Attorney general orders indictment against Abhisit, Suthep

[centrala]

Now isn't this interesting... The UN's guidelines on the use of force in law enforcement: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i2bpuff.htm

Paras 9 and 10 are especially interesting:

'.

Interesting, but wholly not applicable.

The army is not law enforcement, the police are.

Next?

[bigbamboo]

Now isn't this interesting... The UN's guidelines on the use of force in law enforcement: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i2bpuff.htm

Paras 9 and 10 are especially interesting:

'.

Interesting, but wholly not applicable.

The army is not law enforcement, the police are.

Next?

Actually the Thai police back in 2010 reminded me a lot of the good old British bobbies in England.

They're never around when you need them.

Edited October 29, 2013 by bigbamboo

[gemini81]

The army is guilty of breaking the roe, not abhisit.

I am not a legal expert. But i have read about the revised ROE permitting soldiers to use firearms in extremely questionable circumstances, and that those revised ROE were countersigned by Abhisit.

This whole thing is quite confusing. In the inquests the soldiers (Col. Sansern, for example) have in their testimonies always stated that they followed orders of CRES (and of course they stated that they have not shot protesters), while Suthep has stated that he has only given legal orders.

While i am not aware of what other than the inquest verdicts the DSI and the prosecution have as a base for the murder charges, would it not prudent to first see when (and if) this case comes to trial what evidence evidence is presented before prematurely dismissing these charges as "politically motivated"? The mountain of boxes full of files the DSI has delivered to the Attorney General was quite impressive, and i don't think that it just contained toilet paper.

It is quite simple, not confusing. And it is all well documented, we all know what happened. Those who have things to hide and escape turn simple things into attempted complexity. For example, doctors, politicians, bankers, economists try to present simple things with smoke, mirrors, complications, when usually most things in life are simple as are the solutions. But they lead us down the garden path.

Here, we had a city under siege with a diplomatic gov't who had no other choice, no police assistance, and no negotiation from the red shirts, only violence and refusal to negotiate.

The only dispute is why all of those in the bamboo spike riot zones, excluding children, weren't incarcerated.

[Docno]

Now isn't this interesting... The UN's guidelines on the use of force in law enforcement: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i2bpuff.htm

Paras 9 and 10 are especially interesting:

'.

Interesting, but wholly not applicable.

The army is not law enforcement, the police are.

Next?

Try reading something for once. The army in this case was acting in a law enforcement capacity as it was not engaged in dealing with an external threat, so the guidelines still apply. If they didn't, then governments could simply employ the military to do the dirty stuff and get around the 'rules']. For example, when Mexico brought in the army to supplement the police to fight the drug cartels in places like Juarez, the soldiers were doing law enforcement and were subject to the same ROE as the police. All that aside, here is how the UN document defines 'law enforcement'.

* In accordance with the commentary to article 1 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the term ''law enforcement officials" includes all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention. In countries where police powers are exercised by military authorities. whether uniformed or not, or by State security forces, the definition of law enforcement officials shall be regarded as including officers of such services. [bolding is mine]

Also see para 8: "Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles."

Pretty darned relevant, methinks.

[gemini81]

Ok more droning on about off topic issues designed to misdirect the posters and to be frank has a "look at me" stench to it, not that I think you are an "attention seeker". But I will bite.

Yes I have entertained the though that Abihist and Suthep may be found guilty but that may be a breach of the Thai constitution as it stands, or a breach of the Internal Security Act, State of emergency act, ect.

They are obviously politically motivate.

You are incorrect, I believe the military shot and injured people some may have been unarmed protestors.

I accept that they are politically motivated and I accept there findings at face value.

No they haven't changes my perceptions, experiences and knowledge of 2010.

I have never seen or heard the previously government's state that soldiers never killed protesters.

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

You think PTP and the demagogue in Dubai will allow release of further damning evidence to jeopardize their position? We can still see all the evidence anyway in youtube vids, images, eyewitnesses.....what is your gain or benefit to defend a group of foolish uneducated rioters and bums who were paid to wreak havoc?

[waza]

Ok more droning on about off topic issues designed to misdirect the posters and to be frank has a "look at me" stench to it, not that I think you are an "attention seeker". But I will bite.

Yes I have entertained the though that Abihist and Suthep may be found guilty but that may be a breach of the Thai constitution as it stands, or a breach of the Internal Security Act, State of emergency act, ect.

They are obviously politically motivate.

You are incorrect, I believe the military shot and injured people some may have been unarmed protestors.

I accept that they are politically motivated and I accept there findings at face value.

No they haven't changes my perceptions, experiences and knowledge of 2010.

I have never seen or heard the previously government's state that soldiers never killed protesters.

Sorry, but so far none of the cases in the court inquests have found that any of the killed protesters was armed.

Even today you can hear Suthep at almost every single Blue Sky rally denying that soldiers killed protesters. Don't you remember Suthep and Anupong's statements that no soldiers were positioned at the BTS tracks overlooking Wat Pratum? May i remind you that it has not only been proven that soldiers were stationed, but even their commander has already in the public hearings of the TRCT confirmed that his unit was stationed there.

I am very sorry, but your argumentation based on your belief is getting somewhat thin. Is that why you have to resort to personal attacks?

You think PTP and the demagogue in Dubai will allow release of further damning evidence to jeopardize their position? We can still see all the evidence anyway in youtube vids, images, eyewitnesses.....what is your gain or benefit to defend a group of foolish uneducated rioters and bums who were paid to wreak havoc?

I think you will find the military casualty were unarmed when found as well.

Edited October 30, 2013 by waza

[Nickymaster]

Cabinet grants Bt10-million bonus to Office of Attorney-General staffs

October 29, 2013 6:00 pm

The Cabinet Tuesday approved Bt10-million allocation for paying bonuses to administrative staffs and employees of the Office of the Attorney-General.

The allocation came from the remaining money of the 2012 fiscal year budget, Government Spokesman Teerat Ratanasevi said.

The Nation

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nickymaster

[Nickymaster]

The army is guilty of breaking the roe, not abhisit.

I am not a legal expert. But i have read about the revised ROE permitting soldiers to use firearms in extremely questionable circumstances, and that those revised ROE were countersigned by Abhisit.

This whole thing is quite confusing. In the inquests the soldiers (Col. Sansern, for example) have in their testimonies always stated that they followed orders of CRES (and of course they stated that they have not shot protesters), while Suthep has stated that he has only given legal orders.

While i am not aware of what other than the inquest verdicts the DSI and the prosecution have as a base for the murder charges, would it not prudent to first see when (and if) this case comes to trial what evidence evidence is presented before prematurely dismissing these charges as "politically motivated"? The mountain of boxes full of files the DSI has delivered to the Attorney General was quite impressive, and i don't think that it just contained toilet paper.

The mountain of boxes full of files the DSI has delivered to the Attorney General was quite impressive, and i don't think that it just contained toilet paper.

Why couldn't it have been toilet paper?

THE DSi has been lying and cheating the public for the last 2 years. Can you proof that it's not toilet paper?

[Nickymaster]

I don't think for one moment anyone is saying that all military personnel are blameless. I personally believe that some acted over and above the ROE, and we will never know their rationale for that, some may have acted under extreme stress and made mistakes others were watermelons, as describe in the HRW report. Many of the protestors deaths would have been in compliance with the ROE. However, that cant be said of the military and civilians deaths. I guess my point is that if Abihist and Suthep can be charged with murder for the actions of the military then why aren't the Reshirt leadership charged with murder over the military and civilian deaths.

Your point is faulty.

While the deaths of protesters killed by soldiers - as ruled by the courts - are part of a CRES ordered dispersal action, with clearly established hierarchies, and with Suthep (and Abhisit) on top of that hierarchy, there must be clear evidence of direct links between armed militants under the Red Shirts and the UDD leadership. Which so far, none came out or were presented.

In a court system it is not about what you believe to be true, but about evidence.

Anyhow, the UDD leadership is charged with terrorism, which also carries a death penalty as a maximum punishment, together with several alleged armed militants already since almost a year in the trial phase, and, when parliament rests, attend twice a week court sessions.

On the other hand - cases against the political leadership during 2010 have not even started yet. The trials so far only been inquests into cause of death of protesters. The murder trials against Suthep and Abhisit have not even yet begun.

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Why is it such a problem to let the courts decide over the legalities of the crackdown and related matters? If Abhisit and Suthep are indeed innocent, as you believe, then what is the problem with this court case? Why not give them a chance to prove themselves in front of a court?

One might get the impression that you are actually in agreement with the government, which thinks that justice and reconciliation efforts are best served with a broad amnesty, and with it stopping all trials and investigations into 2010, so that facts of what took place may never come out.

Aren't you as exited as me to see what these trials against both sides bring to light?

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Nick, are you surprised by the fact that the vast majority of convictions are against security forces?

There are eight cases of deaths during the anti-government protests from March to May involving the red shirts and the â??men in blackâ?, while the cause of deaths in four other cases is unknown but they could have resulted from a crackdown by security forces, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said yesterday.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/17/politics/Reds-%E2%80%98men-in-black%E2%80%99-involved-in-eight-cases-of-30142435.html

Nick, did you know that above cases mentioned by Tharit had been forwarded to the OAG and that yesterday the Attorney General's spokesman Nanthasak Poonsuk said during a press conference that there was no evidence that armed "men in black" were present during the 2010 riots.

Don't you smell anything fishy here Nick?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nickymaster

[nicknostitz]

I don't think for one moment anyone is saying that all military personnel are blameless. I personally believe that some acted over and above the ROE, and we will never know their rationale for that, some may have acted under extreme stress and made mistakes others were watermelons, as describe in the HRW report. Many of the protestors deaths would have been in compliance with the ROE. However, that cant be said of the military and civilians deaths. I guess my point is that if Abihist and Suthep can be charged with murder for the actions of the military then why aren't the Reshirt leadership charged with murder over the military and civilian deaths.

Your point is faulty.

While the deaths of protesters killed by soldiers - as ruled by the courts - are part of a CRES ordered dispersal action, with clearly established hierarchies, and with Suthep (and Abhisit) on top of that hierarchy, there must be clear evidence of direct links between armed militants under the Red Shirts and the UDD leadership. Which so far, none came out or were presented.

In a court system it is not about what you believe to be true, but about evidence.

Anyhow, the UDD leadership is charged with terrorism, which also carries a death penalty as a maximum punishment, together with several alleged armed militants already since almost a year in the trial phase, and, when parliament rests, attend twice a week court sessions.

On the other hand - cases against the political leadership during 2010 have not even started yet. The trials so far only been inquests into cause of death of protesters. The murder trials against Suthep and Abhisit have not even yet begun.

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Why is it such a problem to let the courts decide over the legalities of the crackdown and related matters? If Abhisit and Suthep are indeed innocent, as you believe, then what is the problem with this court case? Why not give them a chance to prove themselves in front of a court?

One might get the impression that you are actually in agreement with the government, which thinks that justice and reconciliation efforts are best served with a broad amnesty, and with it stopping all trials and investigations into 2010, so that facts of what took place may never come out.

Aren't you as exited as me to see what these trials against both sides bring to light?

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Nick, are you surprised by the fact that the vast majority of convictions are against security forces?

There are eight cases of deaths during the anti-government protests from March to May involving the red shirts and the â??men in blackâ?, while the cause of deaths in four other cases is unknown but they could have resulted from a crackdown by security forces, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said yesterday.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/17/politics/Reds-%E2%80%98men-in-black%E2%80%99-involved-in-eight-cases-of-30142435.html

Nick, did you know that above cases mentioned by Tharit had been forwarded to the OAG and that yesterday the Attorney General's spokesman Nanthasak Poonsuk said during a press conference that there was no evidence that armed "men in black" were present during the 2010 riots.

Don't you smell anything fishy here Nick?

Fishy?

It is then up to the defense to bring their evidence during a trial. The court then will judge based on evidence presented by defense and prosecution, not the Attorney General.

In the inquests that were so far ruled, two cases were ruled inconclusive, and the remaining - i think 13 victims - were ruled to have been shot by soldiers. None of those 13 dead were found to have been armed (and in three of them i have been in close vicinity - that means a few meters away - and can confirm that absolutely).

There are more cases to come. The April 10 cases have not been ruled, and, as far as i know, are still in the investigation stage.

So, no, i do not find it fishy, but logical, that Abhisit and Suthep are charged. If the evidence is enough for a conviction i do not know. That is when things get complicated.

[rixalex]

Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters.

It shows.

[Nickymaster]

I don't think for one moment anyone is saying that all military personnel are blameless. I personally believe that some acted over and above the ROE, and we will never know their rationale for that, some may have acted under extreme stress and made mistakes others were watermelons, as describe in the HRW report. Many of the protestors deaths would have been in compliance with the ROE. However, that cant be said of the military and civilians deaths. I guess my point is that if Abihist and Suthep can be charged with murder for the actions of the military then why aren't the Reshirt leadership charged with murder over the military and civilian deaths.

Your point is faulty.

While the deaths of protesters killed by soldiers - as ruled by the courts - are part of a CRES ordered dispersal action, with clearly established hierarchies, and with Suthep (and Abhisit) on top of that hierarchy, there must be clear evidence of direct links between armed militants under the Red Shirts and the UDD leadership. Which so far, none came out or were presented.

In a court system it is not about what you believe to be true, but about evidence.

Anyhow, the UDD leadership is charged with terrorism, which also carries a death penalty as a maximum punishment, together with several alleged armed militants already since almost a year in the trial phase, and, when parliament rests, attend twice a week court sessions.

On the other hand - cases against the political leadership during 2010 have not even started yet. The trials so far only been inquests into cause of death of protesters. The murder trials against Suthep and Abhisit have not even yet begun.

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Why is it such a problem to let the courts decide over the legalities of the crackdown and related matters? If Abhisit and Suthep are indeed innocent, as you believe, then what is the problem with this court case? Why not give them a chance to prove themselves in front of a court?

One might get the impression that you are actually in agreement with the government, which thinks that justice and reconciliation efforts are best served with a broad amnesty, and with it stopping all trials and investigations into 2010, so that facts of what took place may never come out.

Aren't you as exited as me to see what these trials against both sides bring to light?

Anyhow, i do not see why there is such a problem with charging Abhisit and Suthep with murder. A charge does not equate a guilty verdict. Given that in now about 13 cases of dead protesters, uninvolved and one soldier the vast majority of verdicts were against the security forces, such charges against Abhisit and Suthep are as logical as charges against the Red Shirt leadership over 2010.

Nick, are you surprised by the fact that the vast majority of convictions are against security forces?

There are eight cases of deaths during the anti-government protests from March to May involving the red shirts and the â??men in blackâ?, while the cause of deaths in four other cases is unknown but they could have resulted from a crackdown by security forces, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said yesterday.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/17/politics/Reds-%E2%80%98men-in-black%E2%80%99-involved-in-eight-cases-of-30142435.html

Nick, did you know that above cases mentioned by Tharit had been forwarded to the OAG and that yesterday the Attorney General's spokesman Nanthasak Poonsuk said during a press conference that there was no evidence that armed "men in black" were present during the 2010 riots.

Don't you smell anything fishy here Nick?

Fishy?

It is then up to the defense to bring their evidence during a trial. The court then will judge based on evidence presented by defense and prosecution, not the Attorney General.

In the inquests that were so far ruled, two cases were ruled inconclusive, and the remaining - i think 13 victims - were ruled to have been shot by soldiers. None of those 13 dead were found to have been armed (and in three of them i have been in close vicinity - that means a few meters away - and can confirm that absolutely).

There are more cases to come. The April 10 cases have not been ruled, and, as far as i know, are still in the investigation stage.

So, no, i do not find it fishy, but logical, that Abhisit and Suthep are charged. If the evidence is enough for a conviction i do not know. That is when things get complicated.

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nickymaster

[Docno]

Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters.

It shows.

Please explain ... or is the bargirl playing with your smartphone now?

[waza]

Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters.

It shows.

Please explain ... or is the bargirl playing with your smartphone now?

Freudian slip?

[Docno]

Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters.

It shows.

Please explain ... or is the bargirl playing with your smartphone now?

Freudian slip?

No, but that works also.

[rixalex]

Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters.

It shows.

Please explain ... or is the bargirl playing with your smartphone now?

What's to explain? Pretty obvious i think. Spend a lot of time with people of a certain political persuasion, perhaps some of whom are close to you, like family members, and before too long, you start thinking like them, particularly if you are going from what they tell you, rather than your own firsthand experiences.

Many of the people who express the sort of opinions you do, i suspect weren't here during Thaksin's time in office, and weren't in Bangkok in 2010 when his friends did what they did. I might be wrong...

Now i have explained what i meant to you, can you explain what you mean with the bargirl comment? Living in Isaan as you do, with all the sad and negative assumptions that tend to get made about women from that area, i would have thought you'd be the last to make a snide comment like that.

[nicknostitz]

We are talking about the actions of the OAG. DSI claimed Red shirts and MIB killed many people (and have forwarded the information to the OAG in 2010) and (today) the OAG basically says that those people don't exist.

So all very normal according to you?

What the DSI has claimed in 2010 has maybe raised your expectations. The only thing that was truthful that came out in the period after the crackdown were the leaked preliminary DSI investigation results. The problem lies in the making of the DSI. It was intended to be independent, but ended up being a tool of whoever is in government. Before the elections the upper echelons were a tool of the then government, and now of this government.

In the end though - it is the criminal court which will make the decisions. So, far, having followed several cases quite closely, i found the judgements surprisingly fair and evidence based - and not politically motivated.

But if you go back to the period of 2010 and following, and read some of my posts, where i had to argue to the teeth with some of you about soldiers having shot unarmed protesters - you can also see that i have spoken about particular cases which were judged the way how i described these incidents then.

In case the revised amnesty is not rejected, and the cases against Suthep and Abhisit will go to trial, you can be sure that their legal team will present their evidence. If you feel that the OAG misrepresents the evidence regarding the MIB, you can be sure that the Democrat's legal team will present whatever evidence they have regarding this issue.

It must be a bit stronger though than what the soldiers and members of the Democrat Party who have testified so far have shown. What they presented at court was a mixture of piss poor excuses and outright lies - which in some cases judges have pointed out as well, albeit in a slightly more polite language.

And before i am again accused of being a Thaksin lackey - i am very much against the revised amnesty bill. I believe that amnesty for leaders, soldiers and politicians of all sides should come after the completion of the judicial process. I do not wish to see anyone in prison as it won't make the dead alive again, but i wish that as many facts of what took place should be presented to the public.

[kingalfred]

There are of course other corrupt countries in se asia but no other does it with such aplomb. With a fake smile and a wai .and of course the press/media in thai is a joke at chasing after and highlighting what goes on.As I have said before Thailand is a "psuedo" democracy

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Docno]

Most of my time is spent with people from Isaan, many (not all) ardent Red Shirt supporters.

It shows.

Please explain ... or is the bargirl playing with your smartphone now?

What's to explain? Pretty obvious i think. Spend a lot of time with people of a certain political persuasion, perhaps some of whom are close to you, like family members, and before too long, you start thinking like them, particularly if you are going from what they tell you, rather than your own firsthand experiences.

Many of the people who express the sort of opinions you do, i suspect weren't here during Thaksin's time in office, and weren't in Bangkok in 2010 when his friends did what they did. I might be wrong...

Now i have explained what i meant to you, can you explain what you mean with the bargirl comment? Living in Isaan as you do, with all the sad and negative assumptions that tend to get made about women from that area, i would have thought you'd be the last to make a snide comment like that.

Apologies. When you said, "it shows", I assumed you were in that 'camp' that considers people from Isaan a bunch of loutish, uneducated rednecks who are best ignored. A number of comments in this thread have been made along those lines, and I don't track who says them. I have little patience for folks who denigrate the people of Isaan, and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of them here, probably folks who have never seen Isaan itself (or who think that Isaan women are all the same as the ones they meet in their favourite watering hole). I now see your intended meaning was different. My mistake.

That said, I have been sympathetic to the challenges faced by the working poor of Thailand (the farmers of Isaan, etc.) long before I met my 'Thai family'. You suggest that I have been 'brainwashed' (my word) by my Isaan social circle. I look at it in quite a different way: I have gained insights into the lives and challenges faced by Thai farmers (for example) to a degree that a denizen of Bangkok cannot. How they struggle to make ends meet and how they feel preyed upon by the authorities (corrupt police, etc.) while they see rich people in the cities literally getting away with murder (though they, of course, continue to drink Red Bull). I'm not romanticising them or treating them as 'noble savages', but I can understand their anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. [Even small things like when women from Bangkok have teased my girlfriend about being 'see dam' ... she laughs, but I know it hurts her].

You might be surprised to learn that I had a girlfriend for some years who was from Udon and was an ardent yellow shirt. [see, I do live in different worlds]. I realised that our differences were too great when, one day, she exclaimed that "all Cambodians should be killed" and suggested that there is no proof that the ruins such as those at Phimai were actually built by Khmer. And she had a university degree! There is 'craziness' on both sides--and I wish there were not 'sides' at all--but we also need to try to understand where the Red Shirt frustrations come from. And I think it's wrong to say Thaksin created it ... he merely 'rode the tiger'.

p.s. No, I was not in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protests nor was I affected by the Yellow Shirt seizure of Suvarnibhumi Airport.

[rixalex]

Apologies. When you said, "it shows", I assumed you were in that 'camp' that considers people from Isaan a bunch of loutish, uneducated rednecks who are best ignored. A number of comments in this thread have been made along those lines, and I don't track who says them. I have little patience for folks who denigrate the people of Isaan, and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of them here, probably folks who have never seen Isaan itself (or who think that Isaan women are all the same as the ones they meet in their favourite watering hole). I now see your intended meaning was different. My mistake.

That said, I have been sympathetic to the challenges faced by the working poor of Thailand (the farmers of Isaan, etc.) long before I met my 'Thai family'. You suggest that I have been 'brainwashed' (my word) by my Isaan social circle. I look at it in quite a different way: I have gained insights into the lives and challenges faced by Thai farmers (for example) to a degree that a denizen of Bangkok cannot. How they struggle to make ends meet and how they feel preyed upon by the authorities (corrupt police, etc.) while they see rich people in the cities literally getting away with murder (though they, of course, continue to drink Red Bull). I'm not romanticising them or treating them as 'noble savages', but I can understand their anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. [Even small things like when women from Bangkok have teased my girlfriend about being 'see dam' ... she laughs, but I know it hurts her].

You might be surprised to learn that I had a girlfriend for some years who was from Udon and was an ardent yellow shirt. [see, I do live in different worlds]. I realised that our differences were too great when, one day, she exclaimed that "all Cambodians should be killed" and suggested that there is no proof that the ruins such as those at Phimai were actually built by Khmer. And she had a university degree! There is 'craziness' on both sides--and I wish there were not 'sides' at all--but we also need to try to understand where the Red Shirt frustrations come from. And I think it's wrong to say Thaksin created it ... he merely 'rode the tiger'.

p.s. No, I was not in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protests nor was I affected by the Yellow Shirt seizure of Suvarnibhumi Airport.

Apology accepted. No problem. I now understand why you said what you did.

With regards your other comments, all i will say is that i feel there is generally a complete consensus amongst all foreigners who have lived here for any amount of time, that the poor rural folk in this country have been badly treated for a very long time. No dispute going on there. The dispute arises with the suggestion that Thaksin's political parties / movements are any different in the way they treat the rural poor. I don't think they are. I think it is all window dressing, carefully constructed just to win votes. The Democrats are no better, but at least with them, there is less of the pretense and people mostly know what they are getting with them.

The way many of the people in Isaan have taken to their hearts Thaksin, makes me feel sad, because i think they are pinning their hopes on a totally false promise. When they go to the ballot box and put a tick for him, i have the same feeling as when i see them paying their hard earned 100 baht to buy a lottery ticket. Supporting Thaksin is wasting their time and energy, in the same way as buying lottery tickets is wasting their money. I wish they would keep their adulation and unfaltering support, for someone who actually deserves it, and i wish they would keep their 100 baht in their back pockets.

[FarangTalk]

Apologies. When you said, "it shows", I assumed you were in that 'camp' that considers people from Isaan a bunch of loutish, uneducated rednecks who are best ignored. A number of comments in this thread have been made along those lines, and I don't track who says them. I have little patience for folks who denigrate the people of Isaan, and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of them here, probably folks who have never seen Isaan itself (or who think that Isaan women are all the same as the ones they meet in their favourite watering hole). I now see your intended meaning was different. My mistake.

That said, I have been sympathetic to the challenges faced by the working poor of Thailand (the farmers of Isaan, etc.) long before I met my 'Thai family'. You suggest that I have been 'brainwashed' (my word) by my Isaan social circle. I look at it in quite a different way: I have gained insights into the lives and challenges faced by Thai farmers (for example) to a degree that a denizen of Bangkok cannot. How they struggle to make ends meet and how they feel preyed upon by the authorities (corrupt police, etc.) while they see rich people in the cities literally getting away with murder (though they, of course, continue to drink Red Bull). I'm not romanticising them or treating them as 'noble savages', but I can understand their anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. [Even small things like when women from Bangkok have teased my girlfriend about being 'see dam' ... she laughs, but I know it hurts her].

You might be surprised to learn that I had a girlfriend for some years who was from Udon and was an ardent yellow shirt. [see, I do live in different worlds]. I realised that our differences were too great when, one day, she exclaimed that "all Cambodians should be killed" and suggested that there is no proof that the ruins such as those at Phimai were actually built by Khmer. And she had a university degree! There is 'craziness' on both sides--and I wish there were not 'sides' at all--but we also need to try to understand where the Red Shirt frustrations come from. And I think it's wrong to say Thaksin created it ... he merely 'rode the tiger'.

p.s. No, I was not in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protests nor was I affected by the Yellow Shirt seizure of Suvarnibhumi Airport.

Apology accepted. No problem. I now understand why you said what you did.

With regards your other comments, all i will say is that i feel there is generally a complete consensus amongst all foreigners who have lived here for any amount of time, that the poor rural folk in this country have been badly treated for a very long time. No dispute going on there. The dispute arises with the suggestion that Thaksin's political parties / movements are any different in the way they treat the rural poor. I don't think they are. I think it is all window dressing, carefully constructed just to win votes. The Democrats are no better, but at least with them, there is less of the pretense and people mostly know what they are getting with them.

The way many of the people in Isaan have taken to their hearts Thaksin, makes me feel sad, because i think they are pinning their hopes on a totally false promise. When they go to the ballot box and put a tick for him, i have the same feeling as when i see them paying their hard earned 100 baht to buy a lottery ticket. Supporting Thaksin is wasting their time and energy, in the same way as buying lottery tickets is wasting their money. I wish they would keep their adulation and unfaltering support, for someone who actually deserves it, and i wish they would keep their 100 baht in their back pockets.

But there isn't any other choice. There's no-one else that deserves it, least of all the Democrats, who quickly sided with Thaksin's chief mafia godfather and vote buyer, and arguably most corrupt faction Bhumjaithai with Newin Chidchob at the helm, appropriately named after a Burmese dictator, to further their own ends.

Your biggest mistake is thinking the Democrats represent something other than the elite and their interests, they certainly do not. They were an integral part of the machinations that allowed the 2006 coup, the PAD protests, the military junta and the judicial coup. All the red shirt actions that followed were tantamount to, and were directly a consequence of those machinations.

As one un-named villager commented about Thaksin, "Of course, he is corrupt—all politicians are corrupt, but this is the first corrupt politician who has done something for us."

The rural poor certainly know what a vote for the Democrats represents, and that's why they remain un-electable. People in the rural areas cannot forget their collusion with the elites to topple the government they elected at the ballot box, nor do they forget the corruption under Chuan and Suthep, nor do they forget the Bitter Medicine policies of the late 90's, which left them feeling disenfranchised, neglected and marginalised.

In that you are right; they know exactly what they are getting with the Democrats.

[waza]

Apologies. When you said, "it shows", I assumed you were in that 'camp' that considers people from Isaan a bunch of loutish, uneducated rednecks who are best ignored. A number of comments in this thread have been made along those lines, and I don't track who says them. I have little patience for folks who denigrate the people of Isaan, and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of them here, probably folks who have never seen Isaan itself (or who think that Isaan women are all the same as the ones they meet in their favourite watering hole). I now see your intended meaning was different. My mistake.

That said, I have been sympathetic to the challenges faced by the working poor of Thailand (the farmers of Isaan, etc.) long before I met my 'Thai family'. You suggest that I have been 'brainwashed' (my word) by my Isaan social circle. I look at it in quite a different way: I have gained insights into the lives and challenges faced by Thai farmers (for example) to a degree that a denizen of Bangkok cannot. How they struggle to make ends meet and how they feel preyed upon by the authorities (corrupt police, etc.) while they see rich people in the cities literally getting away with murder (though they, of course, continue to drink Red Bull). I'm not romanticising them or treating them as 'noble savages', but I can understand their anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. [Even small things like when women from Bangkok have teased my girlfriend about being 'see dam' ... she laughs, but I know it hurts her].

You might be surprised to learn that I had a girlfriend for some years who was from Udon and was an ardent yellow shirt. [see, I do live in different worlds]. I realised that our differences were too great when, one day, she exclaimed that "all Cambodians should be killed" and suggested that there is no proof that the ruins such as those at Phimai were actually built by Khmer. And she had a university degree! There is 'craziness' on both sides--and I wish there were not 'sides' at all--but we also need to try to understand where the Red Shirt frustrations come from. And I think it's wrong to say Thaksin created it ... he merely 'rode the tiger'.

p.s. No, I was not in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protests nor was I affected by the Yellow Shirt seizure of Suvarnibhumi Airport.

Apology accepted. No problem. I now understand why you said what you did.

With regards your other comments, all i will say is that i feel there is generally a complete consensus amongst all foreigners who have lived here for any amount of time, that the poor rural folk in this country have been badly treated for a very long time. No dispute going on there. The dispute arises with the suggestion that Thaksin's political parties / movements are any different in the way they treat the rural poor. I don't think they are. I think it is all window dressing, carefully constructed just to win votes. The Democrats are no better, but at least with them, there is less of the pretense and people mostly know what they are getting with them.

The way many of the people in Isaan have taken to their hearts Thaksin, makes me feel sad, because i think they are pinning their hopes on a totally false promise. When they go to the ballot box and put a tick for him, i have the same feeling as when i see them paying their hard earned 100 baht to buy a lottery ticket. Supporting Thaksin is wasting their time and energy, in the same way as buying lottery tickets is wasting their money. I wish they would keep their adulation and unfaltering support, for someone who actually deserves it, and i wish they would keep their 100 baht in their back pockets.

But there isn't any other choice. There's no-one else that deserves it, least of all the Democrats, who quickly sided with Thaksin's chief mafia godfather and vote buyer, and arguably most corrupt faction Bhumjaithai with Newin Chidchob at the helm, appropriately named after a Burmese dictator, to further their own ends.

Your biggest mistake is thinking the Democrats represent something other than the elite and their interests, they certainly do not. They were an integral part of the machinations that allowed the 2006 coup, the PAD protests, the military junta and the judicial coup. All the red shirt actions that followed were tantamount to, and were directly a consequence of those machinations.

As one un-named villager commented about Thaksin, "Of course, he is corrupt—all politicians are corrupt, but this is the first corrupt politician who has done something for us."

The rural poor certainly know what a vote for the Democrats represents, and that's why they remain un-electable. People in the rural areas cannot forget their collusion with the elites to topple the government they elected at the ballot box, nor do they forget the corruption under Chuan and Suthep, nor do they forget the Bitter Medicine policies of the late 90's, which left them feeling disenfranchised, neglected and marginalised.

In that you are right; they know exactly what they are getting with the Democrats.

What "they are getting" is looking better and better every day, compared to the corrupt, inept and bloody minded Thaksin proxy government.

Edited October 31, 2013 by waza

[Docno]

Apologies. When you said, "it shows", I assumed you were in that 'camp' that considers people from Isaan a bunch of loutish, uneducated rednecks who are best ignored. A number of comments in this thread have been made along those lines, and I don't track who says them. I have little patience for folks who denigrate the people of Isaan, and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of them here, probably folks who have never seen Isaan itself (or who think that Isaan women are all the same as the ones they meet in their favourite watering hole). I now see your intended meaning was different. My mistake.

That said, I have been sympathetic to the challenges faced by the working poor of Thailand (the farmers of Isaan, etc.) long before I met my 'Thai family'. You suggest that I have been 'brainwashed' (my word) by my Isaan social circle. I look at it in quite a different way: I have gained insights into the lives and challenges faced by Thai farmers (for example) to a degree that a denizen of Bangkok cannot. How they struggle to make ends meet and how they feel preyed upon by the authorities (corrupt police, etc.) while they see rich people in the cities literally getting away with murder (though they, of course, continue to drink Red Bull). I'm not romanticising them or treating them as 'noble savages', but I can understand their anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. [Even small things like when women from Bangkok have teased my girlfriend about being 'see dam' ... she laughs, but I know it hurts her].

You might be surprised to learn that I had a girlfriend for some years who was from Udon and was an ardent yellow shirt. [see, I do live in different worlds]. I realised that our differences were too great when, one day, she exclaimed that "all Cambodians should be killed" and suggested that there is no proof that the ruins such as those at Phimai were actually built by Khmer. And she had a university degree! There is 'craziness' on both sides--and I wish there were not 'sides' at all--but we also need to try to understand where the Red Shirt frustrations come from. And I think it's wrong to say Thaksin created it ... he merely 'rode the tiger'.

p.s. No, I was not in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protests nor was I affected by the Yellow Shirt seizure of Suvarnibhumi Airport.

Apology accepted. No problem. I now understand why you said what you did.

With regards your other comments, all i will say is that i feel there is generally a complete consensus amongst all foreigners who have lived here for any amount of time, that the poor rural folk in this country have been badly treated for a very long time. No dispute going on there. The dispute arises with the suggestion that Thaksin's political parties / movements are any different in the way they treat the rural poor. I don't think they are. I think it is all window dressing, carefully constructed just to win votes. The Democrats are no better, but at least with them, there is less of the pretense and people mostly know what they are getting with them.

The way many of the people in Isaan have taken to their hearts Thaksin, makes me feel sad, because i think they are pinning their hopes on a totally false promise. When they go to the ballot box and put a tick for him, i have the same feeling as when i see them paying their hard earned 100 baht to buy a lottery ticket. Supporting Thaksin is wasting their time and energy, in the same way as buying lottery tickets is wasting their money. I wish they would keep their adulation and unfaltering support, for someone who actually deserves it, and i wish they would keep their 100 baht in their back pockets.

<snip>

As one un-named villager commented about Thaksin, "Of course, he is corrupt—all politicians are corrupt, but this is the first corrupt politician who has done something for us."

<snip>

This is exactly it. I've heard statements like this many times from Red supporters. There is a deep cynicism about politicians which often goes hand-in-hand with a feeling of helplessness. A lot of people here seem to think something along the lines of 'those ignorant farmers have been hoodwinked (or bought off by) billionaire Thaksin who is using them for his own ends'. The truth is that most of them are well-aware of Thaksin's many imperfections, but they rally to him because he was the first person in power who spoke to and listened to them. Selfishly motivated or not, Thaksin gave voice to their fears, needs and aspirations in the distant power centre of Bangkok. And, in their 'collective mind', ever since Thaksin emerged on the political scene, the amnat have been trying to push him (and extension, them) down. That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere.

[waza]

Apologies. When you said, "it shows", I assumed you were in that 'camp' that considers people from Isaan a bunch of loutish, uneducated rednecks who are best ignored. A number of comments in this thread have been made along those lines, and I don't track who says them. I have little patience for folks who denigrate the people of Isaan, and there seems to be a sizeable contingent of them here, probably folks who have never seen Isaan itself (or who think that Isaan women are all the same as the ones they meet in their favourite watering hole). I now see your intended meaning was different. My mistake.

That said, I have been sympathetic to the challenges faced by the working poor of Thailand (the farmers of Isaan, etc.) long before I met my 'Thai family'. You suggest that I have been 'brainwashed' (my word) by my Isaan social circle. I look at it in quite a different way: I have gained insights into the lives and challenges faced by Thai farmers (for example) to a degree that a denizen of Bangkok cannot. How they struggle to make ends meet and how they feel preyed upon by the authorities (corrupt police, etc.) while they see rich people in the cities literally getting away with murder (though they, of course, continue to drink Red Bull). I'm not romanticising them or treating them as 'noble savages', but I can understand their anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. [Even small things like when women from Bangkok have teased my girlfriend about being 'see dam' ... she laughs, but I know it hurts her].

You might be surprised to learn that I had a girlfriend for some years who was from Udon and was an ardent yellow shirt. [see, I do live in different worlds]. I realised that our differences were too great when, one day, she exclaimed that "all Cambodians should be killed" and suggested that there is no proof that the ruins such as those at Phimai were actually built by Khmer. And she had a university degree! There is 'craziness' on both sides--and I wish there were not 'sides' at all--but we also need to try to understand where the Red Shirt frustrations come from. And I think it's wrong to say Thaksin created it ... he merely 'rode the tiger'.

p.s. No, I was not in Bangkok during the Red Shirt protests nor was I affected by the Yellow Shirt seizure of Suvarnibhumi Airport.

Apology accepted. No problem. I now understand why you said what you did.

With regards your other comments, all i will say is that i feel there is generally a complete consensus amongst all foreigners who have lived here for any amount of time, that the poor rural folk in this country have been badly treated for a very long time. No dispute going on there. The dispute arises with the suggestion that Thaksin's political parties / movements are any different in the way they treat the rural poor. I don't think they are. I think it is all window dressing, carefully constructed just to win votes. The Democrats are no better, but at least with them, there is less of the pretense and people mostly know what they are getting with them.

The way many of the people in Isaan have taken to their hearts Thaksin, makes me feel sad, because i think they are pinning their hopes on a totally false promise. When they go to the ballot box and put a tick for him, i have the same feeling as when i see them paying their hard earned 100 baht to buy a lottery ticket. Supporting Thaksin is wasting their time and energy, in the same way as buying lottery tickets is wasting their money. I wish they would keep their adulation and unfaltering support, for someone who actually deserves it, and i wish they would keep their 100 baht in their back pockets.

<snip>

As one un-named villager commented about Thaksin, "Of course, he is corrupt—all politicians are corrupt, but this is the first corrupt politician who has done something for us."

<snip>

This is exactly it. I've heard statements like this many times from Red supporters. There is a deep cynicism about politicians which often goes hand-in-hand with a feeling of helplessness. A lot of people here seem to think something along the lines of 'those ignorant farmers have been hoodwinked (or bought off by) billionaire Thaksin who is using them for his own ends'. The truth is that most of them are well-aware of Thaksin's many imperfections, but they rally to him because he was the first person in power who spoke to and listened to them. Selfishly motivated or not, Thaksin gave voice to their fears, needs and aspirations in the distant power centre of Bangkok. And, in their 'collective mind', ever since Thaksin emerged on the political scene, the amnat have been trying to push him (and extension, them) down. That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere.

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

Edited October 31, 2013 by waza

[rixalex]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

Quite so, and a point well proven when you consider the timing of the protests, that just happened to coincide with money being confiscated, and the fact that at the actual time of the coup, barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?

[Local Drunk]

You know full well not a single other country would have been as patient and tolerated those thugs for as long as they carried out violent acts. This is certainly the only place where so many would be spared and not even incarcerated.

It was in no way shape or form a protest. It was a city under siege on the verge of civil war.

Actions were a response to violent civilians. Had they merely protested, that is one thing. The violence that the thugs craved and sought, and civil war they sought was answered appropriately, was it not? What leaders are going to tolerate such nonsense? Not over injustices, over fools getting paid to be bums and thugs, and die to benefit one little weasel abroad. How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling or not have been here at the time & doesn't wanna do research; or only looking at surface stats rather than the cause, the actions, the evidence, the results, the warnings, the laws, the diplomacy and negotiations offered...c'mon

.

"How a foreign ex pat cannot see that, is one who must be trolling................................................................."

You hit the nail right on the head with this line, gemini81. I am firmly convinced that over half of the Thaksin / redshirts so called "supporters" on this forum are nothing but trolls, and the rest of them are not too bright.

It's funny, I have met countless people from overseas who are living in Thailand and never come across Thaksin fans, yet these forums are abundant with them. I guess forums attract these lowlife trolls like moths to a streetlight.

There is no one here that is going argue against the poor of Thailand. Indeed, many here seem to have a clearer picture of their struggles than they do themselves and the basis for most disagreements here tends to fall on how they should be helped and who should do it. It's a real problem for us because it's not as simple as just helping the poor. Thais by nature aren't confrontational and what I mean is that their culture requires them to defer to a higher member of society or leader: be it mother, father, policeman or monk. Hence, they are constantly comparing themselves to a another member of society to understand who has the higher status and this attitude usually makes for a smooth flowing society because all the participants are adhering to a hierarchical tradition. For most westerners, confrontation comes naturally and someone's social status is not an issue in that confrontation. Most of us here will would gladly stand on a podium alone and confront the our beasts of opposition.

I've been here 10 years an I've seen a tsunami, a coup, an airport take over by Yellow Shirts, 2 large demonstrations by Red Shirts and more than enough corruption to fill in the blanks. But what I've really seen in these years is a population regardless of loyalties and political alliance led around by the rings in their noses.

(Didn't mean to rant and ramble on like that, but I've had a few pints)

Edited October 31, 2013 by Local Drunk

[Docno]

<snip>

As one un-named villager commented about Thaksin, "Of course, he is corrupt—all politicians are corrupt, but this is the first corrupt politician who has done something for us."

<snip>

This is exactly it. I've heard statements like this many times from Red supporters. There is a deep cynicism about politicians which often goes hand-in-hand with a feeling of helplessness. A lot of people here seem to think something along the lines of 'those ignorant farmers have been hoodwinked (or bought off by) billionaire Thaksin who is using them for his own ends'. The truth is that most of them are well-aware of Thaksin's many imperfections, but they rally to him because he was the first person in power who spoke to and listened to them. Selfishly motivated or not, Thaksin gave voice to their fears, needs and aspirations in the distant power centre of Bangkok. And, in their 'collective mind', ever since Thaksin emerged on the political scene, the amnat have been trying to push him (and extension, them) down. That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere.

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

Unfortunately, I have to leave for a business meeting in a few minutes, so I will postpone a detailed response until later.

In the meantime, I will simply ask you a question: have you ever sat down with a Thai red shirt supporter and asked them about their views and experiences?

...

[rixalex]

In that you are right; they know exactly what they are getting with the Democrats.

And that is why i think that although they are as useless as anyone else, and quite possibly as corrupt, they don't represent the same danger that Thaksin and his parties do, because nobody, or very few, are under any illusions about what they are about.

You speak about a lot of cynicism towards Thaksin, and an acceptance of his corrupt nature, but what i see far more of is something akin to hero worship. If they are accepting of his flaws, why do they jump to his defence for some of the blatantly bad things he has done?

Say to them, he was responsible for thousands of innocent people dying thanks to his war on drugs campaign, the response will be ah, but yes, people supported it so that makes it ok. Say to them, he was tried whilst his own party was in power and was still found guilty, and the fact that he tried to bribe the courts in the process, and has run away, makes it all the more damning, the response will be, the elite stacked things against him, it wasn't fair. Say to them, he blatantly hid assets in 2001 and used the power of his popularity to put pressure on people to subvert justice, the response will be ah but that is what they all do.

There is an excuse and a justification for every bad thing he has ever done. That doesn't sound to me like the workings of a cynical and critical mind. Sounds more like a football supporter. And that is how i feel most red shirts are. They have chosen their side and will now stick by it, defend it and forgive it, no matter what it does.

I'm sure this is where you will tell me the other side's supporters are just the same. Perhaps they are, but their numbers are so much smaller, what with the PAD being such a fringe group these days, and with the Democrats being stuck in the dark ages, i just don't see the same scale of tribal-like mindedness going on.

[fab4]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

Quite so, and a point well proven when you consider the timing of the protests, that just happened to coincide with money being confiscated, and the fact that at the actual time of the coup, barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?

OK, let's look at the timing shall we?

Thaksin Assets seized February 29th 2010

First march to Bangkok starts March 12th

Major Rally held 14th March calls for dissolution of parliament and new elections

Government start talks with UDD about dissolution of parliament and new elections ( the topic of Thaksins confiscated assets are not discussed) on March 28th

Talks break down March 29th

And now at the time of the coup why did "barely a soul stepped forward to protest on Thaksin's behalf. Why was that?"

Mmmm, that took some thinking. Do you think it might be because Martial Law was slapped on all 76 Provinces in Thailand until the 26th January 2007, but then left active in 35 Provinces. Can you guess what provinces they were? That's right, the ones traditionally supporting Thaksin.

And you have the cheek to talk about perverted history............

Edited October 31, 2013 by fab4

[nicknostitz]

I just love red history, its so perverted.

"That's why they took the coup very personally and that's what's behind the anger you've seen at various times on the streets of Bangkok and elsewhere."

Thaksins money was behind the anger seen at various time on the streets of Bangkok. The redshirts movement was a Thaksin invention, it was funded by him to act as an agitation group to counter the yellowshirts, redshirt members were paid to attend rallies. If Thaksin hadn't done this there would have been no anti government protests against the Abihist government.

A rather appalling misrepresentation of history...

The Red Shirt movement developed from the anti-coup movement in 2006. Most of the first leaders of the anti-coup movement were noted Thaksin opponents, such as NGO activist Sombat Boonngamanong who led the "anti 19th September coup group", which formed immediately after Giles Ungpakorn (another Thaksin opponent) held the first anti coup protest at Siam Paragon. Soon after Dr. Weng Tojirakan led the larger groups together with Prateep Ungsongtham Hata of the Duang Prateep Foundation. Dr. Weng was also briefly allied with the PAD in 2006. The only two pure pro Thaksin groups of that early time were the "Saturday Group against Dictatorship" and the "Noc Pilap Khao" (White Dove) who initially protested separately against the military. Both of these groups had hardly any funding. I remember their first stages on Sanam Luang, which were a plastic chair with a handheld microphone, which then was upgraded into a tiny makeshift stage.

The TRT remnants only came later into the game, in the form of better funded PTV, and formed then an alliance with the other anti-coup groups - the first UDD (Nor Por Chor), which later transformed itself into the present UDD (Nor Por Kor).