Redshirt region to remain under martial law

[fab4]

you do know which group has been the most violent and killed the most people in Thailand, don't you?

Tip: color is neither red, nor yellow.

That could either be the Thai Army as the fought off Burmese and Khmer invasions (appreciated at the time) or the Japanese with their WWII railway project (not so much). But respect has to be given to the bloody amateurs (not that the reds don't get paid) for their efforts in a relatively short time span, though many would respect them more if their goals were a lot less mercenary and more for the benefit of the nation. I suppose its hard to be altruistic when a corrupt billionaire is waving a (relatively) big wad of notes under your nose.

Try a bit more recent than the second world war, around the 70's. I'm surprised you're not aware of the history of those you so fervently support.

[tbthailand]

fair comment, I'm just not impressed with this "Lovely Race the Romans" stuff. Yes things are very much quieter , but it was not the elected Government , causing the actual disturbances imo . At the end of the day a Democratically elected Government was overthrown , This corruption "Spin" was the excuse , but they are all as bad as each other

Just as in 2006, an elected government wasn't overthrown. In both cases they were caretaker governments.

wow, you are on a roll.

since when is a caretaker government not elected? Get real.

and to add, what is the point of the statement anyway - trying to claim that a coup is not a coup?

Edited September 8, 2014 by tbthailand

[whybother]

You repeat this :

'The 2011 election was hardly "post (judicial) coup", being 2.5 years after PPP were banned, with PTP choosing to go to parliament to elect a new PM, and unfortunately for them, Abhisit was elected.'

as though it were true.

I recall the PPP turned PTP trying to call elections but getting blocked. The military put together their coalition and voted in Abhisit in a matter of a couple of days. Even the PAD wanted parliament dissolved (but for different reasons). It is not true that the PPP/PTP 'choose' to go to a vote and 'unfortunately' lost. The army put their plan in place once their judges had done their part. It went off like clockwork. Well, except for people finding out about it afterwards.

I haven't seen anything about PTP trying to call elections. Do you have any links to anything that might suggest that?

"It is not true that the PPP/PTP 'choose' to go to a vote and 'unfortunately' lost."

Which part isn't true? That PTP chose to go to a vote, or that they unfortunately lost? The "unfortunately lost" is true depending on your opinion. As I said, I haven't seen anything that indicates that PTP were forced to go to a parliamentary vote.

Maybe PTP didn't have a choice to call an election because Thaksin wouldn't let them. Maybe the army expected this arrogance and put a plan into place knowing that PTP wouldn't call an election.

edit: actually, the PTP wiki page suggests that they called for a unity government and general elections AFTER Abhisit was elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheu_Thai_Party#Formation_and_opposition_years_.282008-2011.29

Edited September 8, 2014 by whybother

[whybother]

fair comment, I'm just not impressed with this "Lovely Race the Romans" stuff. Yes things are very much quieter , but it was not the elected Government , causing the actual disturbances imo . At the end of the day a Democratically elected Government was overthrown , This corruption "Spin" was the excuse , but they are all as bad as each other

Just as in 2006, an elected government wasn't overthrown. In both cases they were caretaker governments.

wow, you are on a roll.

since when is a caretaker government not elected? Get real.

and to add, what is the point of the statement anyway - trying to claim that a coup is not a coup?

A caretaker government isn't elected when parliament is dissolved and an election fails to produce a result.

I didn't say "a coup is not a coup".

[rubl]

you do know which group has been the most violent and killed the most people in Thailand, don't you?

Tip: color is neither red, nor yellow.

That could either be the Thai Army as the fought off Burmese and Khmer invasions (appreciated at the time) or the Japanese with their WWII railway project (not so much). But respect has to be given to the bloody amateurs (not that the reds don't get paid) for their efforts in a relatively short time span, though many would respect them more if their goals were a lot less mercenary and more for the benefit of the nation. I suppose its hard to be altruistic when a corrupt billionaire is waving a (relatively) big wad of notes under your nose.

Try a bit more recent than the second world war, around the 70's. I'm surprised you're not aware of the history of those you so fervently support.

Ah the 70-sh. When red-shirts were real red.

Mind you, you shouldn't rake up that past. They were forgiven, got an amnesty and so. Upright citizens again. Like Dr. weng and Ms. Thida

[djjamie]

lifting martial law would "provide an opportunity for the dissent movement to campaign openly."

​Correct. And we have all witnessed what the red scourge archived without marshal law in Bangkok. The lose of over 20 innocent lives including children.

​I pray, for the sake of my family that the Junta keep us safe until the scourge of the red infestation is removed.

I bet the families of over 20 dead and over 700 injured and over 80% of the population agree too.

Prove to me otherwise???

Edited September 8, 2014 by djjamie

[Chao Lao Beach]

I thought the coup was over, now have an elected Government.

" because of ongoing anti-coup activity in the area "

[wandasloan]

In both 2006 an 2014 not only had parliament been dissolved by the PM, elections had failed to produce a result. With no result, there was no elected government.

In no way does that make the coups right, but what they did was overthrow a constitutional stalemate, not an elected government.

I understand. When it's you writing, it's not fair to be picky and picayune and anal-retentive. When others write, it is. And now you are doing it again.

First, there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" - in case of some problems, the courts are always there as a backup. It's what the Constitutional Court specifically was set up for, not to mention why the constitutions and enabling legislation were enacted. In both cases you are discussing, the constitution and enabling laws clearly foresaw and dealt with the situations. When the jack-booted thugs stepped in, it was not even (yet) necessary to appeal to the courts for help. Politically, the situation was not dire in either case, certainly not stalemated.

In your scenario the US Army should have seized power in 2000 and the Australian army should have stepped in and taken control in 1975 because of the "stalemates" in those countries. In the US, things were worse than in Thailand; the courts had to actually get involved. But the thing is they weren't stalemates either. They were serious political situations that worked themselves out according to constitutional and legal stipulations.

In both Thailand cases, "extra-legal action" took place - that is, violent, armed lawbreakers seized national power. They wanted the power. They wanted the perks that come with the power. They've got both. You can't weasel-word your way in or out of it. A military coup overthrew a legal government in toto.

To their credit, at least the armed forces don't try to sugarcoat it with tortuous angels-on-a-pin reasoning. But the thing is, your reasoning is wrong. Constitutionally at least, the situations were well in hand. The army says they wouldn't have stayed that way. Well, the army is a fortune teller, I guess, but truth is we will never know what the outcomes MIGHT have been, we only know what the outcomes were. And the outcomes were that the army seized power while politics was still well under way and functioning - just like in the US and Australia.

.

[whybother]

In both 2006 an 2014 not only had parliament been dissolved by the PM, elections had failed to produce a result. With no result, there was no elected government.

In no way does that make the coups right, but what they did was overthrow a constitutional stalemate, not an elected government.

I understand. When it's you writing, it's not fair to be picky and picayune and anal-retentive. When others write, it is. And now you are doing it again.

First, there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" - in case of some problems, the courts are always there as a backup. It's what the Constitutional Court specifically was set up for, not to mention why the constitutions and enabling legislation were enacted. In both cases you are discussing, the constitution and enabling laws clearly foresaw and dealt with the situations. When the jack-booted thugs stepped in, it was not even (yet) necessary to appeal to the courts for help. Politically, the situation was not dire in either case, certainly not stalemated.

In your scenario the US Army should have seized power in 2000 and the Australian army should have stepped in and taken control in 1975 because of the "stalemates" in those countries. In the US, things were worse than in Thailand; the courts had to actually get involved. But the thing is they weren't stalemates either. They were serious political situations that worked themselves out according to constitutional and legal stipulations.

In both Thailand cases, "extra-legal action" took place - that is, violent, armed lawbreakers seized national power. They wanted the power. They wanted the perks that come with the power. They've got both. You can't weasel-word your way in or out of it. A military coup overthrew a legal government in toto.

To their credit, at least the armed forces don't try to sugarcoat it with tortuous angels-on-a-pin reasoning. But the thing is, your reasoning is wrong. Constitutionally at least, the situations were well in hand. The army says they wouldn't have stayed that way. Well, the army is a fortune teller, I guess, but truth is we will never know what the outcomes MIGHT have been, we only know what the outcomes were. And the outcomes were that the army seized power while politics was still well under way and functioning - just like in the US and Australia.

.

Who's being "anally retentive"? (from your previous post) "there is no such thing as a "caretaker government" (from this one) " there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" ". If there is no such thing as a "caretaker government", why is nearly every government referred to as a "caretaker government" between the time of parliament dissolution and a new government being formed?

And, along with being anally retentive, you have reading problems. I didn't say the coups were right. But that doesn't mean the government that was overthrown was elected. They may have been legal "caretaker" governments, but they weren't elected. They stopped being the elected government when parliament was dissolved. Failed elections emphasised the fact that they weren't the elected government.

BTW, the Whitlam government was the elected government until it was kicked out by the GG, at which point Fraser became PM. And the 2000 US election produced a result.

[brucec64]

lifting martial law would "provide an opportunity for the dissent movement to campaign openly."

​Correct. And we have all witnessed what the red scourge archived without marshal law in Bangkok. The lose of over 20 innocent lives including children.

​I pray, for the sake of my family that the Junta keep us safe until the scourge of the red infestation is removed.

I bet the families of over 20 dead and over 700 injured and over 80% of the population agree too.

Prove to me otherwise???

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nida-poll-says-majority-affected-martial-law/

This article states that a poll showed 43% wanted martial law lifted and 40% wanted it to stay. Not exactly the 80% you stated.

[northernjohn]

Sooner or later you will have to lift martial law in those areas. You think the people will forget? I doubt it.

I doubt many of them even realize it things are going so good for them now.

The em con was put there to denote the average Thai's feelings about the new government.

Here is one to denote the feelings of the ones who prefer killing kids while the government turns the other way. Also massive corruption

[northernjohn]

Sooner or later you will have to lift martial law in those areas. You think the people will forget? I doubt it.

and what effect has it had on you ? I'll answer for you - zero

and what negative effect has it had on the general population of Thailand ? I'll answer for you - Zero

go ply your useless rhetoric somewhere else - you're like a broken record

You can speak for the general population.

But when it comes to eliminating corruption you can not speak for him unless you know him and all his dealings.

[northernjohn]

If there are people wanting to stir up trouble keeping ML in the northern provinces is sure not going to stop it.

They could simply move their activities to somewhere outside of the north.

They have all ready tried that and moved to Japan and got ignored there.

[rubl]

...

To their credit, at least the armed forces don't try to sugarcoat it with tortuous angels-on-a-pin reasoning. But the thing is, your reasoning is wrong. Constitutionally at least, the situations were well in hand. The army says they wouldn't have stayed that way. Well, the army is a fortune teller, I guess, but truth is we will never know what the outcomes MIGHT have been, we only know what the outcomes were. And the outcomes were that the army seized power while politics was still well under way and functioning - just like in the US and Australia.

"constitutionally the situation was well in hand".

Nightly cowardly attacks on anti-government protesters, the government with it's CAPO requested news outlets not to say anything which could be deemed to put the protesters in a positive light. CAPO head warns that if courts make the 'wrong' decisions violence might erupt. Politics indeed well under way to disrupt the country, very functioning (or should that be functional?).

If only people understood how much like the USA and the UK Thailand really was. We could have had another seven months of chaos if only the Army would have let us.

[djjamie]

lifting martial law would "provide an opportunity for the dissent movement to campaign openly."

​Correct. And we have all witnessed what the red scourge archived without marshal law in Bangkok. The lose of over 20 innocent lives including children.

​I pray, for the sake of my family that the Junta keep us safe until the scourge of the red infestation is removed.

I bet the families of over 20 dead and over 700 injured and over 80% of the population agree too.

Prove to me otherwise???

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/nida-poll-says-majority-affected-martial-law/

This article states that a poll showed 43% wanted martial law lifted and 40% wanted it to stay. Not exactly the 80% you stated.

Ohhhh, I see. Soooo, you agree with this poll and will regurgitate it to suit your agenda, BUT when the poll does not suit the PTP agenda it is dismissed? It reminds me of the 2007 constitution referendum and the 2014 election result failure and the 200 other polls that don't suit YOUR agenda.

So what is it? Is this poll correct along with all the other polls including this one that states "The majority, or 79.94 percent, of 1,256 respondents surveyed on July 24 and 25 voiced support for the continued existence of the NCPO" or should we only believe the polls that suit your argument ergo agenda?

Well?

Edited September 8, 2014 by djjamie

[rubl]

I think you need to check the results of the 2007 "post coup" election. PPP didn't even win a majority of seats, let alone get a "landslide victory".

The 2011 election was hardly "post (judicial) coup", being 2.5 years after PPP were banned, with PTP choosing to go to parliament to elect a new PM, and unfortunately for them, Abhisit was elected.

You repeat this :

'The 2011 election was hardly "post (judicial) coup", being 2.5 years after PPP were banned, with PTP choosing to go to parliament to elect a new PM, and unfortunately for them, Abhisit was elected.'

as though it were true.

I recall the PPP turned PTP trying to call elections but getting blocked. The military put together their coalition and voted in Abhisit in a matter of a couple of days. Even the PAD wanted parliament dissolved (but for different reasons). It is not true that the PPP/PTP 'choose' to go to a vote and 'unfortunately' lost. The army put their plan in place once their judges had done their part. It went off like clockwork. Well, except for people finding out about it afterwards.

Well, your time lines seems somewhat folded into loops. No lies of course, members don't lie, but somethings just less clear in memory. You're human after all, aren't you.

Maybe start some reading, this wiki page can be used to refresh your memory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheu_Thai_Party#Formation_and_opposition_years_.282008-2011.29

So, even with some seeing red, the ML will remain for the time being. Complaints from lots of people, TVF members that is. I wonder how down South feels about this, or Central Planes, the beautiful North and other areas outside Bangkok?

[sweatalot]

I am living in the North and for me nothing has changed through martial law. At least nothing undesirable.

And the bad news (children killed, coffins burnt, shit sprayed, people intimidated) disappeared.

I am happy with ML and I guess most of the Thai are, too.

Who could be against ML? Only those who would like to continue violence and intimidation.

If somebody speaks or write something in favour of the Redshirts we should remember who the Redshirts are:

a (may be not so large) group of pawns who do not really know what they are doing - just follow a few demagogic leaders who get paid for their dirty work.

(interesting to consider what mass psychology says)

They are armed and used those arms

they are poor but their arsenal is well equipped

They cheer when children are killed

They were openly ordered to bring 100.000 l of petrol to Bangkok and torch the city

they torched parts of Bangkok

they illegally (of course) occupied parts of Bangkok

they intimidate artists when they do not like their political stance and hinder them from performing

they do not respect courts when they do not judge the way they want,

then they threaten, burn coffins with the names of the judges or spill blood and shit

they do black magic

They are evil and violent (and some at best just dumb)

[diehard60]

Better safe than sorry. Martial law may not be palatable for some but it sure beats having red shirts causing trouble and burning stuff.

Ah! what about the yellows a few years ago????? Did we forget to add them to YOUR statement?????????

[whybother]

Better safe than sorry. Martial law may not be palatable for some but it sure beats having red shirts causing trouble and burning stuff.

Ah! what about the yellows a few years ago????? Did we forget to add them to YOUR statement?????????

What does "the yellows a few years ago" have to do with martial law now?

[tbthailand]

fair comment, I'm just not impressed with this "Lovely Race the Romans" stuff. Yes things are very much quieter , but it was not the elected Government , causing the actual disturbances imo . At the end of the day a Democratically elected Government was overthrown , This corruption "Spin" was the excuse , but they are all as bad as each other

Just as in 2006, an elected government wasn't overthrown. In both cases they were caretaker governments.

wow, you are on a roll.

since when is a caretaker government not elected? Get real.

and to add, what is the point of the statement anyway - trying to claim that a coup is not a coup?

A caretaker government isn't elected when parliament is dissolved and an election fails to produce a result.

I didn't say "a coup is not a coup".

the caretaker government is the continuation of the last elected government.

the poster stated, 'a Democratically elected Government was overthrown'

you want to say that he is wrong. But that is clearly not so.

So I did not say you that you said a coup is not a coup, I asked what your point is? Are you trying to justify the coups? Why would you make a point about the government overthrown by a coup which is so clearly false?

[whybother]

fair comment, I'm just not impressed with this "Lovely Race the Romans" stuff. Yes things are very much quieter , but it was not the elected Government , causing the actual disturbances imo . At the end of the day a Democratically elected Government was overthrown , This corruption "Spin" was the excuse , but they are all as bad as each other

Just as in 2006, an elected government wasn't overthrown. In both cases they were caretaker governments.

wow, you are on a roll.

since when is a caretaker government not elected? Get real.

and to add, what is the point of the statement anyway - trying to claim that a coup is not a coup?

A caretaker government isn't elected when parliament is dissolved and an election fails to produce a result.

I didn't say "a coup is not a coup".

the caretaker government is the continuation of the last elected government.

the poster stated, 'a Democratically elected Government was overthrown'

you want to say that he is wrong. But that is clearly not so.

So I did not say you that you said a coup is not a coup, I asked what your point is? Are you trying to justify the coups? Why would you make a point about the government overthrown by a coup which is so clearly false?

As soon as parliament is dissolved, the government is no longer the elected government. Particularly, when elections fail to produce a result, there is no elected government. I am not trying to justify any coup. I am just pointing out that there was no elected government when the coups happened.

[tbthailand]

In both 2006 an 2014 not only had parliament been dissolved by the PM, elections had failed to produce a result. With no result, there was no elected government.

In no way does that make the coups right, but what they did was overthrow a constitutional stalemate, not an elected government.

I understand. When it's you writing, it's not fair to be picky and picayune and anal-retentive. When others write, it is. And now you are doing it again.

First, there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" - in case of some problems, the courts are always there as a backup. It's what the Constitutional Court specifically was set up for, not to mention why the constitutions and enabling legislation were enacted. In both cases you are discussing, the constitution and enabling laws clearly foresaw and dealt with the situations. When the jack-booted thugs stepped in, it was not even (yet) necessary to appeal to the courts for help. Politically, the situation was not dire in either case, certainly not stalemated.

In your scenario the US Army should have seized power in 2000 and the Australian army should have stepped in and taken control in 1975 because of the "stalemates" in those countries. In the US, things were worse than in Thailand; the courts had to actually get involved. But the thing is they weren't stalemates either. They were serious political situations that worked themselves out according to constitutional and legal stipulations.

In both Thailand cases, "extra-legal action" took place - that is, violent, armed lawbreakers seized national power. They wanted the power. They wanted the perks that come with the power. They've got both. You can't weasel-word your way in or out of it. A military coup overthrew a legal government in toto.

To their credit, at least the armed forces don't try to sugarcoat it with tortuous angels-on-a-pin reasoning. But the thing is, your reasoning is wrong. Constitutionally at least, the situations were well in hand. The army says they wouldn't have stayed that way. Well, the army is a fortune teller, I guess, but truth is we will never know what the outcomes MIGHT have been, we only know what the outcomes were. And the outcomes were that the army seized power while politics was still well under way and functioning - just like in the US and Australia.

.

Who's being "anally retentive"? (from your previous post) "there is no such thing as a "caretaker government" (from this one) " there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" ". If there is no such thing as a "caretaker government", why is nearly every government referred to as a "caretaker government" between the time of parliament dissolution and a new government being formed?

And, along with being anally retentive, you have reading problems. I didn't say the coups were right. But that doesn't mean the government that was overthrown was elected. They may have been legal "caretaker" governments, but they weren't elected. They stopped being the elected government when parliament was dissolved. Failed elections emphasised the fact that they weren't the elected government.

BTW, the Whitlam government was the elected government until it was kicked out by the GG, at which point Fraser became PM. And the 2000 US election produced a result.

OK, I see your tortured logic from this post.

'They stopped being the elected government when parliament was dissolved. Failed elections emphasised the fact that they weren't the elected government.'

that is all nonsense. Now I understand your 'reasoning'

[Sena Dave]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

In both 2006 an 2014 not only had parliament been dissolved by the PM, elections had failed to produce a result. With no result, there was no elected government.

In no way does that make the coups right, but what they did was overthrow a constitutional stalemate, not an elected government.

I understand. When it's you writing, it's not fair to be picky and picayune and anal-retentive. When others write, it is. And now you are doing it again.

First, there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" - in case of some problems, the courts are always there as a backup. It's what the Constitutional Court specifically was set up for, not to mention why the constitutions and enabling legislation were enacted. In both cases you are discussing, the constitution and enabling laws clearly foresaw and dealt with the situations. When the jack-booted thugs stepped in, it was not even (yet) necessary to appeal to the courts for help. Politically, the situation was not dire in either case, certainly not stalemated.

In your scenario the US Army should have seized power in 2000 and the Australian army should have stepped in and taken control in 1975 because of the "stalemates" in those countries. In the US, things were worse than in Thailand; the courts had to actually get involved. But the thing is they weren't stalemates either. They were serious political situations that worked themselves out according to constitutional and legal stipulations.

In both Thailand cases, "extra-legal action" took place - that is, violent, armed lawbreakers seized national power. They wanted the power. They wanted the perks that come with the power. They've got both. You can't weasel-word your way in or out of it. A military coup overthrew a legal government in toto.

To their credit, at least the armed forces don't try to sugarcoat it with tortuous angels-on-a-pin reasoning. But the thing is, your reasoning is wrong. Constitutionally at least, the situations were well in hand. The army says they wouldn't have stayed that way. Well, the army is a fortune teller, I guess, but truth is we will never know what the outcomes MIGHT have been, we only know what the outcomes were. And the outcomes were that the army seized power while politics was still well under way and functioning - just like in the US and Australia.

.

Who's being "anally retentive"? (from your previous post) "there is no such thing as a "caretaker government" (from this one) " there is no such legal entity or situation as a "constitutional stalemate" ". If there is no such thing as a "caretaker government", why is nearly every government referred to as a "caretaker government" between the time of parliament dissolution and a new government being formed?

And, along with being anally retentive, you have reading problems. I didn't say the coups were right. But that doesn't mean the government that was overthrown was elected. They may have been legal "caretaker" governments, but they weren't elected. They stopped being the elected government when parliament was dissolved. Failed elections emphasised the fact that they weren't the elected government.

BTW, the Whitlam government was the elected government until it was kicked out by the GG, at which point Fraser became PM. And the 2000 US election produced a result.

OK, I see your tortured logic from this post.

'They stopped being the elected government when parliament was dissolved. Failed elections emphasised the fact that they weren't the elected government.'

that is all nonsense. Now I understand your 'reasoning'

That is the point where the Army should have stepped in , not to seize power but when people were stopped from exercising their right to vote. How that can just be forgotten or excused is beyond me.

[Thanet]

Well well well.

All those people here who harped on about how unfair Thaksin was by getting his little sister in on the act.

Here we have Prayuth's little bro calling the shots, and silence from the yellow brigade here .....

But you must be all for it, right?

In this case? Not at all. I'll accept whomever the majority of the people choose.

By way of example, as it seems you really don't understand the difference between right and wrong, Hilary Clinton is bill's wife, right? She'd be a nobody otherwise - just someone waiting at a checkout queue at the local supermarket. She became known to the public because the the public elected her husband. In a free country, she has the right to use her fame and stand for president, and if the citizenry wants her to be the president, and elect her too, then that's fine.

You can't say the same about Prayuth's kid bro though. Or maybe you can, because you can't tell the difference.

That's not a very good analogy. Bill didn't appoint Hillary to anything. Hillary decided to run for president, and put herself to the voting public. Yingluck wasn't even in politics until she was appointed number 1 party list candidate for PTP and therefore a pretty surefire bet for being PM.

On the other hand, Thaksin did appoint relatives to various important positions, including police chief. One of the reasons he was kicked out was because he was trying to appoint his brother-in-law as army chief.

Prayuth appointing his brother to an important military position is wrong, that is, if he actually did appoint his brother.

I'll make the analogy simpler, so that you might understand it.

Bill didn't appoint Hilary to do anything. True. The people appointed her, and she later became Secretary of State - having used her hubby's name to get famous, she passed this final and important test.

Thaksin didn't appoint Yingluck to do anything. True, The people appointed her - having used her big bro's name to get famous, she passed this final and important test.

Prayuth did appoint Preecha to the NLA. The people weren't asked.

In the last line you appear to concede that Prayuth appointing his kid bro to the NLA was wrong. Thank you for that. And he was appointed - how in heavens name else would he have got there?

[Thanet]

Sooner or later you will have to lift martial law in those areas. You think the people will forget? I doubt it.

2 coups; one military and the other judiciary said you are right. Both post coups election resulted in landslide victory for the Northern mandate.

I think you need to check the results of the 2007 "post coup" election. PPP didn't even win a majority of seats, let alone get a "landslide victory".

The 2011 election was hardly "post (judicial) coup", being 2.5 years after PPP were banned, with PTP choosing to go to parliament to elect a new PM, and unfortunately for them, Abhisit was elected.

No need to check. I just refer to Wiki which state that " PPP claimed absolute majority of the 480 seats".

Ahbisit elected by a coerced coalition of parties. One of this coalition revealed the intimidation factor in electing AV, Hardly a people choice and that was fully exposed when "PT won a majority with 265 seats". Again a qoute from Wiki.

Intimidation is how the yellow lot work. Close to the textbook definition of fascism.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Thanet

[Bernard Flint]

Well that's bad-news, for the Peoples Democratic Republic of Lanna, and all those who support it !

But good news for the many non-Reds in my area, who have been living with less propaganda & repression, for the past few months.

Martial law will however need to be lifted, before the next election, to permit normal campaigning to start again.

Election.....what election?

When the new leader,who is also the leader of the army, realises he can raPE and pillage the country, just like suthep would do, and Thaksin has done, back to normal boys

[Bernard Flint]

I am living in the North and for me nothing has changed through martial law. At least nothing undesirable.

And the bad news (children killed, coffins burnt, shit sprayed, people intimidated) disappeared.

I am happy with ML and I guess most of the Thai are, too.

Who could be against ML? Only those who would like to continue violence and intimidation.

If somebody speaks or write something in favour of the Redshirts we should remember who the Redshirts are:

a (may be not so large) group of pawns who do not really know what they are doing - just follow a few demagogic leaders who get paid for their dirty work.

(interesting to consider what mass psychology says)

They are armed and used those arms

they are poor but their arsenal is well equipped

They cheer when children are killed

They were openly ordered to bring 100.000 l of petrol to Bangkok and torch the city

they torched parts of Bangkok

they illegally (of course) occupied parts of Bangkok

they intimidate artists when they do not like their political stance and hinder them from performing

they do not respect courts when they do not judge the way they want,

then they threaten, burn coffins with the names of the judges or spill blood and shit

they do black magic

They are evil and violent (and some at best just dumb)

Are you the leader, or just believe everything you read, i am open to your obvious in the know.

[Bernard Flint]

Sooner or later you will have to lift martial law in those areas. You think the people will forget? I doubt it.

and what effect has it had on you ? I'll answer for you - zero

and what negative effect has it had on the general population of Thailand ? I'll answer for you - Zero

go ply your useless rhetoric somewhere else - you're like a broken record

You can speak for the general population.

But when it comes to eliminating corruption you can not speak for him unless you know him and all his dealings.

Sir

Talking about a broken record, rhetoric and abuse, say no more.

[luckytrev]

anyone else notice this new, recent line of "defense" from the junta that martial law is not really a problem since people can still (in this case) "buy things normally"?

There was the other poll saying that martial law is not a problem for people.

And all the while the junta claiming that they still need martial law - apparently because of some external or internal threats. The threats are always rather vague and mysterious.

Can you have it both ways? Life is 'normal' and 'it's dangerous out there!'

As soon as it could be made 100% sure that Thailand would forever be freed from the actions of the violent red shirts, I'm sure an vast majority of Thais would ask for the ML to be lifted. Maybe you with your red comrade friends here could positively contribute to the creation of such a safe situation, was it just by what you write on TV for a start. But when I read your: 'The threats are always rather vague and mysterious', I, alas, guess there will long be no floods in Thailand anymore by the time that can happen. As there was nothing vague or mysterious about the violences of 2009/2010 and of 2013/2014, that's all the point, but, very sadly, never ever IMO will you and the other, present and future, members of the propaganda brigade have the will nor the ability to admit it! And that's dramatic, for the red shirts' movement (which could, should play an important, peacefull, role in creating the future of this country, wthout the Shins and consorts), and for Thailand (by the absence of, any, truly 'democratic' organisation for the citizens to express their personal opinions through in politics).

you do know which group has been the most violent and killed the most people in Thailand, don't you?

Tip: color is neither red, nor yellow.

Well said, If martial law is so effective in diminishing protest, violence and bloodshed, I look forward to a safer South

[tbthailand]

anyone else notice this new, recent line of "defense" from the junta that martial law is not really a problem since people can still (in this case) "buy things normally"?

There was the other poll saying that martial law is not a problem for people.

And all the while the junta claiming that they still need martial law - apparently because of some external or internal threats. The threats are always rather vague and mysterious.

Can you have it both ways? Life is 'normal' and 'it's dangerous out there!'

As soon as it could be made 100% sure that Thailand would forever be freed from the actions of the violent red shirts, I'm sure an vast majority of Thais would ask for the ML to be lifted. Maybe you with your red comrade friends here could positively contribute to the creation of such a safe situation, was it just by what you write on TV for a start. But when I read your: 'The threats are always rather vague and mysterious', I, alas, guess there will long be no floods in Thailand anymore by the time that can happen. As there was nothing vague or mysterious about the violences of 2009/2010 and of 2013/2014, that's all the point, but, very sadly, never ever IMO will you and the other, present and future, members of the propaganda brigade have the will nor the ability to admit it! And that's dramatic, for the red shirts' movement (which could, should play an important, peacefull, role in creating the future of this country, wthout the Shins and consorts), and for Thailand (by the absence of, any, truly 'democratic' organisation for the citizens to express their personal opinions through in politics).

you do know which group has been the most violent and killed the most people in Thailand, don't you?

Tip: color is neither red, nor yellow.

Well said, If martial law is so effective in diminishing protest, violence and bloodshed, I look forward to a safer South

the south will be safe once the military gets their airship up and running (again)