2010 Red-Shirt Uprising: Clarity, Justice Remain Elusive

[webfact]

2010 RED-SHIRT UPRISING
Clarity, justice remain elusive
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation

Debate on blame unresolved as all sides disagree on what occurred

BANGKOK: -- As red shirts began marking the third anniversary of the April 10 to May 19, 2010 protest which ended in blood and the loss of more than 90 lives, mostly on the red-shirt side, there exists no consensus on whom to blame and whether reconciliation is still achievable. Those from different sides interviewed concur, however, that finding out the truth is important and paramount in achieving closure and reconciliation.

"Clarity [about what happened] is most essential," said Tul Sitthisomwong, leader of the multi-coloured-shirt group.

"What red-shirts and Thaksin Shinawatra fear most is clarity. I'm not opposed to amnesty. We must see who has been misled. But we cannot forgive the masterminds until they have been punished," he said, referring to red-shirt leaders, and to ousted and fugitive former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, whom he considers the culprit.

Tul said that since there's no agreement on what really took place and who should be held responsible, Thailand has been "lost" over the past three years.

"[Can there be] forgiveness? I say ordinary red shirts were mere pawns and political victims," said Tul, who insisted that soldiers did not indiscriminately shoot at protesters but were provoked and attacked by the mysterious so-called "men in black".

Red Sunday group leader Sombath Boon-ngam-anong, meanwhile, agreed that the debate on who is to be blamed for the deaths and violence is still far from being resolved. Sombath added, however, that he thinks the feeling of mutual hatred has subsided somewhat over the past three years. Although Sombath was detained for weeks after protesting against the crackdown in the immediate aftermath in 2010, he said he is now personally no longer easily agitated as before.

"It will take time. The incident [in 2010] was complex and I personally thought both sides were victims and offenders. The judicial process is still ongoing. I believe the passage of time will help clear up many issues and lead toward eventual acceptance of the truth."

Sombath urges all sides to strive towards unveiling the truth and to seek justice. "The search for truth must continue. But let's not stall the country [due to political division]. It's a different matter," he said, adding that issues like who committed the Central World arson are still not resolved.

Puangthong Pawakapan, co-editor of a book detailing what happened in 2010 and key member of the People's Information Centre, agrees it will take more time to unveil the truth. She said it may take another five to 10 years before people will be open-minded enough to recognise at least two sets of narratives about what happened in 2010. "By then a new round of searching for the truth may resume."

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

What's more, 18 red shirts are still being detained with little or no assistance from the Pheu Thai government of Yingluck Shinawatra, leaving some red shirts bitter with the government it helped to elect.

"When I joined the red-shirt protests, I could sense their anger against the Pheu Thai government as well."

At the same time, Puangthong feels that royalists who oppose the red shirts and the government, and who currently oppose the move to amend the charter, may never be at peace because they are simply running against the tide of democratisation.

"They may end up being full of hatred for the rest of their lives."


-- The Nation 2013-04-10

[Mampara]

Typical of Thai politics, do everything, promise everything, say anything to get into power, but when everything is over, no help and no recognition for those who helped, sweated, and risked their lives for the party.

[Melyn]

Positively Orwellian outcome.

Thida the Leader and hubby Weng the Weng were the only red heads that didn't get a trough to scoff from and they lack the gravitas without the gravy train fat boys

[A Member]

Typical of Thai politics, do everything, promise everything, say anything to get into power, but when everything is over, no help and no recognition for those who helped, sweated, and risked their lives for the party.

At least some red shirts made it into the cabinet and they were the ones who told the mob to " leave Bangkok in flames " but I'll bet they didn't set fire to anything

[siampolee]

One needs to consider that the very idea of clarity for those Red Shirts still incarcerated is possibly a danger for Thaksin and his fellow conspirators and manipulators of the Red Shirt pawns.

The truth may well emerge concerning who, what, where, when, why and how much money was funneled into certain peoples pockets to sponsor that particular act of civil strife that was and still is being waged upon democracy such as it is that currently exists in this country.

Too many dead end streets when questions are asked the assorted splinter group factions can't nay won't agree on a common cause of action.

This of course muddies the waters for those who are seeking the truth concerning the people who were behind the civil strife of 2010.

Thaksin and his family and their brown nosing acolytes are fully aware that the truth is a dangerous weapon thus of course to let those incarcerated Red Shirt pawns languish in prison serves two purposes.

Firstly they become folk heroes martyrs if you will, a wonderful way to garner support at no cost to the sponsoring leadership of the civil strife of 2010.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly for Thaksin his family and their brown nosing acolytes is the fact that the longer those Red Shirts are incarcerated the less creditable any revelations as to the actual truth and the command structure and sponsorship of the Red shirt movement and its activities becomes.

Any revealing comments would of course be put down to indoctrination whilst in incarcerated or due to personal rancour and bitterness and a desire for both revenge and of course a possible financial financial consideration as compensation on the part of those unfortunates who were incarcerated..

As already stated, ''The truth is indeed a powerful weapon''

Revenge is a dish best eaten cold, a dish that Thaksin, his family and their brown nosing acolytes do not want nay do not need that dish of revenge appearing on the menu that those incarcerated Red Shirts may well bring to the table if they are released .

If that dish of revenge composed of all the revelations of the true facts concerning the civil strife of 2010 were to be served up to the Thaksin, his family and their brown nosing acolytes they would indeed find it a truly noxious and toxic dish.

Better if those chefs were to remain in the prison kitchens isn't it as unsung heroes and political pawns

[Locationthailand]

The scenario of clarity will prove beyond doubt, the riots were incited by Thaksin. The resulting deaths could have been avoided had the red pawns heeded warning and had the lame police force upheld rule of law. The blame lies squarely on Thaksin and his puppets, which ever way you look at it.

[gl555]

Reconciliation, amnesty. Sure! But all this should NOT include Thaksin.This country can move on I think but that Dubai piece of crap is such a divisive figure, he should just stay away or die.

[webfact]

Senate panel says "men in black" side with Red Shirt protesters

BANGKOK, 10 April 2013 (NNT) - The Senate subcommittee investigating the deaths in political violence has concluded that the mysterious “men in black” who appeared in the Red Shirt’s rallies in 2010 were involved with the protesters.

Member of the subcommittee Lt.Gen.Nanthadech Meksawas said the investigating panel had watched video clips of the confrontations during the protests and talked with more than 100 witnesses. The panel then reached a conclusion that the army's operations during the rallies were in line with the laws. It also agreed the “men in black” knew the Red Shirt protesters, judging from the clips showing them working together and the witnesses’ testimonies.

The panel will submit the results of the investigation to a Senate committee on 11 April and then inform the relatives of the dead. Lt.Gen.Nanthadech called on state officials responsible for the Red Shirt protest case to investigate the case according to the laws to guarantee justice to all.

-- NNT 2013-04-10

[waza]

Clarity and accountability is what's needed to heal the Thai societal wounds created by one man and his insatiable greed. However, ignorance and fear of the truth will forever cloud this issue. Attitude like Puangthong's, key member of the People's Information Centre, are encouraged to perpetuate that deceit.

....." the People’s Information Centre, a network of academics sympathetic to the red shirts". http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/asia/01iht-thai.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"At the same time, Puangthong feels that royalists who oppose the red shirts and the government, and who currently oppose the move to amend the charter, may never be at peace because they are simply running against the tide of democratisation".

After all the riots were never about democracy but in reality they were all about anarchy. As this clearly illustrates............

The Senate subcommittee investigating the deaths in political violence has concluded that the mysterious “men in black” who appeared in the Red Shirt’s rallies in 2010 were involved with the protesters.

[animatic]

Lt.Gen.Nanthadech called on state officials responsible for the Red Shirt protest case to investigate the case according to the laws to guarantee justice to all.

FInally an official body states what was obvious to all but the totally biased.

[ZhouZhou]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Edited April 10, 2013 by ZhouZhou

[billd766]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death.

How strange, or perhaps not, that you favour a convicted criminal fugitive ex PM who is manipulating a country into ruin over another ex PM who has not been convicted of anything by any legal court in Thailand.

[waza]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Your comments are as biased, ill-informed and misleading as Puangthongs. Abhist is on murder charges over the Thaksin financed redshirt riots. While Thaksin, who also financed the death squad called the blackshirts and his red henchmen, who called for violence an arson, remains uncharged?

"Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them.." But they cant vote on amending their constitution.

Red democracy in action

Edited April 10, 2013 by waza

[Melyn]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

You are deluded if you think that this is a democracy with Thaksin the dictator at the helm.....

[ZhouZhou]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

You are deluded if you think that this is a democracy with Thaksin the dictator at the helm.....

a basic feature of democracies are elections.

Coups, party dissolutions, PMs who cannot win elections and the army shooting at protesters in designated live fire zones aren't typical features of democracy.

[smutcakes]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Your comments are as biased, ill-informed and misleading as Puangthongs. Abhist is on murder charges over the Thaksin financed redshirt riots. While Thaksin, who also financed the death squad called the blackshirts and his red henchmen, who called for violence an arson, remains uncharged?

"Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them.." But they cant vote on amending their constitution.

Red democracy in action

this is incorrect, Suthep financed them to make it look like Thaksin.

[animatic]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Your comments are as biased, ill-informed and misleading as Puangthongs. Abhist is on murder charges over the Thaksin financed redshirt riots. While Thaksin, who also financed the death squad called the blackshirts and his red henchmen, who called for violence an arson, remains uncharged?

"Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them.." But they cant vote on amending their constitution.

Red democracy in action

this is incorrect, Suthep financed them to make it look like Thaksin.

55555555555555555555555555

Nice try, no sale.....

[ianf]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Zhou Zhou: Who is Thaksin? You appear to be unaware! Thaksin is an autocrat who tried to run this country in the same way as the late Chavez controlled Venezuela. There is only one difference between the two: Thaksin was (and still is) backed by the West (and the USA in particular) and Chavez was an outcast. They both ran populist/socialist schemes to grab and retain power and neither was a democrat. Thaksin was indeed a ruthless autocrat in power and now runs the country via a nepotist proxy. It is known that Thaksin has a grotesque human rights record and his misdeeds would have been amplified had he not been removed from power. He would not be able to scheme and retain control - as a criminal on the run, a fugitive from the law - if he did not have the backing of the West. You see the one difference between Chavez and Thaksin is that the former did not allow Washington to dictate to him whilst Thaksin embraced international business and power because ultimately he is driven by his twin demons - those of acquiring power and wealth. Abhisit is a common-garden politician, albeit one with an intelligence not often found amongst Thai power brokers. He remains the democratic choice for Thailand and the way he handled the red riots demonstrates his approach - it wasn't until Thaksin and his reds - with massive input from conspirators such as Amsterdam (and who knows - perhaps the CIA??) - was able to outwit the then Government did a clearing up operation proceed. In countries such as UK this would have happened so much sooner and probably with more deaths but Abhisit was aware that anything he did to restore decency, law and order, would be turned and used against him because that was Thaksin's ultimate plan. Off course the reds used violence, weapons and arson as part of their armoury. But their biggest strength was the ability to use black propaganda which was ultimately successful. If you watch and translate Red speeches from their Bangkok platforms, you'd understand that the rhetoric was about emotional manipulation. In their 'fight for democracy' there was nothing about democracy. The speeches were hate speeches designed to arouse the emotional feelings of the crowds who by then had mostly bonded into an 'oppressed mass'. What a wonderful piece of manipulation. Mussolini would have been proud! So Zhou Zhou - get a hold on understanding the nature of this political battle which is being waged even today as Thaksin gradually moves his family and trusted advsors into key positions. There's a lot more to come.

Edited April 10, 2013 by ianf

[hellodolly]

Reconciliation, amnesty. Sure! But all this should NOT include Thaksin.This country can move on I think but that Dubai piece of crap is such a divisive figure, he should just stay away or die.

Staying away will not shut him up.

But a massive heart attack would do the job nicely.

the very last thing any PT or red shirt wants is justice. It would mean a whole new government and a dead ex {M.

That is not a white wash on the governments side I am reasonably sure there were some shots taken that should not have been taken. And the illegal seizure of down town Bangkok was allowed to go on far longer than it should have.

But I also believe there were some shots that definatly should have been taking.

[hellodolly]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Your comments are as biased, ill-informed and misleading as Puangthongs. Abhist is on murder charges over the Thaksin financed redshirt riots. While Thaksin, who also financed the death squad called the blackshirts and his red henchmen, who called for violence an arson, remains uncharged?

"Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them.." But they cant vote on amending their constitution.

Red democracy in action

this is incorrect, Suthep financed them to make it look like Thaksin.

Take two aspirins and call us in the morning if the sickness persists.

Edited April 10, 2013 by hellodolly

[Nickymaster]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Your comments are as biased, ill-informed and misleading as Puangthongs. Abhist is on murder charges over the Thaksin financed redshirt riots. While Thaksin, who also financed the death squad called the blackshirts and his red henchmen, who called for violence an arson, remains uncharged?

"Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them.." But they cant vote on amending their constitution.

Red democracy in action

this is incorrect, Suthep financed them to make it look like Thaksin.

Smutcakes going for broke?

[ianf]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Zhou Zhou: Who is Thaksin? You appear to be unaware! Thaksin is an autocrat who tried to run this country in the same way as the late Chavez controlled Venezuela. There is only one difference between the two: Thaksin was (and still is) backed by the West (and the USA in particular) and Chavez was an outcast. They both ran populist/socialist schemes to grab and retain power and neither was a democrat. Thaksin was indeed a ruthless autocrat in power and now runs the country via a nepotist proxy. It is known that Thaksin has a grotesque human rights record and his misdeeds would have been amplified had he not been removed from power. He would not be able to scheme and retain control - as a criminal on the run, a fugitive from the law - if he did not have the backing of the West. You see the one difference between Chavez and Thaksin is that the former did not allow Washington to dictate to him whilst Thaksin embraced international business and power because ultimately he is driven by his twin demons - those of acquiring power and wealth. Abhisit is a common-garden politician, albeit one with an intelligence not often found amongst Thai power brokers. He remains the democratic choice for Thailand and the way he handled the red riots demonstrates his approach - it wasn't until Thaksin and his reds - with massive input from conspirators such as Amsterdam (and who knows - perhaps the CIA??) - was able to outwit the then Government did a clearing up operation proceed. In countries such as UK this would have happened so much sooner and probably with more deaths but Abhisit was aware that anything he did to restore decency, law and order, would be turned and used against him because that was Thaksin's ultimate plan. Off course the reds used violence, weapons and arson as part of their armoury. But their biggest strength was the ability to use black propaganda which was ultimately successful. If you watch and translate Red speeches from their Bangkok platforms, you'd understand that the rhetoric was about emotional manipulation. In their 'fight for democracy' there was nothing about democracy. The speeches were hate speeches designed to arouse the emotional feelings of the crowds who by then had mostly bonded into an 'oppressed mass'. What a wonderful piece of manipulation. Mussolini would have been proud! So Zhou Zhou - get a hold on understanding the nature of this political battle which is being waged even today as Thaksin gradually moves his family and trusted advsors into key positions. There's a lot more to come.

You might dislike both but you cannot compare Thaksin with Chavez. That makes no sense.

The democrats indeed are closer to a Mussulini model of a state. That helped them to survive all that many coups in the past.

If that is your honest view Zhou Zhou then it appears you have very little understanding of politics. I have no time to educate you here about the Mussolini years! But suffice it to say that after he had built his support to approx 750,000 souls, he was able to remove the King at the time and then went on to become the destroyer of Italy's social and industrial life by wieling absolute power. He backed Hitler, murdered his own people, created untold poverty and starvation and sent jews to Germany's gas chambers. We could go on.

As for not understanding my comparison of Thaksin to Chavez, you have to come to this - and these issues - with an open mind rather than with an entrenched ideological position as we have witnessed from time to time on this board.

Chavez was a ruthless dictator who brooked no opposition - history tells us that Thaksin ran Thailand in the same way. Chavez was a human rights violator - history tell us that Thaksin was too - evidenced by his ruthless culling of 3000 people during the so-called drugs war. The Human Rights Watch report on this terrible event tells us that 'most of those murdered were not involved in the drugs trade'. Thaksin shared Chavez' distinction of being a leader who betrayed the wellbeing of his own country. However, unlike Chavez, Thaksin has been propped up by the West since the 1990's, and that is why he has been given free movement throughout the West despite being a convicted criminal and a fugitive from the law in this country. Tell me, why did the world's media decry Chavez' populist/socialist schemes but supported Thaksin's similar schemes? Why did the west attack Chavez' human rights record but no mention of Thaksin's horrendous human rights record, his intimidation of the media and his assault on anyone who opposed him? These were things that were shared between Chavez and Thaksin and that is point that I was making. Read my other posts about where all this is leading to. Learn about the world Zhou Zhou and come back and tell us what you found!

Edited April 10, 2013 by ianf

[kimamey]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

I think you'll find the electorate in the UK are a little more sophisticated than that. They wouldn't believe Abhisit was responsible for the deaths without a bit more than just your say so.

I'm posting part of a comment I made in another thread as I think it's relevant.

'A while back Abhisit was a puppet of the military that had staged

the coup against Thaksin and was just obeying their orders. later after

the election of the PTP it all changed to Abhisit being in charge after

all and giving orders for the military to kill the red shirt protesters.

Whilst the military had no problem dealing with Thaksin who still

refuses to take the consequences of his actions by surrendering to his

jail term given by the courts which I think he agreed to do, they were

far too scared of the more substantial Abhisit and so had to do as they

were told. This seems to have been accepted as now there appears to be

no suggestion that the military were anything other than puppets of

Abhisit and the Democrats and will not be prosecuted at all.'

[ZhouZhou]

Zhou Zhou: Who is Thaksin? You appear to be unaware! Thaksin is an autocrat who tried to run this country in the same way as the late Chavez controlled Venezuela. There is only one difference between the two: Thaksin was (and still is) backed by the West (and the USA in particular) and Chavez was an outcast. They both ran populist/socialist schemes to grab and retain power and neither was a democrat. Thaksin was indeed a ruthless autocrat in power and now runs the country via a nepotist proxy. It is known that Thaksin has a grotesque human rights record and his misdeeds would have been amplified had he not been removed from power. He would not be able to scheme and retain control - as a criminal on the run, a fugitive from the law - if he did not have the backing of the West. You see the one difference between Chavez and Thaksin is that the former did not allow Washington to dictate to him whilst Thaksin embraced international business and power because ultimately he is driven by his twin demons - those of acquiring power and wealth. Abhisit is a common-garden politician, albeit one with an intelligence not often found amongst Thai power brokers. He remains the democratic choice for Thailand and the way he handled the red riots demonstrates his approach - it wasn't until Thaksin and his reds - with massive input from conspirators such as Amsterdam (and who knows - perhaps the CIA??) - was able to outwit the then Government did a clearing up operation proceed. In countries such as UK this would have happened so much sooner and probably with more deaths but Abhisit was aware that anything he did to restore decency, law and order, would be turned and used against him because that was Thaksin's ultimate plan. Off course the reds used violence, weapons and arson as part of their armoury. But their biggest strength was the ability to use black propaganda which was ultimately successful. If you watch and translate Red speeches from their Bangkok platforms, you'd understand that the rhetoric was about emotional manipulation. In their 'fight for democracy' there was nothing about democracy. The speeches were hate speeches designed to arouse the emotional feelings of the crowds who by then had mostly bonded into an 'oppressed mass'. What a wonderful piece of manipulation. Mussolini would have been proud! So Zhou Zhou - get a hold on understanding the nature of this political battle which is being waged even today as Thaksin gradually moves his family and trusted advsors into key positions. There's a lot more to come.

You might dislike both but you cannot compare Thaksin with Chavez. That makes no sense.

The democrats indeed are closer to a Mussulini model of a state. That helped them to survive all that many coups in the past.

If that is your honest view Zhou Zhou then it appears you have very little understanding of politics. I have no time to educate you here about the Mussolini years! But suffice it to say that after he had built his support to approx 750,000 souls, he was able to remove the King at the time and then went on to become the destroyer of Italy's social and industrial life by wieling absolute power. He backed Hitler, murdered his own people, created untold poverty and starvation and sent jews to Germany's gas chambers. We could go on.

As for not understanding my comparison of Thaksin to Chavez, you have to come to this - and these issues - with an open mind rather than with an entrenched ideological position as we have witnessed from time to time on this board.

Chavez was a ruthless dictator who brooked no opposition - history tells us that Thaksin ran Thailand in the same way. Chavez was a human rights violator - history tell us that Thaksin was too - evidenced by his ruthless culling of 3000 people during the so-called drugs war. The Human Rights Watch report on this terrible event tells us that 'most of those murdered were not involved in the drugs trade'. Thaksin shared Chavez' distinction of being a leader who

who betrayed the wellbeing of his country. However, unlike Chavez, Thaksin has been propped up by the West since the 1990's, and that is why he has been given free movement throughout the West despite

being a convicted criminal and a fugitive from the law in this country. Tell me, why did the world's media decry Chavez' populist/socialist schemes but supported Thaksin's similar schemes? Why did the west attack Chavez' human rights record but no mention of Thaksin's horrendous human rights record, his intimidation of the media and his assault on anyone who opposed him? These were things that were shared between Chavez and Thaksin and that is point that I was making. Read my other posts about where all this is leading to. Learn about the world Zhou Zhou and come back and tell us what you found!

So behind Thaksin is a big conspiracy organisation called "The west" with the help of the CIA?

As for differences between Chavez and Thaksin - try to look at Chavez policies of nationalization of foreign-owned industries compared with Thaksin privatization including sales to foreign companies.

but the people voted for Chavez and here the people voted for thaksin.

[kimamey]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

You are deluded if you think that this is a democracy with Thaksin the dictator at the helm.....

a basic feature of democracies are elections.

Coups, party dissolutions, PMs who cannot win elections and the army shooting at protesters in designated live fire zones aren't typical features of democracy.

I think you'll find that both Abhisit and Yingluck are party list members and so weren't elected other than by parliament. However Abhisit did win election earlier in his career in the 1990s. Yingluck has never stood in an election and was chosen as PM over all the experienced politicians in the coalition parties. Not sure what that says about her or the other members.

As for his stripped ranks whilst I always said that he should be investigated there are some strange points in this issue.

He was cleared by a previous inquiry so why weren't those who carried that out investigated as well?

It's been suggested many times that it's normal for well connected and rich people to use various methods to do as Abhisit's father apparently did to avoid service so why aren't there any others treated like this?

Two other basic features of democracies that I'm aware of is that even if you win an election there are still laws and standards you have to abide by. Therefore there's no reason why Yingluck or anyone else in government or opposition shouldn't be investigated if needed. Also in most democracies you have to get out on the street, knock on doors in all weathers trying to persuade people to vote for you. Not just wait for your criminal brother to ask you like he did for your last job.

Edited April 10, 2013 by kimamey

[ianf]

Zhou Zhou: Who is Thaksin? You appear to be unaware! Thaksin is an autocrat who tried to run this country in the same way as the late Chavez controlled Venezuela. There is only one difference between the two: Thaksin was (and still is) backed by the West (and the USA in particular) and Chavez was an outcast. They both ran populist/socialist schemes to grab and retain power and neither was a democrat. Thaksin was indeed a ruthless autocrat in power and now runs the country via a nepotist proxy. It is known that Thaksin has a grotesque human rights record and his misdeeds would have been amplified had he not been removed from power. He would not be able to scheme and retain control - as a criminal on the run, a fugitive from the law - if he did not have the backing of the West. You see the one difference between Chavez and Thaksin is that the former did not allow Washington to dictate to him whilst Thaksin embraced international business and power because ultimately he is driven by his twin demons - those of acquiring power and wealth. Abhisit is a common-garden politician, albeit one with an intelligence not often found amongst Thai power brokers. He remains the democratic choice for Thailand and the way he handled the red riots demonstrates his approach - it wasn't until Thaksin and his reds - with massive input from conspirators such as Amsterdam (and who knows - perhaps the CIA??) - was able to outwit the then Government did a clearing up operation proceed. In countries such as UK this would have happened so much sooner and probably with more deaths but Abhisit was aware that anything he did to restore decency, law and order, would be turned and used against him because that was Thaksin's ultimate plan. Off course the reds used violence, weapons and arson as part of their armoury. But their biggest strength was the ability to use black propaganda which was ultimately successful. If you watch and translate Red speeches from their Bangkok platforms, you'd understand that the rhetoric was about emotional manipulation. In their 'fight for democracy' there was nothing about democracy. The speeches were hate speeches designed to arouse the emotional feelings of the crowds who by then had mostly bonded into an 'oppressed mass'. What a wonderful piece of manipulation. Mussolini would have been proud! So Zhou Zhou - get a hold on understanding the nature of this political battle which is being waged even today as Thaksin gradually moves his family and trusted advsors into key positions. There's a lot more to come.

You might dislike both but you cannot compare Thaksin with Chavez. That makes no sense.

The democrats indeed are closer to a Mussulini model of a state. That helped them to survive all that many coups in the past.

If that is your honest view Zhou Zhou then it appears you have very little understanding of politics. I have no time to educate you here about the Mussolini years! But suffice it to say that after he had built his support to approx 750,000 souls, he was able to remove the King at the time and then went on to become the destroyer of Italy's social and industrial life by wieling absolute power. He backed Hitler, murdered his own people, created untold poverty and starvation and sent jews to Germany's gas chambers. We could go on.

As for not understanding my comparison of Thaksin to Chavez, you have to come to this - and these issues - with an open mind rather than with an entrenched ideological position as we have witnessed from time to time on this board.

Chavez was a ruthless dictator who brooked no opposition - history tells us that Thaksin ran Thailand in the same way. Chavez was a human rights violator - history tell us that Thaksin was too - evidenced by his ruthless culling of 3000 people during the so-called drugs war. The Human Rights Watch report on this terrible event tells us that 'most of those murdered were not involved in the drugs trade'. Thaksin shared Chavez' distinction of being a leader who

who betrayed the wellbeing of his country. However, unlike Chavez, Thaksin has been propped up by the West since the 1990's, and that is why he has been given free movement throughout the West despite

being a convicted criminal and a fugitive from the law in this country. Tell me, why did the world's media decry Chavez' populist/socialist schemes but supported Thaksin's similar schemes? Why did the west attack Chavez' human rights record but no mention of Thaksin's horrendous human rights record, his intimidation of the media and his assault on anyone who opposed him? These were things that were shared between Chavez and Thaksin and that is point that I was making. Read my other posts about where all this is leading to. Learn about the world Zhou Zhou and come back and tell us what you found!

So behind Thaksin is a big conspiracy organisation called "The west" with the help of the CIA?

As for differences between Chavez and Thaksin - try to look at Chavez policies of nationalization of foreign-owned industries compared with Thaksin privatization including sales to foreign companies.

but the people voted for Chavez and here the people voted for thaksin.

I'm not sure about the quality of those elections!!!!! Yes, there were similarities and differences. I was pointing out the similarities. But please do not be so naive as to think that international capitalism is disorganised! Off course the CIA (I did put a question mark after that, you noticed?) interferes in world politics. The USA supplied Bin Laden at one point and have supplied arms to the insurgents in Syria. So there is a global conspiracy of sorts but I have no knowledge of how that works.

Funny thing is, Zhou Zhou, I come to this point as a human rights adherent and a liberal democrat. I see no mention in your replies about the substantive points I make. You only seem to pick on niggly little things. If you think Thaksin's Red shirts is a genuine movement for democracy then you have been sadly misguided. The fact is that the red shirt movement is a contrived social movement designed solely to give power to Thaksin. It is only a movement for social change in that it is a hoax, if I can use that word, that has been manufactured to dupe it's well-intentioned followers. These same people would find their futures very different from their ideals because at worst this movement threatens their own futures as citizens of a 'democratic' nation. Will their leader still love them once he has seized dictatorial power? I think history can answer that question.

[ZhouZhou]

You are deluded if you think that this is a democracy with Thaksin the dictator at the helm.....

a basic feature of democracies are elections.

Coups, party dissolutions, PMs who cannot win elections and the army shooting at protesters in designated live fire zones aren't typical features of democracy.

I think you'll find that both Abhisit and Yingluck are party list members and so weren't elected other than by parliament. However Abhisit did win election earlier in his career in the 1990s. Yingluck has never stood in an election and was chosen as PM over all the experienced politicians in the coalition parties. Not sure what that says about her or the other members.

As for his stripped ranks whilst I always said that he should be investigated there are some strange points in this issue.

He was cleared by a previous inquiry so why weren't those who carried that out investigated as well?

It's been suggested many times that it's normal for well connected and rich people to use various methods to do as Abhisit's father apparently did to avoid service so why aren't there any others treated like this?

Two other basic features of democracies that I'm aware of is that even if you win an election there are still laws and standards you have to abide by. Therefore there's no reason why Yingluck or anyone else in government or opposition shouldn't be investigated if needed. Also in most democracies you have to get out on the street, knock on doors in all weathers trying to persuade people to vote for you. Not just wait for your criminal brother to ask you like he did for your last job.

I see nothing wrong in the party list system and have no interest to argue about its details.

and it is pretty obvious that the Democrats are not good in winning elections. Abhisit and the democrtas aren't the favourite choice for the Thai electorate.

I personally would rather vote for a normal citizen with whatever profession who might be even just a newcomer in politics than for a "professional" politician who never did any other job than being a politician.

another feature of democracies is is that the electorate can vote dictators out of office.

[Thai at Heart]

Realistic, speedy and non retributional punishment of all sides involved in street protests is what's needed.

[yoshiwara]

You are deluded if you think that this is a democracy with Thaksin the dictator at the helm.....

a basic feature of democracies are elections.

Coups, party dissolutions, PMs who cannot win elections and the army shooting at protesters in designated live fire zones aren't typical features of democracy.

I think you'll find that both Abhisit and Yingluck are party list members and so weren't elected other than by parliament. However Abhisit did win election earlier in his career in the 1990s. Yingluck has never stood in an election and was chosen as PM over all the experienced politicians in the coalition parties. Not sure what that says about her or the other members.

As for his stripped ranks whilst I always said that he should be investigated there are some strange points in this issue.

He was cleared by a previous inquiry so why weren't those who carried that out investigated as well?

It's been suggested many times that it's normal for well connected and rich people to use various methods to do as Abhisit's father apparently did to avoid service so why aren't there any others treated like this?

Two other basic features of democracies that I'm aware of is that even if you win an election there are still laws and standards you have to abide by. Therefore there's no reason why Yingluck or anyone else in government or opposition shouldn't be investigated if needed. Also in most democracies you have to get out on the street, knock on doors in all weathers trying to persuade people to vote for you. Not just wait for your criminal brother to ask you like he did for your last job.

I see nothing wrong in the party list system and have no interest to argue about its details.

and it is pretty obvious that the Democrats are not good in winning elections. Abhisit and the democrtas aren't the favourite choice for the Thai electorate.

I personally would rather vote for a normal citizen with whatever profession who might be even just a newcomer in politics than for a "professional" politician who never did any other job than being a politician.

another feature of democracies is is that the electorate can vote dictators out of office.

But you can't unfortunately vote them into office if they are wanted convicted criminals eh?

[waza]

Unlike Sombath, Puangthong said emotions still run high and the level of mutual animosity may, in fact, have deepened over the three years as people like then prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva have still not been made accountable, she said.

Sadly that will never happen. But in the future, as long Thailand remains a democracy where the people decide in elections who should govern them, we will never see that Abhisit become a PM again. that is good.

A least not in Thailand, but he could try in the UK, because he is British too. Maybe people there don't mind his attitude, his stripped ranks and all the death. but is think its almost equally unlikely.

Zhou Zhou: Who is Thaksin? You appear to be unaware! Thaksin is an autocrat who tried to run this country in the same way as the late Chavez controlled Venezuela. There is only one difference between the two: Thaksin was (and still is) backed by the West (and the USA in particular) and Chavez was an outcast. They both ran populist/socialist schemes to grab and retain power and neither was a democrat. Thaksin was indeed a ruthless autocrat in power and now runs the country via a nepotist proxy. It is known that Thaksin has a grotesque human rights record and his misdeeds would have been amplified had he not been removed from power. He would not be able to scheme and retain control - as a criminal on the run, a fugitive from the law - if he did not have the backing of the West. You see the one difference between Chavez and Thaksin is that the former did not allow Washington to dictate to him whilst Thaksin embraced international business and power because ultimately he is driven by his twin demons - those of acquiring power and wealth. Abhisit is a common-garden politician, albeit one with an intelligence not often found amongst Thai power brokers. He remains the democratic choice for Thailand and the way he handled the red riots demonstrates his approach - it wasn't until Thaksin and his reds - with massive input from conspirators such as Amsterdam (and who knows - perhaps the CIA??) - was able to outwit the then Government did a clearing up operation proceed. In countries such as UK this would have happened so much sooner and probably with more deaths but Abhisit was aware that anything he did to restore decency, law and order, would be turned and used against him because that was Thaksin's ultimate plan. Off course the reds used violence, weapons and arson as part of their armoury. But their biggest strength was the ability to use black propaganda which was ultimately successful. If you watch and translate Red speeches from their Bangkok platforms, you'd understand that the rhetoric was about emotional manipulation. In their 'fight for democracy' there was nothing about democracy. The speeches were hate speeches designed to arouse the emotional feelings of the crowds who by then had mostly bonded into an 'oppressed mass'. What a wonderful piece of manipulation. Mussolini would have been proud! So Zhou Zhou - get a hold on understanding the nature of this political battle which is being waged even today as Thaksin gradually moves his family and trusted advsors into key positions. There's a lot more to come.

You might dislike both but you cannot compare Thaksin with Chavez. That makes no sense.

The democrats indeed are closer to a Mussulini model of a state. That helped them to survive all that many coups in the past.

Its as obvious as cancer that US capitalism supports Thaksin.

Think about it.

Edited April 10, 2013 by waza