Thida urges Redshirts not to underestimate 'White Masks'

[oceanview]

I wonder why the grassroot red-shirts (with or without UDD) can't just start their own political party? Why keep on depending on local 'important' and/or 'rich' people?

The had a party.

Khattiyatham Party.

Founded by Sae Daeng.

Taken over by his daughter, who then promptly scrapped it when she figured out, she couldn't get a seat in Parliament.

So she ditched it and switched to the Pheu Thai Party, where she became an MP.

The party started by the renegade general Seh Daeng wasn't a grassroot red-shirt party I think. Mind you the link given on the Thai wiki page ( http://www.ktt-party.com/ ) is no longer valid. Not sure it still exists. Maybe after Khattiyah "Dear" Sawasdipol first said "I'll lead dad's political party" and then moved to Pheu Thai means dad's party was disbanded or integrated into Pheu Thai?

Sae Daeng claimed he had the support of grass-root reds. He said that that's why he formed it and he's a honest fellow.

After he died, his daughter said she would continue the party because not to do so would be to dishonor his legacy.

A few months later, she abandoned it and switched to Pheu Thai and the Khattiyatham Party folded. So much for honor.

The last party leader wasn't her, but Surapat Chantima, who is, I believe, still a wanted fugitive at present on his terrorism charges.

[hellodolly]

I wonder why the grassroot red-shirts (with or without UDD) can't just start their own political party? Why keep on depending on local 'important' and/or 'rich' people?

That is probably why the amart will keep the status quo. They would rather deal with the shinawatras than a revolution.

That needs a clarification, at least for me. if 'amart' keep a status quo, does that mean to explain why grassroot red-shirts don't form a new party? Do their 'amart' prevent them from doing so, or the other 'amart'?

I to what like a clarification of who the amart or rich people or important people are give us names so easy to just throw out any old thing you want and blame it on some nameless people.

With all the accusations against Thaksin here it should be obvious that there will be no libel suits here.

I do not expect an answer as I have asked this question several times and received zip nada nothing sweet <deleted>> all zilch.

[Thai at Heart]

I wonder why the grassroot red-shirts (with or without UDD) can't just start their own political party? Why keep on depending on local 'important' and/or 'rich' people?

That is probably why the amart will keep the status quo. They would rather deal with the shinawatras than a revolution.

That needs a clarification, at least for me. if 'amart' keep a status quo, does that mean to explain why grassroot red-shirts don't form a new party? Do their 'amart' prevent them from doing so, or the other 'amart'?

The amart of the country would rather deal with dodgy politicians than allow a social revolution in the country side. They world rather keep the shinawatras in power than kick them out by coup and possibly lead the reds and the commies to form their own party.

That would really be a problem.

[rubl]

I wonder why the grassroot red-shirts (with or without UDD) can't just start their own political party? Why keep on depending on local 'important' and/or 'rich' people?

That is probably why the amart will keep the status quo. They would rather deal with the shinawatras than a revolution.

That needs a clarification, at least for me. if 'amart' keep a status quo, does that mean to explain why grassroot red-shirts don't form a new party? Do their 'amart' prevent them from doing so, or the other 'amart'?

The amart of the country would rather deal with dodgy politicians than allow a social revolution in the country side. They world rather keep the shinawatras in power than kick them out by coup and possibly lead the reds and the commies to form their own party.

That would really be a problem.

That's still no clarification. My original question was "why don't the grassroot red-shirts start their own party?" That has nothing to do with 'amart of the country' (who ever they may be) rather dealing with dodgy politicians (like Pheu Thai MPs?) than have reds/commies in a party.

What is stopping the democracy, self-entitlement minded red-shirts from forming their own party rather than being somehow attached to Pheu Thai with all it's dodgy, old style politicians like the Shinawatra clan. Haven't they grown up and evolved enough or are they being hindered? If the last, by who?

Edited June 21, 2013 by rubl

[newermonkey]

Ohhho scary don't under estimate the "white masks" yea right. the boogeyman is coming.

[drdoom6996]

Thida, the resident Dictator of the Redshirt clan, is giving advice? I thought she only gave orders straight from Taksin.

[SICHONSTEVE]

"She stressed that the Redshirts should not resort to their emotion when they respond to the White Masks. "

Don't resort to emotion but nothing said about resorting to violence. That's as good as a carte blanche to go beating up anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of 'democracy'. Typical red crap.

I think you may be being a little unfair. This seems like a call to avoid violence as if it gets out of hand it will not help the red shirts case. If there is too much violence against predominantly peaceful protesters thereby preventing their democratic rights there will be a problem for the government. They obviously won't want to go against their own supporters but on the other hand if they allow them to stop peaceful demonstrations using violence the army could feel it has a justification for getting involved as they can say that democracy is no longer being upheld.

It's worth remembering that this is almost certainly an English translation from Thai so the use of 'emotions' may not be entirely accurate.

"A call to avoid violence"!!!

This is like giving a soldier a gun with no bullets and removing the bayonet to Red Shirts, as violence is their main tactic and objective and being thick comes with it!!!!

[HAL9000]

Using the aggressive white mask symbolism of Anonymous' anarchy and lawlessness does not speak well for them either. Thailand will have peace when parties learn to wait until the next election when they don't like something in government.

[thaicbr]

Using the aggressive white mask symbolism of Anonymous' anarchy and lawlessness does not speak well for them either. Thailand will have peace when parties learn to wait until the next election when they don't like something in government.

Thailand may have peace when the governments realize that they are governing for the whole of Thailand not just for their own personal feifdoms.

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[thaicbr]

Sorry thiefdoms

Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE Q6

[kimamey]

"She stressed that the Redshirts should not resort to their emotion when they respond to the White Masks. "

Don't resort to emotion but nothing said about resorting to violence. That's as good as a carte blanche to go beating up anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of 'democracy'. Typical red crap.

I think you may be being a little unfair. This seems like a call to avoid violence as if it gets out of hand it will not help the red shirts case. If there is too much violence against predominantly peaceful protesters thereby preventing their democratic rights there will be a problem for the government. They obviously won't want to go against their own supporters but on the other hand if they allow them to stop peaceful demonstrations using violence the army could feel it has a justification for getting involved as they can say that democracy is no longer being upheld.

It's worth remembering that this is almost certainly an English translation from Thai so the use of 'emotions' may not be entirely accurate.

"A call to avoid violence"!!!

This is like giving a soldier a gun with no bullets and removing the bayonet to Red Shirts, as violence is their main tactic and objective and being thick comes with it!!!!

Maybe so but my point is that, for whatever reason and bearing in mind the problems of translation it's a bit unfair to accuse her of inciting violence.

If she said nothing like the PM people will complain. She's said something that could be taken as urging against violence and people still complain because one of one word which she may not have translated herself doesn't meet with their approval.

I don't like the violence on either side and I'm certainly not a PTP supporter but just complaining whatever they do doesn't make sense to me. Virtually every house in my area has a red shirt outside of it but I doubt very much that every one of them could be persuaded to resort to violence. Accusing any group of being totally bad or totally good is ridiculous. There are obviously violent reds but not all of them are like that.

After about 4 or 5 years I've discovered my wife's boss is a red shirt supporter. There's as much chance of him turning violent as there is of Yingluck engaging in a meaningful debate in parliament........without notes.

[SICHONSTEVE]

"She stressed that the Redshirts should not resort to their emotion when they respond to the White Masks. "

Don't resort to emotion but nothing said about resorting to violence. That's as good as a carte blanche to go beating up anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of 'democracy'. Typical red crap.

I think you may be being a little unfair. This seems like a call to avoid violence as if it gets out of hand it will not help the red shirts case. If there is too much violence against predominantly peaceful protesters thereby preventing their democratic rights there will be a problem for the government. They obviously won't want to go against their own supporters but on the other hand if they allow them to stop peaceful demonstrations using violence the army could feel it has a justification for getting involved as they can say that democracy is no longer being upheld.

It's worth remembering that this is almost certainly an English translation from Thai so the use of 'emotions' may not be entirely accurate.

"A call to avoid violence"!!!

This is like giving a soldier a gun with no bullets and removing the bayonet to Red Shirts, as violence is their main tactic and objective and being thick comes with it!!!!

Maybe so but my point is that, for whatever reason and bearing in mind the problems of translation it's a bit unfair to accuse her of inciting violence.

If she said nothing like the PM people will complain. She's said something that could be taken as urging against violence and people still complain because one of one word which she may not have translated herself doesn't meet with their approval.

I don't like the violence on either side and I'm certainly not a PTP supporter but just complaining whatever they do doesn't make sense to me. Virtually every house in my area has a red shirt outside of it but I doubt very much that every one of them could be persuaded to resort to violence. Accusing any group of being totally bad or totally good is ridiculous. There are obviously violent reds but not all of them are like that.

After about 4 or 5 years I've discovered my wife's boss is a red shirt supporter. There's as much chance of him turning violent as there is of Yingluck engaging in a meaningful debate in parliament........without notes.

I bet you feel like a comparative genious surrounded by all of these ignorant fools, living where you are!!!!

[scorecard]

Quote:

"Ms. Thida urged the Redshirts to conduct regular meetings with their local UDD chapters in order to catch up with timely analysis of current situations".

Somehow I doubt that local UDD chapters, especially their leaders are fully informed / accurately informed / capable of insightful analysis & balanced comment.

[kimamey]

I think you may be being a little unfair. This seems like a call to avoid violence as if it gets out of hand it will not help the red shirts case. If there is too much violence against predominantly peaceful protesters thereby preventing their democratic rights there will be a problem for the government. They obviously won't want to go against their own supporters but on the other hand if they allow them to stop peaceful demonstrations using violence the army could feel it has a justification for getting involved as they can say that democracy is no longer being upheld.

It's worth remembering that this is almost certainly an English translation from Thai so the use of 'emotions' may not be entirely accurate.

"A call to avoid violence"!!!

This is like giving a soldier a gun with no bullets and removing the bayonet to Red Shirts, as violence is their main tactic and objective and being thick comes with it!!!!

Maybe so but my point is that, for whatever reason and bearing in mind the problems of translation it's a bit unfair to accuse her of inciting violence.

If she said nothing like the PM people will complain. She's said something that could be taken as urging against violence and people still complain because one of one word which she may not have translated herself doesn't meet with their approval.

I don't like the violence on either side and I'm certainly not a PTP supporter but just complaining whatever they do doesn't make sense to me. Virtually every house in my area has a red shirt outside of it but I doubt very much that every one of them could be persuaded to resort to violence. Accusing any group of being totally bad or totally good is ridiculous. There are obviously violent reds but not all of them are like that.

After about 4 or 5 years I've discovered my wife's boss is a red shirt supporter. There's as much chance of him turning violent as there is of Yingluck engaging in a meaningful debate in parliament........without notes.

I bet you feel like a comparative genious surrounded by all of these ignorant fools, living where you are!!!!

Well I don't go and visit them all for a chat I'm afraid but it's probably true that my education is better than a lot of them. Then again there are many people I meet here who have degrees unlike myself but I'd put my common sense up against their degrees any time.

I really don't know how many of the locals are violent but you can bet they won't all be.

[scorecard]

I wonder why the grassroot red-shirts (with or without UDD) can't just start their own political party? Why keep on depending on local 'important' and/or 'rich' people?

That is probably why the amart will keep the status quo. They would rather deal with the shinawatras than a revolution.

That needs a clarification, at least for me. if 'amart' keep a status quo, does that mean to explain why grassroot red-shirts don't form a new party? Do their 'amart' prevent them from doing so, or the other 'amart'?

The amart of the country would rather deal with dodgy politicians than allow a social revolution in the country side. They world rather keep the shinawatras in power than kick them out by coup and possibly lead the reds and the commies to form their own party.

That would really be a problem.

That's still no clarification. My original question was "why don't the grassroot red-shirts start their own party?" That has nothing to do with 'amart of the country' (who ever they may be) rather dealing with dodgy politicians (like Pheu Thai MPs?) than have reds/commies in a party.

What is stopping the democracy, self-entitlement minded red-shirts from forming their own party rather than being somehow attached to Pheu Thai with all it's dodgy, old style politicians like the Shinawatra clan. Haven't they grown up and evolved enough or are they being hindered? If the last, by who?

The reds are too varied a group. they could do something but they can't even present one face.

But they would get more out of it in the long run.

Quote:

"That has nothing to do with 'amart of the country' (who ever they may be) .............. "

One view is that the amart includes the local village chiefs etc., who have somehow transferred from being the local poor (possibly meaning local typical red shirt material) to positions like local kamnan / local politicians, in many cases becoming unusually rich, and in most cases acting superior (even threatening) to those who yesterday were their poor neighbors.

Ahh.. membership of the 'get rich quick club'.

[waza]

That's still no clarification. My original question was "why don't the grassroot red-shirts start their own party?" That has nothing to do with 'amart of the country' (who ever they may be) rather dealing with dodgy politicians (like Pheu Thai MPs?) than have reds/commies in a party.

What is stopping the democracy, self-entitlement minded red-shirts from forming their own party rather than being somehow attached to Pheu Thai with all it's dodgy, old style politicians like the Shinawatra clan. Haven't they grown up and evolved enough or are they being hindered? If the last, by who?

The reds are too varied a group. they could do something but they can't even present one face.

But they would get more out of it in the long run.

So your saying that Thaksin is the glue that holds the redshirt movement together and without him they would fracture into splinter groups with differing agendas and methodologies, seems Nick alluded to a similar thing in another topic.

Edited June 21, 2013 by waza

[rubl]

Asking about red-shirt political vision I was pointed to the UDD site by NN ( http://thairedshirts.org/ ). So much for evolving past Thaksin, or even Thaksin as 'figure head mask only'

[Thai at Heart]

That's still no clarification. My original question was "why don't the grassroot red-shirts start their own party?" That has nothing to do with 'amart of the country' (who ever they may be) rather dealing with dodgy politicians (like Pheu Thai MPs?) than have reds/commies in a party.

What is stopping the democracy, self-entitlement minded red-shirts from forming their own party rather than being somehow attached to Pheu Thai with all it's dodgy, old style politicians like the Shinawatra clan. Haven't they grown up and evolved enough or are they being hindered? If the last, by who?

The reds are too varied a group. they could do something but they can't even present one face.

But they would get more out of it in the long run.

So your saying that Thaksin is the glue that holds the redshirt movement together and without him they would fracture into splinter groups with differing agendas and methodologies, seems Nick alluded to a similar thing in another topic.

Well they are a very disparate group ranging from old school commies to young reactionaries. Then throw in the nut jobs like Nattawut and all the others, they are a weird combination of all sorts of groups. I think they have a symbiotic relationship with PTP. PTP throws them a bone, and they have thrown their hat in behind PTP. But, they don't make one complete clear group of ideologies. Hey, they wouldn't be the first bunch of people to swallow their principles in order to get themselves to the top table, anywhere in the world. Thaksin has facilitated that.

I mean how to reconcile communists throwing their hat in behind a bloke who made billions out of a telephone monopoly?

[Just1Voice]

About the only thing I agree with what Thida said is in regards to the "same old faces" behind the masks, which is, or should be, pretty obvious to just about everyone. And my thoughts about "them" are about the same in some regards as my thoughts on the UDD/RS faction. They also want democracy, but only "their way". Actually, in some ways their version of democracy is more frightening.

1) Many of them propose a return to an Absolute Monarchy, and have clearly said so. Just this past week they were "demanding" that the PM should be "appointed" by HM, not elected by Parliament or the people.

2) Their ideas for Parliament is that 70% would be "appointed", and only 30% would be elected.

3) No one without at least a BA or BS degree would be allowed to vote. Everyone else, in their opinion, is either to stupid or lacking the necessary educational requirements to vote.

I may not like the Red version of "democracy", but like the White Mask/PAD/Multicolor even less.

[rubl]

Whereas it is correct that some factions in the White Makss are clearly from Yellow shirts / PAD not all are. The 'hard core' might be very reactionair, but others are just against corruption and this Thaksin-led government which it's better than the Samak/Somchai-led governments they protested against.

The 'hard core' UDD part with their government dictated democracy isn't really better or worse for that matter. Both to be avoided.

[yoshiwara]

Well they are a very disparate group ranging from old school commies to young reactionaries. Then throw in the nut jobs like Nattawut and all the others, they are a weird combination of all sorts of groups. I think they have a symbiotic relationship with PTP. PTP throws them a bone, and they have thrown their hat in behind PTP. But, they don't make one complete clear group of ideologies. Hey, they wouldn't be the first bunch of people to swallow their principles in order to get themselves to the top table, anywhere in the world. Thaksin has facilitated that.

I mean how to reconcile communists throwing their hat in behind a bloke who made billions out of a telephone monopoly?

Thida old school Stalinist. Remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Throwing an opportunist line to be roped in with Thaksin not so difficult. Or how about a little closer to home where Stalin ordered the organisational liquidation of the CCP into the Kuomintang who subsequently set about murdering them in 1927. Thida's politics are hewn from these traditions (toeing the line). Do not be surprised. Nothing very much to reconcile. Edited June 21, 2013 by yoshiwara

[rametindallas]

That's still no clarification. My original question was "why don't the grassroot red-shirts start their own party?" That has nothing to do with 'amart of the country' (who ever they may be) rather dealing with dodgy politicians (like Pheu Thai MPs?) than have reds/commies in a party.

What is stopping the democracy, self-entitlement minded red-shirts from forming their own party rather than being somehow attached to Pheu Thai with all it's dodgy, old style politicians like the Shinawatra clan. Haven't they grown up and evolved enough or are they being hindered? If the last, by who?

Allow me to explain the way I see it. Thailand's social system is based on client/patron and the patron is responsible for distributing any largess that comes their way. Loyalty is rewarded as well as cooperation which perpetuates the system. Dr. Thaksin coopted this system in his first term when he instituted the Million Baht Village Fund which bought the loyalty of the village heads and the local 'godfathers'. Since the Red Shirt/UDD movement was invented and funded by Dr. Thaksin, all the leaders of the movement were picked by him to be loyal to him. Those leaders will not go off on their own as they will personally lose financially. No unapproved leaders can spring up without the permission of the local patron, and he gets his orders from above, so there will not be an independent, grassroots movement that is not under the control of the system and any 'commoner' who tries will be stifled.

Add to this mix the old money 'amart' in Bangkok who are the behind the scenes powerbrokers in Thailand. To join this club you have to come from some old-line Thai family (no Chinese allowed), often related to some past royalty, and have a long-established power base and lots of money. Some of these people got their start generations ago when some king gave them land and title (former kings of Thailand owned all the land and could also take land back that had been previously given by that king or his processors). These people, through marriage and holdings have power that Dr. Thaksin and other new-rich can only drool over so there is lots of jealousy and envy built into the system.

When Dr. Thaksin got elected he challenged the old power base by motivating the masses with his populist programs and giving them hope of future equality. Dr. Thaksin originally campaigned as an Education PM to promote equality and upward mobility through education but that equality in not in his interests any more then it is in the interests of the Amataya. No one wants less power. Bottom line is this is a power struggle between the old power (amataya) and the new power (Dr. Thaksin and his cronies) and the poor are used as pawns.

As an egalitarian American, I am appalled that there are such clear delineations of social strata and that one segment of society cannot interact socially with certain other segments of society nor move to a better strata. I am against the continued exploitation of the common citizen for the enrichment of the wealthy/powerful. I am generally an optimist but in no way am I optimistic that the people will be allowed to govern themselves. The powers that be are too selfish.

I hope some here will add to or correct my view.

Edited June 21, 2013 by rametindallas

[waza]

But there isn't a socialist party in Thailand.........

The Socialist Party of Thailand (SPT) was political party in Thailand, active in the 1970s. SPT was led by its general secretary Boonsanong Punyodyana.

SPT won 15 out of 269 seats in the 1975 parliamentary elections. Punyodyana was murdered on February 28, 1976. Around 10,000 people participated in his memorial. After the Thammasat University massacre on October 6, 1976, many SPT cadres went into exile or joined the Communist Party of Thailand's guerrillas in the border areas with Laos in Northern Thailand and Isan (Northeastern Thailand). Thus the party was dissolved.

Edited June 21, 2013 by waza

[oceanview]

About the only thing I agree with what Thida said is in regards to the "same old faces" behind the masks, which is, or should be, pretty obvious to just about everyone. And my thoughts about "them" are about the same in some regards as my thoughts on the UDD/RS faction. They also want democracy, but only "their way". Actually, in some ways their version of democracy is more frightening.

1) Many of them propose a return to an Absolute Monarchy, and have clearly said so. Just this past week they were "demanding" that the PM should be "appointed" by HM, not elected by Parliament or the people.

2) Their ideas for Parliament is that 70% would be "appointed", and only 30% would be elected.

3) No one without at least a BA or BS degree would be allowed to vote. Everyone else, in their opinion, is either to stupid or lacking the necessary educational requirements to vote.

I may not like the Red version of "democracy", but like the White Mask/PAD/Multicolor even less.

Perhaps then you should learn more about the white masks as none of your three points are true.

Shame your just one voice wasn't more honest.

Edited June 21, 2013 by oceanview

[whybother]

About the only thing I agree with what Thida said is in regards to the "same old faces" behind the masks, which is, or should be, pretty obvious to just about everyone. And my thoughts about "them" are about the same in some regards as my thoughts on the UDD/RS faction. They also want democracy, but only "their way". Actually, in some ways their version of democracy is more frightening.

1) Many of them propose a return to an Absolute Monarchy, and have clearly said so. Just this past week they were "demanding" that the PM should be "appointed" by HM, not elected by Parliament or the people.

2) Their ideas for Parliament is that 70% would be "appointed", and only 30% would be elected.

3) No one without at least a BA or BS degree would be allowed to vote. Everyone else, in their opinion, is either to stupid or lacking the necessary educational requirements to vote.

I may not like the Red version of "democracy", but like the White Mask/PAD/Multicolor even less.

That's a bit like saying all red shirts want a republic.

[sawadeeken]

Does anyone else see a distinct similarity between the redshirts and the various 'commuinst' factions throughout history????? Right down to the RED color they chose as thier logo. "RED China", The COMMUNIST Flag was RED", "The North Vietnamese Communists chose RED" The KYMER ROUGE led by POL POT same as the Redshirts are led by Taksin. In the 'old' cowboy-movies the 'bad-guys' always wore black. It seems to me that throughout history the bad-guys have also chosen RED for their identity.

Just my observation.................

[OzMick]

About the only thing I agree with what Thida said is in regards to the "same old faces" behind the masks, which is, or should be, pretty obvious to just about everyone. And my thoughts about "them" are about the same in some regards as my thoughts on the UDD/RS faction. They also want democracy, but only "their way". Actually, in some ways their version of democracy is more frightening.

1) Many of them propose a return to an Absolute Monarchy, and have clearly said so. Just this past week they were "demanding" that the PM should be "appointed" by HM, not elected by Parliament or the people.

2) Their ideas for Parliament is that 70% would be "appointed", and only 30% would be elected.

3) No one without at least a BA or BS degree would be allowed to vote. Everyone else, in their opinion, is either to stupid or lacking the necessary educational requirements to vote.

I may not like the Red version of "democracy", but like the White Mask/PAD/Multicolor even less.

In any political spectrum there is always a far right and and a far left, both holding equally radical ideals. Luckily, the numbers involved on both groups are usually small. Even in the PAD, those holding extremist views are but a small percentage.

Alleging that all those in a group hold the views of extremists is fallacious. It would be just as wrong to claim that all red shirts hold the communist ideals of Thida and Weng.

[yoshiwara]

Does anyone else see a distinct similarity between the redshirts and the various 'commuinst' factions throughout history????? Right down to the RED color they chose as thier logo. "RED China", The COMMUNIST Flag was RED", "The North Vietnamese Communists chose RED" The KYMER ROUGE led by POL POT same as the Redshirts are led by Taksin. In the 'old' cowboy-movies the 'bad-guys' always wore black. It seems to me that throughout history the bad-guys have also chosen RED for their identity.

Just my observation.................

There is nothing socialist or even remotely communist about the redshirts other than some of the propaganda. The liquidation of whatever organisation Thida now leads into the Thaksin project is purely a marker of thorough degeneration into irrelevance of what passes for left-wing politics in Thailand. What remains for those such as Thida still though is the nastiness of the Stalinist method on top of empty policies. One use however is to provide a fake rationale for the forum Thaksin apologists to peddle their nonsense. And of course the left-wing tourists in the Che T-shirts who haven't got a clue.

Edited June 22, 2013 by yoshiwara

[SICHONSTEVE]

About the only thing I agree with what Thida said is in regards to the "same old faces" behind the masks, which is, or should be, pretty obvious to just about everyone. And my thoughts about "them" are about the same in some regards as my thoughts on the UDD/RS faction. They also want democracy, but only "their way". Actually, in some ways their version of democracy is more frightening.

1) Many of them propose a return to an Absolute Monarchy, and have clearly said so. Just this past week they were "demanding" that the PM should be "appointed" by HM, not elected by Parliament or the people.

2) Their ideas for Parliament is that 70% would be "appointed", and only 30% would be elected.

3) No one without at least a BA or BS degree would be allowed to vote. Everyone else, in their opinion, is either to stupid or lacking the necessary educational requirements to vote.

I may not like the Red version of "democracy", but like the White Mask/PAD/Multicolor even less.

In any political spectrum there is always a far right and and a far left, both holding equally radical ideals. Luckily, the numbers involved on both groups are usually small. Even in the PAD, those holding extremist views are but a small percentage.

Alleging that all those in a group hold the views of extremists is fallacious. It would be just as wrong to claim that all red shirts hold the communist ideals of Thida and Weng.

I think the nature of the red shirts tactics/strategy is to eliminate (not in the literal sense, in most cases anyway) anything or anyone that doesn't agree or adhere to their ideals. The fact that these ideals are highly flawed makes this a dangerous combination that will make any semblance of reconciliation virtually impossible to achieve!!

I cannot believe that they cannot fathom out what Thaksin is all about and why they still follow his every word and command blindly, as if he is their messiah from up high.

I just hope that realisation sets in when their populist policies collapse one-by-one and they feel let down by this incompetent rabble and demonstrations follow (ironically, from the self same people that put them there) and Thaksin/Yingluck's government is brought to it's knees followed by a red shirt inspired coup!!

Ahhh!!!, one can only dream .

[Totster]

Anyone else see "I'm a slutty moron" on the banner in the picture ?

totster

p.s well aware of the hack btw

Edited June 22, 2013 by Totster