting the same one-eyed garbage day in, day out leads me to believe that if you are gainfully employed you are either not worth the wage or are employed by a concerned party

[kimamey]

Who still thinks the red shirts are good people after this incident? Doesn't give a lot of hope for the country. Lets hope more of thier activities are made known to the public.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect App

They claimed to be red shirts. That may have just been an intimidation ploy. Regardless. condemning a whole group based on the actions of 3 individuals is unreasonable (in my opinion). If the shooter at the New Years celebration was found to be a democrat would that justify condemning all democrats?

Well said. There's nothing to prove they were red shirts. They may have been opponents of the red shirts making sure they would get the blame or they may have been using the bad reputation of the red shirts to intimidate. I am certainly no red shirt supporter but I tend to think that most are perfectly reasonable people. I saw a few coachloads at a filling station a few weeks back whilst on the way to Nakhon Ratchasima who I believe were off to a rally. Didn't seem like a bunch of thugs or killers to me. I do think there are violent elements within their ranks, particularly at the top not to mention liars. I realise there are those types on all sides but I get the impression that it is worse amongst the red shirts which makes claiming to be one who also has connections a good way to put pressure on someone.

These may well have been red shirts but it's by no means certain and besides their affiliation has no bearing on the seriousness of the crime.

[Siripon]

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

Yes I am certainly not above hypocrisy, I am human and it does seem to be part and parcel of our quirky ways... don't worry I'll take your word for it, no need to cite specifics just make a few wild allegations!!! Was that irony? If so please tell me it was deliberate!

You have really never heard of landlords in Thailand grossly overcharging the unit prices of electricity onto tenants? Fiction? No, it's common practice but I recall as a boy I thought closing my eyes made me invisible, clearly you are suffering from similar lapses of logic as an adult... understandable. I once met a man who believed when he closed his eyes the rest of the world ceased to exist, nothing surprise me any more!

Your attempts to insult me rather than coherently argue your corner leads me to believe that you are incapable of doing so.

Your attempts to inject your own fiction into the news story leads me to believe that your are not at one with the truth.

The very fact that you sit on here all day going round and round in ever decreasing circles posting the same one-eyed garbage day in, day out leads me to believe that if you are gainfully employed you are either not worth the wage or are employed by a concerned party

Does anyone ever manage to completely read one of the 'mangled one's posts?

I gave up months ago, rambling, off on a tangent, splitting hairs, he's unreadable.

At least GK sometimes injects irony into his posts and there's always a touch of condescension from jay, I forget his name... ( ex young husband).

[kimamey]

Can't understand why you guys get so upset about things you have absolutely no power over.

Well if you can't understand something so simple it's probably not worth explaining is it.

I see some others have taken the trouble and I wish them luck.

[LaoPo]

Many people step in the poop they serve and condemn those low characters who beat this poor man.

Let's see if the Red Shirt Leaders condemn these low character Red Shirts. Let's see if they are denounced and removed from the organization.

Historically, that has yet to occur with the many previous violent incidents carried out by Red Shirts.

.

You sounds like the "quality" newpaper who wrote the tenditious article, describing a bunch of thugs as "Red shirts" as if beating a man has anyything to do with politics.

You make the same mistake and it's the same as if a (democratic or republican) thug in America who beat up people would be excused by the Democratic- or Republican Party.

I don't think that ever happened in any country in the world so don't make it political, when it's not.

Edited January 4, 2013 by LaoPo

[Ferangled]

those that can't see the obvious agenda in this piece need some lessons in rational thought.

The thugs stated that they are red shirt guards in order to appear powerful and intimidate the landlord and his wife into giving them what they want. This is part of the actions and events that took place, and the journalist was stating such facts. Do you have a problem with journalists stating facts?

How do you twist someone reporting that someone stated that those accused stated that they were red shirt guards and the subsequent assumption that this was said in order to appear powerful and intimidate someone else into a fact?!

It appears to be a fact that the landlord's wife stated such, that is the extent of the "facts" presented. Rational thought, take it as you will but don't blame me for your own irrationality!

One can reasonably draw from this that this assault was violent, reportedly unprovoked and the men responsible should be prosecuted accordingly for their reprehensible actions. Of course reasonably they should also have a chance to voice their own "facts" both as to the incident itself and whether or not they are actually red shirt guards and whether or not they were actually using their status to deliberately intimidate people... hey, failing that just some corroboration of the "facts" of the case before we start forming lynch mobs!

If all of these "facts" are actually established by all means then condemn all those involved and use this as a yard stick to judge every member of the group. I still wouldn't class that as rational behaviour as the actions of a few unhinged individuals don't necessarily reflect the entire group. That said I recognise a growing trend in violence in general in Thailand and am sad to say I'm not overly surprised to see bad apples from many groups in society rising to the fore and making news recently.

Personally I don't use each incident as grounds to right off an entire group of people but I can see why others do. My Grandfather hated all arabs and blacks, I guess that was his prerogative, he had a few bad personal experiences and used them as a yard stick to judge entire races by. We'd call him a racist these days. If people can apply that misguided "logic" so easily to entire races it's understandable that some do so to condemn an entire political group off the back of a single uncorroborated statement presented with a certain slant.

[Ferangled]

The only thing you injected was fiction and hypocritically so given your other statements

Yes I am certainly not above hypocrisy, I am human and it does seem to be part and parcel of our quirky ways... don't worry I'll take your word for it, no need to cite specifics just make a few wild allegations!!! Was that irony? If so please tell me it was deliberate!

You have really never heard of landlords in Thailand grossly overcharging the unit prices of electricity onto tenants? Fiction? No, it's common practice but I recall as a boy I thought closing my eyes made me invisible, clearly you are suffering from similar lapses of logic as an adult... understandable. I once met a man who believed when he closed his eyes the rest of the world ceased to exist, nothing surprise me any more!

Your attempts to insult me rather than coherently argue your corner leads me to believe that you are incapable of doing so.

Your attempts to inject your own fiction into the news story leads me to believe that your are not at one with the truth.

The very fact that you sit on here all day going round and round in ever decreasing circles posting the same one-eyed garbage day in, day out leads me to believe that if you are gainfully employed you are either not worth the wage or are employed by a concerned party

Insult you? My you are a sensitive soul! If it is genuine then my apologies I realise that my childhood experience must be offensive to some! That said feigning offence has become a rather en vogue way of avoiding debate or answering questions raised... In addition to taking offence had you formed an answer to the actual question raised?

Edited January 4, 2013 by Ferangled