International alarm mounts over Thai coup

[heybruce]

Curfews, censorship, soldiers with automatic weapons on the streets, detentions without charges or access to lawyers--life is good, isn't it?

It's better to have soldiers with weapons on the streets than thugs and militias going around murdering people with impunity. I, for one, call that progress.

No talk of civil wars or secession neither. Those are the things that triggered the coup, or you think Prayuth woke up one morning and say to himself "I wouldn't mind having a coup!"?

Hopefully the restrictions on free-speach and travel will be lifted soon, curfew is being lifted in some areas already.

I was not once threatened by a thug or militia before the coup. The numbers show that you were approximately one thousand times more likely to die in a road accident than killed by political violence during the months of protest. In fact you were many times more likely to die of a mosquito bite than from political violence, unless you wanted to get actively involved in the protests.

I never paid much attention to the talk of fringe groups, just as I learned to ignore the calls for final pushes from Suthep.

I think quite a lot of planning went into the timing and execution of this coup, for reasons that can't be stated here. You could find out for yourself if you have any desire to be better informed, but I don't think you do.

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

[heybruce]

In a choice between elections and a coup, I've always considered elections to be the lesser evil regardless of the poor performance of the government. That's not the same as defending the PTP.

The outcry when Suthep came into the fray was because Suthep made it clear he would not allow elections, he insisted upon unelected government.

Your logic is consistent and tiresome: The PTP was bad so anything that is against them is good, and anyone who isn't an enthusiastic supporter of the military is an enthusiastic redshirt supporter. No one would ever accuse you of over-thinking things.

"The only evil was the PTP so why were you crying down with these other apologists anyone critical of Yinglucks regime."

You really should phrase your thoughts better before you post; I think you are saying that since I contested ludicrous charges made by some posters against Yingluck I must be a PTP supporter. If that's it, the no, I just sometimes feel the need to contest BS when I see it. Of course I don't have time to contest all the BS posted here.

By the way; nobody has explained why the generals performance in running the military proves their qualifications to run the country. I wonder why.

While I disliked Suthep's methodology, he repeated said "no election before reform" and never "no elections" - so your past is groundless.

"By the way; nobody has explained why the general's performance in running the military proves their qualifications to run the country. I wonder why." - because perhaps no one really thinks that it does (or is overly relevant at this point - YL also had no such experience, nor did Thaksin when he was invited without winning or even standing for a seat by Chamlong or Chevalit directly into Deputy PM both times - that's Thai politics), but maybe that his performance in running the country so far, compared with the last few years, certainly suggest it!

"While I disliked Suthep's methodology, he repeated said "no election before reform" and never "no elections" - so your past is groundless."

He insisted there be no elections without first handing over government to unelected "people's counsels" with no firm deadline for new elections. That's close enough to not allowing elections for my tastes.

In the rest you addressed the abbreviated form of my original post:

The pro-military side in this debate could strengthen their arguments significantly by describing how efficient, well run, and effective the Thai military is, and by providing evidence that the generals have no tolerance for corruption or conflict of interests in their own organization.

You won't violate censorship by posting praise for the military, so go nuts.

Care to address that one?

As for how well Prayuth is currently running the country, I'm sure it's fine for people who are a fan of police states.

[Fat Haggis]

Ginjag, in your 35 years in Thailand, you've seen 3 coup's, which party and Government was the best in your opinion and why do you come to that opinion?

Put the money in my account and I'll answer that, For starters I do not care for wind-ups. especially with your friends on here that are in the wings backing you up. Thailand for example.

It's not a wind up, it's a genuine question because from what I have been reading, there hasn't been a Government that hasn't been accused of corruption and wrong doing and abusing its power,that hasn't resulted in them being overthrown by a coup.

You have always stated that you criticise any government that is hasn't taken the pledges and promises they took seriously and did what they could for the Thai people, you made a huge and very bold statement in that you have been in Thailand for 35 years, and I'm asking you a genuine question, in your opinion, seeing as the ousted PTP Government was so bad, in all your years, which Government wasn't abusing its power that you felt comfortable enough to not level any criticism towards, seeing as you have been scathing of Yinglucks one.

You see, with that bold statement earlier, you're coming over as a bit of an SME with regards to what constitutes a GOOD Thai Government.

Scott, I respect what you've said, however I do believe that the question is valid, given that Ginjag has constantly harped on about PTP Poor Governing, and abusing their powers, of which I don't disagree with, but I'm asking a direct question, which Government in the past was the benchmark, to base the ousted Government's failings on ?

It's an unfair question -which I guess is why he is not going to be drawn. Stating an opinion that one administration was the worst, does not mean any other were good - better perhaps, but not good necessarily, just grades of bad. Like one hole can be deeper than another, doesn't make any a hill instead, just holes of differing depths.

All this does not mean we should not hope for a good government in the future, or at least one much better than the last, or others before (if you like). Should we ignore the mistakes of history and repeat them - or use them as a guide for avoiding them in the future?

Yes Wolf, but that's the problem, all the other Governments had the same problems within, corruption and an abuse of power, and it unfortunately has been a case of history repeating itself, and the mistakes are being repeated over an over again. I believe the crux of Yinglucks administration was the scale of those aforementioned was much greater.

I just find it baffling that historically every Government in the 35 years of Ginjag being in Thailand, they've all come unstuck and been ousted for the very same reasons, I'll agree with your anology in that the grades of bad here have increased, the point I'm trying to make is that there hasn't been a Government since 1979 that hasn't been involved in abuse of power, or corruption.

I don't agree that just because the corruption was of a lower scale it makes it any less scandalous or acceptable. Corruption and an Abuse of power is the same, no matter the severity of it. It was the Abuse of that power that led to Yingluck being removed through the courts.

[muchogra]

Quotting heybruce in Post 1112: As for how well Prayuth is currently running the country, I'm sure it's fine for people who are a fan of police states.

-----------------------

Time for you to leave for greener pasture?

[wolf5370]

Curfews, censorship, soldiers with automatic weapons on the streets, detentions without charges or access to lawyers--life is good, isn't it?

It's better to have soldiers with weapons on the streets than thugs and militias going around murdering people with impunity. I, for one, call that progress.

No talk of civil wars or secession neither. Those are the things that triggered the coup, or you think Prayuth woke up one morning and say to himself "I wouldn't mind having a coup!"?

Hopefully the restrictions on free-speach and travel will be lifted soon, curfew is being lifted in some areas already.

I was not once threatened by a thug or militia before the coup. The numbers show that you were approximately one thousand times more likely to die in a road accident than killed by political violence during the months of protest. In fact you were many times more likely to die of a mosquito bite than from political violence, unless you wanted to get actively involved in the protests.

I never paid much attention to the talk of fringe groups, just as I learned to ignore the calls for final pushes from Suthep.

I think quite a lot of planning went into the timing and execution of this coup, for reasons that can't be stated here. You could find out for yourself if you have any desire to be better informed, but I don't think you do.

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

Because all the violence, guns, bombs, grenades, and so on were from the PDRC - NOT! Come on, be serious - it was getting more violent and more serious with each passing day - terrorist plots planned, war weapon caches placed, politicians and other leaders houses bombed, judges intimidated and threatened, children of authority figures threatened, threats of cessation, elections interfered with and forced to be voided, government agencies split and taking sides, propaganda of independent agencies doing likewise (whether true or not), police brutality and over reaction (and clearly one sided - and not with respect to officials of the state, but of civilian supporter groups (e.g. UDD)), and so on

There were clear signs of escalation - and no light at the end of the tunnel. Suthep had all but won, PTP Gov was in tatters with a non-legitimate stand-in caretaker PM, partially filled Senate between session, no way to have a fully legitimately fully functional gov any time soon (elections were never going to provide one as Dems would just abstain again, and it would end up voided again - or simply not accepted, thus more violence in the streets). It was a loose loose situation, and really at that point the Pro-Gov side had two options (other than walking away of course - which was a non starter): mayhem (possibly leading to civil war - or more acts of terrorism - which would escalate to both sides), or giving in to Suthep (not going to happen either). So, in some ways it was at least partially a plus for the coup as it wiped out Sutheps committee (appointed gov) idea totally. If they had done nothing, just sat back, then Suthep would have had an appointed PM put in place, and his committee sworn in (thereby breaking the constitution - or forcing an amendment without referendum) - and there would have been the same escalation of violence.

In some ways I think the Reds might have been better off with Suthep's committee (assuming agreement could have been made as to seats on that committee - which I think could have been, if it was possible constitutionally I suppose - how can amendments be made with no active administration???) than the military gov deciding on reforms, but that remains to be seen I guess.

However you analyse it - the outcome is the same - mayhem, death and misery for the foreseeable future. Both sides had to be quelled before it got too far out of hand - to wait until it was all out war in the streets may have looked better wrt the Army stepping in, but it certainly would not have been better!

Honestly, do you really think either side would have given up the fight peacefully by the point the army stepped in (however so coerced to do so)?

[sumtingwong]

Curfews, censorship, soldiers with automatic weapons on the streets, detentions without charges or access to lawyers--life is good, isn't it?

It's better to have soldiers with weapons on the streets than thugs and militias going around murdering people with impunity. I, for one, call that progress.

No talk of civil wars or secession neither. Those are the things that triggered the coup, or you think Prayuth woke up one morning and say to himself "I wouldn't mind having a coup!"?

Hopefully the restrictions on free-speach and travel will be lifted soon, curfew is being lifted in some areas already.

I was not once threatened by a thug or militia before the coup. The numbers show that you were approximately one thousand times more likely to die in a road accident than killed by political violence during the months of protest. In fact you were many times more likely to die of a mosquito bite than from political violence, unless you wanted to get actively involved in the protests.

I never paid much attention to the talk of fringe groups, just as I learned to ignore the calls for final pushes from Suthep.

I think quite a lot of planning went into the timing and execution of this coup, for reasons that can't be stated here. You could find out for yourself if you have any desire to be better informed, but I don't think you do.

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

Peaceful protests were not the problem nor are they illegal. Murdering peaceful protestors is illegal.

Were you for the military breaking up the red-shirt violent protests years before? Didn't think so.

[wolf5370]

It's not a wind up, it's a genuine question because from what I have been reading, there hasn't been a Government that hasn't been accused of corruption and wrong doing and abusing its power,that hasn't resulted in them being overthrown by a coup.

You have always stated that you criticise any government that is hasn't taken the pledges and promises they took seriously and did what they could for the Thai people, you made a huge and very bold statement in that you have been in Thailand for 35 years, and I'm asking you a genuine question, in your opinion, seeing as the ousted PTP Government was so bad, in all your years, which Government wasn't abusing its power that you felt comfortable enough to not level any criticism towards, seeing as you have been scathing of Yinglucks one.

You see, with that bold statement earlier, you're coming over as a bit of an SME with regards to what constitutes a GOOD Thai Government.

Scott, I respect what you've said, however I do believe that the question is valid, given that Ginjag has constantly harped on about PTP Poor Governing, and abusing their powers, of which I don't disagree with, but I'm asking a direct question, which Government in the past was the benchmark, to base the ousted Government's failings on ?

It's an unfair question -which I guess is why he is not going to be drawn. Stating an opinion that one administration was the worst, does not mean any other were good - better perhaps, but not good necessarily, just grades of bad. Like one hole can be deeper than another, doesn't make any a hill instead, just holes of differing depths.

All this does not mean we should not hope for a good government in the future, or at least one much better than the last, or others before (if you like). Should we ignore the mistakes of history and repeat them - or use them as a guide for avoiding them in the future?

Yes Wolf, but that's the problem, all the other Governments had the same problems within, corruption and an abuse of power, and it unfortunately has been a case of history repeating itself, and the mistakes are being repeated over an over again. I believe the crux of Yinglucks administration was the scale of those aforementioned was much greater.

I just find it baffling that historically every Government in the 35 years of Ginjag being in Thailand, they've all come unstuck and been ousted for the very same reasons, I'll agree with your anology in that the grades of bad here have increased, the point I'm trying to make is that there hasn't been a Government since 1979 that hasn't been involved in abuse of power, or corruption.

I don't agree that just because the corruption was of a lower scale it makes it any less scandalous or acceptable. Corruption and an Abuse of power is the same, no matter the severity of it. It was the Abuse of that power that led to Yingluck being removed through the courts.

No argument here with that - agree completely. Thaksin was possibly a slight difference as he was removed for over staying his welcome, and later prosecuted/charged with corruption, but the coup was to stop him returning from the Olympics as eternal caretaker PM. More of a procedural/constitutional rule break than corruption per se, but that's probably a little pedantic.

The coups have changed in emphasis though - originally it was all about power (especially pre 73) - later seemed to be more about sorting out the mess where Thaksin's TRT and now YL PTP had slipped off the rails as far a procedure into a no-mans-land between clauses of the constitution it was never intended to end up (note I am trying to avoid stating any blame for this as it will derail the fact of the situation - regardless of why and how). Of course the current coup can be said as to stop escalation etc (I know there are other accusation wrt to things outside the limits of this forum etc, but they still are the result of no power to stop such action having effect ), but really this is the underlying issue that there was a power vacuum with no fully functional government for such a long period and thus no way to sort out the mounting issues or adequately defend against the protestors without resorting to nefarious means.

[wolf5370]

In a choice between elections and a coup, I've always considered elections to be the lesser evil regardless of the poor performance of the government. That's not the same as defending the PTP.

The outcry when Suthep came into the fray was because Suthep made it clear he would not allow elections, he insisted upon unelected government.

Your logic is consistent and tiresome: The PTP was bad so anything that is against them is good, and anyone who isn't an enthusiastic supporter of the military is an enthusiastic redshirt supporter. No one would ever accuse you of over-thinking things.

"The only evil was the PTP so why were you crying down with these other apologists anyone critical of Yinglucks regime."

You really should phrase your thoughts better before you post; I think you are saying that since I contested ludicrous charges made by some posters against Yingluck I must be a PTP supporter. If that's it, the no, I just sometimes feel the need to contest BS when I see it. Of course I don't have time to contest all the BS posted here.

By the way; nobody has explained why the generals performance in running the military proves their qualifications to run the country. I wonder why.

While I disliked Suthep's methodology, he repeated said "no election before reform" and never "no elections" - so your past is groundless.

"By the way; nobody has explained why the general's performance in running the military proves their qualifications to run the country. I wonder why." - because perhaps no one really thinks that it does (or is overly relevant at this point - YL also had no such experience, nor did Thaksin when he was invited without winning or even standing for a seat by Chamlong or Chevalit directly into Deputy PM both times - that's Thai politics), but maybe that his performance in running the country so far, compared with the last few years, certainly suggest it!

"While I disliked Suthep's methodology, he repeated said "no election before reform" and never "no elections" - so your past is groundless."

He insisted there be no elections without first handing over government to unelected "people's counsels" with no firm deadline for new elections. That's close enough to not allowing elections for my tastes.

In the rest you addressed the abbreviated form of my original post:

The pro-military side in this debate could strengthen their arguments significantly by describing how efficient, well run, and effective the Thai military is, and by providing evidence that the generals have no tolerance for corruption or conflict of interests in their own organization.

You won't violate censorship by posting praise for the military, so go nuts.

Care to address that one?

As for how well Prayuth is currently running the country, I'm sure it's fine for people who are a fan of police states.

"Care to address that one?" - in all honesty, no not really Reason being that I do not have first hand knowledge of there being anything untoward in the military establishment - not that there isn't, I simply do not have the personal experience to comment. There has been little national news about such over the years that I can remember - not at an institutional level (yes, certain chiefs found doing the dirty etc). The police we all know, it's overt and in our day to day interactions living here - but not the internals of the military. I know you will feel this is a fudge - and attempt to get out of answering the question - and it is, because I can't address it other than by using what I have read here - and the odd 9th hand story of bribes to get out of military service etc.

The proof though is in the pudding - ask the rice farmers if they are happy with the new status quo - ask the rank and file of the RTP too - ask those that were likely going to be victims of that terrorist plot in KK - as those that can go through the park in BKK now that PDRC has gone - those that can go back to work at the various ministries - ask parents of BKK university students (both sides of the coin - depending on Uni). Perhaps those who run illegal gambling dens and gun smugglers are less happy - and those affected directly with legitimate business affected by the curfew - but there is good reason to suspect at an individual level there are plenty of people here happy with the current SQ.

Lets see in a year's time if it is better or worse - there is a tendency for non Thaksin governments to be given no chance to prove their worth, that needs to stop - give them the rope to hang themselves or make it better, hounding just for the sake of it, just because it is not our ideal, just makes things worse

Does a curfew and some censorship make for a police state? Perhaps, at least partially - but the former has been relaxed (dropped in some areas) and there is talk of it going completely soon nationwide - the latter will likely stay, but censorship of the internet has been around since Thaksin's day (granted massively escalated during 2006 coup, PPP and Dems), it will fade as the world press gets bored of the lack of public hangings and tanks squishing students - today's news, tomorrow's chip wrapper and all that! One thing is for sure I would think, and that is the discomfort being felt now is less than the escalation of violence that was due if the General has sat back and waited patiently for his gold watch.

Edited June 8, 2014 by wolf5370

[heybruce]

While I disliked Suthep's methodology, he repeated said "no election before reform" and never "no elections" - so your past is groundless.

"By the way; nobody has explained why the general's performance in running the military proves their qualifications to run the country. I wonder why." - because perhaps no one really thinks that it does (or is overly relevant at this point - YL also had no such experience, nor did Thaksin when he was invited without winning or even standing for a seat by Chamlong or Chevalit directly into Deputy PM both times - that's Thai politics), but maybe that his performance in running the country so far, compared with the last few years, certainly suggest it!

"While I disliked Suthep's methodology, he repeated said "no election before reform" and never "no elections" - so your past is groundless."

He insisted there be no elections without first handing over government to unelected "people's counsels" with no firm deadline for new elections. That's close enough to not allowing elections for my tastes.

In the rest you addressed the abbreviated form of my original post:

The pro-military side in this debate could strengthen their arguments significantly by describing how efficient, well run, and effective the Thai military is, and by providing evidence that the generals have no tolerance for corruption or conflict of interests in their own organization.

You won't violate censorship by posting praise for the military, so go nuts.

Care to address that one?

As for how well Prayuth is currently running the country, I'm sure it's fine for people who are a fan of police states.

"Care to address that one?" - in all honesty, no not really Reason being that I do not have first hand knowledge of there being anything untoward in the military establishment - not that there isn't, I simply do not have the personal experience to comment. There has been little national news about such over the years that I can remember - not at an institutional level (yes, certain chiefs found doing the dirty etc). The police we all know, it's overt and in our day to day interactions living here - but not the internals of the military. I know you will feel this is a fudge - and attempt to get out of answering the question - and it is, because I can't address it other than by using what I have read here - and the odd 9th hand story of bribes to get out of military service etc.

The proof though is in the pudding - ask the rice farmers if they are happy with the new status quo - ask the rank and file of the RTP too - ask those that were likely going to be victims of that terrorist plot in KK - as those that can go through the park in BKK now that PDRC has gone - those that can go back to work at the various ministries - ask parents of BKK university students (both sides of the coin - depending on Uni). Perhaps those who run illegal gambling dens and gun smugglers are less happy - and those affected directly with legitimate business affected by the curfew - but there is good reason to suspect at an individual level there are plenty of people here happy with the current SQ.

Lets see in a year's time if it is better or worse - there is a tendency for non Thaksin governments to be given no chance to prove their worth, that needs to stop - give them the rope to hang themselves or make it better, hounding just for the sake of it, just because it is not our ideal, just makes things worse

Does a curfew and some censorship make for a police state? Perhaps, at least partially - but the former has been relaxed (dropped in some areas) and there is talk of it going completely soon nationwide - the latter will likely stay, but censorship of the internet has been around since Thaksin's day (granted massively escalated during 2006 coup, PPP and Dems), it will fade as the world press gets bored of the lack of public hangings and tanks squishing students - today's news, tomorrow's chip wrapper and all that! One thing is for sure I would think, and that is the discomfort being felt now is less than the escalation of violence that was due if the General has sat back and waited patiently for his gold watch.

""Care to address that one?" - in all honesty, no not really Reason being that I do not have first hand knowledge of there being anything untoward in the military establishment - not that there isn't, I simply do not have the personal experience to comment."

You might talk to some Thai families who have sons approaching draft age, or those who managed to keep their sons out of the draft. How did they do that? You also might ask why a military that is one third the size of the US military has twice as many generals and admirals. I assume that having all these flag officers gives them sufficient free time to sit on the boards of companies that do business with the military. I'm sure this practice, that some might see as a clear conflict of interest, is legal in Thailand.

I don't think I can go any further without getting onto thin ice, but there are reasons to wonder about what kind of "reforms" will come out of the military government.

I read in a news article that the rice farmers are happy to be paid, but not happy with the status quo; the payments were not enough to change their political views. Sorry, no news link, there are thought-crime vigilantes trolling the web, eager to catch someone violating censorship rules. Censorship does not forbid people from reading outside news sources, they just can't disseminate certain types of news inside Thailand, and posting a link might cross a line.

Anyway rice subsidies and all the rest could have been handled through the democratic process. Of course that wouldn't have had the dramatic quick-fix appearance of a coup and martial law. However there is a lot more to governing a nation than freeing up money for a one-time payment to farmers and making some flashy arrests and seizures, and it remains to be seen how well the military is at the mundane, complicated, essential stuff.

My biggest concerns are regarding the real reason of the coup, which ties into when the military will relinquish power and under what circumstances. That's something that definitely can not be discussed here. So those who believe it's all about ridding Thailand of the Shinawatra family and will result in a cleaner, more democratic Thailand can continue to do so. Just don't read too much outside news.

Edited June 8, 2014 by heybruce

[heybruce]

I was not once threatened by a thug or militia before the coup. The numbers show that you were approximately one thousand times more likely to die in a road accident than killed by political violence during the months of protest. In fact you were many times more likely to die of a mosquito bite than from political violence, unless you wanted to get actively involved in the protests.

I never paid much attention to the talk of fringe groups, just as I learned to ignore the calls for final pushes from Suthep.

I think quite a lot of planning went into the timing and execution of this coup, for reasons that can't be stated here. You could find out for yourself if you have any desire to be better informed, but I don't think you do.

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

Because all the violence, guns, bombs, grenades, and so on were from the PDRC - NOT! Come on, be serious - it was getting more violent and more serious with each passing day - terrorist plots planned, war weapon caches placed, politicians and other leaders houses bombed, judges intimidated and threatened, children of authority figures threatened, threats of cessation, elections interfered with and forced to be voided, government agencies split and taking sides, propaganda of independent agencies doing likewise (whether true or not), police brutality and over reaction (and clearly one sided - and not with respect to officials of the state, but of civilian supporter groups (e.g. UDD)), and so on

There were clear signs of escalation - and no light at the end of the tunnel. Suthep had all but won, PTP Gov was in tatters with a non-legitimate stand-in caretaker PM, partially filled Senate between session, no way to have a fully legitimately fully functional gov any time soon (elections were never going to provide one as Dems would just abstain again, and it would end up voided again - or simply not accepted, thus more violence in the streets). It was a loose loose situation, and really at that point the Pro-Gov side had two options (other than walking away of course - which was a non starter): mayhem (possibly leading to civil war - or more acts of terrorism - which would escalate to both sides), or giving in to Suthep (not going to happen either). So, in some ways it was at least partially a plus for the coup as it wiped out Sutheps committee (appointed gov) idea totally. If they had done nothing, just sat back, then Suthep would have had an appointed PM put in place, and his committee sworn in (thereby breaking the constitution - or forcing an amendment without referendum) - and there would have been the same escalation of violence.

In some ways I think the Reds might have been better off with Suthep's committee (assuming agreement could have been made as to seats on that committee - which I think could have been, if it was possible constitutionally I suppose - how can amendments be made with no active administration???) than the military gov deciding on reforms, but that remains to be seen I guess.

However you analyse it - the outcome is the same - mayhem, death and misery for the foreseeable future. Both sides had to be quelled before it got too far out of hand - to wait until it was all out war in the streets may have looked better wrt the Army stepping in, but it certainly would not have been better!

Honestly, do you really think either side would have given up the fight peacefully by the point the army stepped in (however so coerced to do so)?

Here I'll keep it short and simple; I disagree. I think a blunt, unambiguous statement from the military making it clear that disruption of the July election would not be tolerated and the army would be ready to do whatever it took for the election to proceed would have been enough to ensure a successful election. It also would have been enough to take the steam out of Suthep's protest and cleared the streets. The Democrats, having no hope of being appointed to government, probably would have participated simply to avoid being completely excluded.

Of course all this depended on the military wanting an election and a democratic solution to the problems. The timing of the martial law and the suddenness of the escalation to a coup, along with other factors, cause me to believe they had other priorities.

[simple1]

@heybruce: regards the last paragraph in post #1119. All the pontificating on the pros & cons of the coup is just hot air. Doesn't acknowledge root causes that we and Thais are not permitted to publically debate.

Edited June 8, 2014 by simple1

[sumtingwong]

Interestingly, there are some posters that are against military intervention when it is against red-shirt protests and are for military intervention when it is against yellow-shirts protests.

[AleG]

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

[fab4]

I will take the good General Prayuth temporary rule over the Shinawatra dictatorship under the commie PTP any day and twice on Sundays.

So you'll take this statement from the permanent secretary of the "Prime Ministers" ? Office, as being perfectly normal then?

"I would like to ask all civil servants, state enterprise employees, village headmen, local administrative officials and the general public to provide information about civil servants and government officials working in the country and abroad who take part in activities and express ideas that are unconstructive and threatening security," ML Panadda wrote.

[ginjag]

Ginjag, in your 35 years in Thailand, you've seen 3 coup's, which party and Government was the best in your opinion and why do you come to that opinion?

Put the money in my account and I'll answer that, For starters I do not care for wind-ups. especially with your friends on here that are in the wings backing you up. Thailand for example.

It's not a wind up, it's a genuine question because from what I have been reading, there hasn't been a Government that hasn't been accused of corruption and wrong doing and abusing its power,that hasn't resulted in them being overthrown by a coup.

You have always stated that you criticise any government that is hasn't taken the pledges and promises they took seriously and did what they could for the Thai people, you made a huge and very bold statement in that you have been in Thailand for 35 years, and I'm asking you a genuine question, in your opinion, seeing as the ousted PTP Government was so bad, in all your years, which Government wasn't abusing its power that you felt comfortable enough to not level any criticism towards, seeing as you have been scathing of Yinglucks one.

You see, with that bold statement earlier, you're coming over as a bit of an SME with regards to what constitutes a GOOD Thai Government.

Scott, I respect what you've said, however I do believe that the question is valid, given that Ginjag has constantly harped on about PTP Poor Governing, and abusing their powers, of which I don't disagree with, but I'm asking a direct question, which Government in the past was the benchmark, to base the ousted Government's failings on ?

Wind up or not, If you want to genuinely know my findings over the years, no problem.

But reading about Scott remarks-that you stated and your stance on the PTP situation over the 3 years I do not want to get further involved with your question. Look the history up if you want past events.

There is Publicus fab4 and the rest ready to pounce on any reply which makes me believe it's baiting. I am not bait.

Anyone by your posting would be led to believe I was the only one to be scathing of Yinglucks government--get real.

Plain and simple --Good governing is when you produce what you promised when elected-(or try)

To conform to the vow you made when sworn in.

To run a transparent government and always have your peoples welfare at heart.

To be open to oppositions questions and hold debates fairly.

When in your term of office and not re elected you endeavor to leave the country in a better shape than when elected. ETC.,

[rabas]

I will take the good General Prayuth temporary rule over the Shinawatra dictatorship under the commie PTP any day and twice on Sundays.

So you'll take this statement from the permanent secretary of the "Prime Ministers" ? Office, as being perfectly normal then?

"I would like to ask all civil servants, state enterprise employees, village headmen, local administrative officials and the general public to provide information about civil servants and government officials working in the country and abroad who take part in activities and express ideas that are unconstructive and threatening security," ML Panadda wrote.

Do you have a reference to the original Thai statement? after all the guy is a Thai speaking to Thai.

No? Didn't think so.

Sounds more like a corruption tip line to me, since he did mention corruption in the part you left out. US does the same. Of course Thais don't have NSA and if they did they would spy on their girlfriends, for happiness.

[heybruce]

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

[fab4]

I will take the good General Prayuth temporary rule over the Shinawatra dictatorship under the commie PTP any day and twice on Sundays.

So you'll take this statement from the permanent secretary of the "Prime Ministers" ? Office, as being perfectly normal then?

"I would like to ask all civil servants, state enterprise employees, village headmen, local administrative officials and the general public to provide information about civil servants and government officials working in the country and abroad who take part in activities and express ideas that are unconstructive and threatening security," ML Panadda wrote.

Do you have a reference to the original Thai statement? after all the guy is a Thai speaking to Thai.

No? Didn't think so.

Sounds more like a corruption tip line to me, since he did mention corruption in the part you left out. US does the same. Of course Thais don't have NSA and if they did they would spy on their girlfriends, for happiness.

Corruption tip line!, my how you've taken it all in. Does "take part in activities and express ideas that are unconstructive and threatening security" sound like corruption to you? Well obviously it does, because you oh so desperately want to believe. Sad.

[AleG]

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

This part in particular "political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand" tells me that you are too busy digging yourself out of the hole you are in to realize the absurdity of your argument; it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past.

[Fat Haggis]

Ginjag, in your 35 years in Thailand, you've seen 3 coup's, which party and Government was the best in your opinion and why do you come to that opinion?

Put the money in my account and I'll answer that, For starters I do not care for wind-ups. especially with your friends on here that are in the wings backing you up. Thailand for example.

It's not a wind up, it's a genuine question because from what I have been reading, there hasn't been a Government that hasn't been accused of corruption and wrong doing and abusing its power,that hasn't resulted in them being overthrown by a coup.

You have always stated that you criticise any government that is hasn't taken the pledges and promises they took seriously and did what they could for the Thai people, you made a huge and very bold statement in that you have been in Thailand for 35 years, and I'm asking you a genuine question, in your opinion, seeing as the ousted PTP Government was so bad, in all your years, which Government wasn't abusing its power that you felt comfortable enough to not level any criticism towards, seeing as you have been scathing of Yinglucks one.

You see, with that bold statement earlier, you're coming over as a bit of an SME with regards to what constitutes a GOOD Thai Government.

Scott, I respect what you've said, however I do believe that the question is valid, given that Ginjag has constantly harped on about PTP Poor Governing, and abusing their powers, of which I don't disagree with, but I'm asking a direct question, which Government in the past was the benchmark, to base the ousted Government's failings on ?

Wind up or not, If you want to genuinely know my findings over the years, no problem.

But reading about Scott remarks-that you stated and your stance on the PTP situation over the 3 years I do not want to get further involved with your question. Look the history up if you want past events.

There is Publicus fab4 and the rest ready to pounce on any reply which makes me believe it's baiting. I am not bait.

Anyone by your posting would be led to believe I was the only one to be scathing of Yinglucks government--get real.

Plain and simple --Good governing is when you produce what you promised when elected-(or try)

To conform to the vow you made when sworn in.

To run a transparent government and always have your peoples welfare at heart.

To be open to oppositions questions and hold debates fairly.

When in your term of office and not re elected you endeavor to leave the country in a better shape than when elected. ETC.,

I am not looking for any confrontation, I have read that's why I was asking, because all the Governments since 1979 have been guilty of abuse of power and corruption, it would seem to me that the ousted PTP Government just took it to a much higher level, and I'm simply curious that seeing as how they've all been rotten to the core, why single out the former PTP one which you've been scathing about, and have rightly pointed out that you're not the only one, and I'd ask them the same question, however the reality, is that all of them, since 1979 have hardly been examples of Good Governing, when they too abused power, and were corrupt?? I guess it's down to how much abuse and corruption you feel are acceptable ?

Baiting? Hardly? I could say the same about some of the posters and forum members who would "appear to leap to your defence"

I'm totally in agreement about the Good Governing part.. however none of them in your lifetime in Thailand have run a transparent Government, none of them had the peoples interests at heart, as they ripped the country off with their corruption.

I like the open to opposition questions and hold debates fairly, just like PM Question time, but has this ever happened in your time in Thailand? I agree that it's a good way to be too, and televise it as well, on ALL channels so that the country are in touch with their Government.

Your last point I'm chuckling at, it's a pipe dream, look at the UK, and the swings from Tories to Labour to Tories, it left the UK in tatters, if you actually left the country in a better shape than when you were elected, why on earth would you not get re elected??

Thank you for your insight, and I appreciate it, and it would be great if the next Government elected did just all of the positive things you mentioned, however, This is Thailand, some habits are hard to shake.

[rabas]

So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude.

For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information.

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

Again, killing protestors is no big deal as if it's OK. How low can one get? Let's look at this realistically by death rates, you know, like cancer statistics, etc

Thai homicide rate per person = 3307/67,000,000 = 4.94e-5.

Lets assume for Suthep's sake there were up to 10,000 protestors and nearby men, women, and children in range of the indiscriminant grenade and gun fire attacks, then this is the at risk population for 5 months.

Dead protester rate = 28*(12 months/5 months) /10000 = 6.72*10-3. 136 times higher!

A protestor murder rate 136 times higher than in the general population is equivalent to a national murder rate of 449,752, almost half a million.

For certain, the international community should have been concerned about all this killing, especially as the death and injury rate was shooting up fast just before the coup. But now days I expect little from the world's news-entertainment media circus. I would rather trust the Thai.

[Fat Haggis]

Rabas, you're getting upset about statistics, as heinous the crime that caused the deaths of the protesters, no matter what spin anyone puts on it, they're statistics for someone who's crunching numbers.

I work in Iraq, and in the past 5 days, there has been over 300 + people killed from the ranks of the Iraqi Security Forces and civilians, there was 7 VBIED's (car bombs) in Baghdad yesterday alone..what has this got to do with Thailand you may ask? Nothing? it's numbers and statistics, I've been here for 10 years, spent most of that 10 years more in the country than I do anywhere else, I have seen it all a single death through an act of violence is a tragedy, hundreds are just statistics.

As cold as this may seem, and it has nothing to being low, the deaths of the protesters in Thailand were a tragedy in their own right, and those who perpetrated these acts will get what's coming to them, one way or the other, but the sad and brutal truth, is that 28 deaths over 8 months, statistically speaking is very very low, does it make these deaths any less heartbreaking for the families who lost children, or loved ones? Heaven forbid no it doesn't.

It breaks my heart when I read about the acts of terror and violence inflicted on the innocents, as I'm sure it does many others, but I never knew any of the fatalities personally, so their simple statistics, you may not like that, or agree with that, I have known some of the people who have lost their lives in recent months in Iraq, do you think I should feel more upset about their deaths through acts of violence, or should I feel as equally upset about the children and the other innocents who have lost their lives in despicable circumstances in a country I've only lived in for the past 2 years?

Maybe the time I've spent in this part of the world has sanitised me too much to death and violence, but you shouldn't attempt to make anyone feel "low" for posting simple statistics sir, unless I know someone who was killed personally, they're just innocent victims in a cruel world, by the hands of nothing more than scum.

[heybruce]

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

Again, killing protestors is no big deal as if it's OK. How low can one get? Let's look at this realistically by death rates, you know, like cancer statistics, etc

Thai homicide rate per person = 3307/67,000,000 = 4.94e-5.

Lets assume for Suthep's sake there were up to 10,000 protestors and nearby men, women, and children in range of the indiscriminant grenade and gun fire attacks, then this is the at risk population for 5 months.

Dead protester rate = 28*(12 months/5 months) /10000 = 6.72*10-3. 136 times higher!

A protestor murder rate 136 times higher than in the general population is equivalent to a national murder rate of 449,752, almost half a million.

For certain, the international community should have been concerned about all this killing, especially as the death and injury rate was shooting up fast just before the coup. But now days I expect little from the world's news-entertainment media circus. I would rather trust the Thai.

suthep was claiming much bigger numbers, but my biggest objection to your misuse of statistics is the implicit assumption that none of the killings were done by Suthep protesters, and all of the victims were Suthep supporters. That is ridiculous.

Ideally the protesters would have never been allowed to illegally occupy buildings and disrupt buildings. The military could have gone a long way towards preventing this simply by stating they wouldn't allow it. Had the military assisted in maintaining peace, or simply cleared away the protests once they were well beyond legal protest, the coup would not have been necessary.

[heybruce]

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

This part in particular "political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand" tells me that you are too busy digging yourself out of the hole you are in to realize the absurdity of your argument; it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past.

In the last ten years I can recall politically motivated bombings with mass casualties in the UK, Spain and India. Do you think these events warranted military coups against the democratically elected governments?

"it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past."

What actually happened was chaos in the streets of Bangkok instigated by Suthep that resulted in deaths, some caused by Suthep's people. The result was a coup, which is what Suthep wanted. I assume you approve of the military rewarding his murderous actions.

[rabas]

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

This part in particular "political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand" tells me that you are too busy digging yourself out of the hole you are in to realize the absurdity of your argument; it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past.

In the last ten years I can recall politically motivated bombings with mass casualties in the UK, Spain and India. Do you think these events warranted military coups against the democratically elected governments?

"it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past."

What actually happened was chaos in the streets of Bangkok instigated by Suthep that resulted in deaths, some caused by Suthep's people. The result was a coup, which is what Suthep wanted. I assume you approve of the military rewarding his murderous actions.

If the those governments were implicitly behind continual violence, yes, absolutely. Note that some of the world's best military assets are sent after those perpetrators.

No, Suthep did not instigate the violence in the streets if you mean the literally hundreds of grenade and gunfire attacks on the protest sites. I'm a bit sensitive on this one having lived with my family about 300 meters from the Chaengwatthana site where we feared even going in the kitchen at night. We had blackout drills because the grenades and gunfire were so common, including a few full scale battles and even a car bomb in our Soi. It's hard to listen to Thaksin's wannabe apologists try to deflect the red violence by saying Suthep did it. But I'm certainly glad about no Thai believe that.

[AleG]

In the last ten years I can recall politically motivated bombings with mass casualties in the UK, Spain and India. Do you think these events warranted military coups against the democratically elected governments?

"it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past."

What actually happened was chaos in the streets of Bangkok instigated by Suthep that resulted in deaths, some caused by Suthep's people. The result was a coup, which is what Suthep wanted. I assume you approve of the military rewarding his murderous actions.

If the those governments were implicitly behind continual violence, yes, absolutely. Note that some of the world's best military assets are sent after those perpetrators.

No, Suthep did not instigate the violence in the streets if you mean the literally hundreds of grenade and gunfire attacks on the protest sites. I'm a bit sensitive on this one having lived with my family about 300 meters from the Chaengwatthana site where we feared even going in the kitchen at night. We had blackout drills because the grenades and gunfire were so common, including a few full scale battles and even a car bomb in our Soi. It's hard to listen to Thaksin's wannabe apologists try to deflect the red violence by saying Suthep did it. But I'm certainly glad about no Thai believe that.

Thank you for saving me the time to rebut heybruce's nonsense.

[rabas]

In the last ten years I can recall politically motivated bombings with mass casualties in the UK, Spain and India. Do you think these events warranted military coups against the democratically elected governments?

"it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past."

What actually happened was chaos in the streets of Bangkok instigated by Suthep that resulted in deaths, some caused by Suthep's people. The result was a coup, which is what Suthep wanted. I assume you approve of the military rewarding his murderous actions.

If the those governments were implicitly behind continual violence, yes, absolutely. Note that some of the world's best military assets are sent after those perpetrators.

No, Suthep did not instigate the violence in the streets if you mean the literally hundreds of grenade and gunfire attacks on the protest sites. I'm a bit sensitive on this one having lived with my family about 300 meters from the Chaengwatthana site where we feared even going in the kitchen at night. We had blackout drills because the grenades and gunfire were so common, including a few full scale battles and even a car bomb in our Soi. It's hard to listen to Thaksin's wannabe apologists try to deflect the red violence by saying Suthep did it. But I'm certainly glad about no Thai believe that.

Thank you for saving me the time to rebut heybruce's nonsense.

You guys have to work so hard, glad to help.

[sumtingwong]

Notice that these pro Shinawatra dictatorship commie red-shirt supporters complained mightily when the military was called in to remove the violent Shinawatra dictatorship commie red-shirt protestors many years ago, but say now that the government should have had the military remove the peaceful yellow-shirt protestors, talk about hypocrisy.

[rubl]

"So because you, personally, were not affected by the violence it was OK... I don't think that's a very defensible attitude."

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence, and the situation did not come close to justifying a military coup. If all the military wanted was to eliminate political violence all the military had to do was break up Suthep's protests.

"For your last paragraph, don't presume to know my attitudes toward information."

Fair enough, I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed.

My point being that the country was not experiencing uncontrolled violence.

A conclusion not derived from the facts, obviously; the violence was uncontrolled, how many perpetrators of shootings and bombings against anti-government protesters, independent agencies and courts were arrested before the army stepped in? The answer is zero, that´s how many and I rest my case.

Preventing the possibility of the uncontrolled violence evolving into a civil war was one of the rationales for the coup, nobody has a crystal ball, but that was what some Red Shirts were calling for and nobody can pinpoint when unfethered violence can escalate into widespread conflict.

The Red Shirt leadership calls for a huge uprising were a bluff, IMHO, they have never had the support of the majority of Thais as they love to spout, but it only takes a relatively small number of fanatics to start a spiral of violence, that some within the Red Shirt movement were/are quite prepared to murder for political purposes (AKA terrorism) is beyond dispute by now and that, plus their calls to split the country, the failure of the political system and law enforcement is as good as recipe to drag a country down the civil war path, those things don't happen overnight.

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

Completely agree. I mean what if the Yingluck government condoned the violence and cowardly night attacks with guns and grenades against anti-government protesters. Hardly anyone killed.

Next we'll discuss why PM Abhisit should have stepped down when those grenade lobbing UDD figures told him to in 2010.

Anyway, I'm glad that I choose not to look at TVF forum over the weekend. Most posted is rubbish anyway.

Stay cool and dry guys and keep smiling,

uncle rubl

[heybruce]

There were 3307 murders in Thailand in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, there were 28 murders associated with political protests. One could argue that thousands of murders a year in a country the size of Thailand constitutes uncontrolled violence, however political violence represented less than one tenth of one percent of this number.

My point was that political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand. It could have been dealt with by steps much less drastic than a coup. I stick by my previous statement: "I will simply assume that anyone who thinks the coup was to prevent a civil war is poorly informed."

This part in particular "political violence was at a level that barely registered against the "normal" violence in Thailand" tells me that you are too busy digging yourself out of the hole you are in to realize the absurdity of your argument; it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past.

In the last ten years I can recall politically motivated bombings with mass casualties in the UK, Spain and India. Do you think these events warranted military coups against the democratically elected governments?

"it's a ridiculous statement that flies on the face of what actually has happened in the recent past."

What actually happened was chaos in the streets of Bangkok instigated by Suthep that resulted in deaths, some caused by Suthep's people. The result was a coup, which is what Suthep wanted. I assume you approve of the military rewarding his murderous actions.

If the those governments were implicitly behind continual violence, yes, absolutely. Note that some of the world's best military assets are sent after those perpetrators.

No, Suthep did not instigate the violence in the streets if you mean the literally hundreds of grenade and gunfire attacks on the protest sites. I'm a bit sensitive on this one having lived with my family about 300 meters from the Chaengwatthana site where we feared even going in the kitchen at night. We had blackout drills because the grenades and gunfire were so common, including a few full scale battles and even a car bomb in our Soi. It's hard to listen to Thaksin's wannabe apologists try to deflect the red violence by saying Suthep did it. But I'm certainly glad about no Thai believe that.

Did the attacks happen before or after Suthep overstepped all reasonable bounds of legality and occupied buildings and shut down government?

Don't you think dispersing the protest, or better yet never allowing them to break the law to the degree they did, would have been a better solution than a coup? Or do you think Suthep deserved such an extravagant reward for his illegal shutdown of government?

I think you're being unrealistic in thinking no Thai blames Suthep for the violence.