4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

If you think the good General took power because he wanted to make the country a better place for all, it's you that doesn't understand Thai politics.

 

Any rational person willing to invest a few hours would come to the same conclusion.

 

God forbid any Junta-huggers read the recent CIA CREST document dump with a focus on Thailand; they will probably go into apoplectic shock.

 

Probably best for some people to remain ignorant, and happy that the trains run on time.

 

Ha ha - very true and funny post! Yes, the many Thai arch-Establishment worshippers whom I know would implode and become a black hole if any particle of Thai-historical reality touched their lives. If they saw the recently released information about Thai personages that you refer to  - even their black hole would disintegrate into a deeper and darker black hole (of absolute denial and hysterical horror)!

Most Thai people do not like to discuss politics. But, every time I mention Little P., most people seem to just roll their eyes, and if asked, they mention they do not have much hope or faith in the little man. 

5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

If you think the good General took power because he wanted to make the country a better place for all, it's you that doesn't understand Thai politics.

 

Any rational person willing to invest a few hours would come to the same conclusion.

 

God forbid any Junta-huggers read the recent CIA CREST document dump with a focus on Thailand; they will probably go into apoplectic shock.

 

Probably best for some people to remain ignorant, and happy that the trains run on time.

 

To be fair and though it's no excuse the military genuinely believed by seizing power the country could be made a better place.Even the most tinpot dictator does not have a Marvel Comic type determination to make the world a worse place.In the case of Thailand there is also a long history of military intervention in politics most with dire results but some successful in moving a logjam.The instinct to intervene is built in and one can disapprove of military coups and still believe the perpetrators are decent patriots (in their own eyes).

 

The way I look at it is that those who knew better, who understood the context and the threat to democracy: the politicians of influence - but still embraced the likes of Suthep (literally in the case of Abhisit).Hard to forgive these expensively Western educated people:easier to forgive simple minded generals who were trying to do good by their own lights.

 

Richard Lloyd Parry summarises the issues brilliantly.

 

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n12/richard-lloydparry/the-story-of-thaksin-shinawatra

 

Money quote:   Many people bear responsibility for Thailand’s divisions, prominent among them Thaksin, who must dearly wish that he had rubbed his enemies’ noses in it a bit less gleefully during his years in office. But the suave villainy of the Democrat Party, and of men like Abhisit and Korn, is insufficiently recognised. They understand how democratic opposition works, and how defeat, over time, strengthens losing parties, by purging them of what is unrealistic and superfluous, and forcing them into congruence with the aspirations of voters. Twice they have had the opportunity to reject military force and to insist on the primacy of elections; twice they have held the generals’ coats for them, and watched civil rights being trampled on, in the hope of gaining some respite from their own chronic unelectability. The Democrat Party’s leaders – young, attractive and cosmopolitan – could have positioned themselves as mediators between a corrupt, complacent old elite and a corrupt, arrogant new power. Instead, they chose their natural side in the class war, and achieved the feat of losing the moral high ground to a man such as Thaksin. Their responsibility, and their disgrace, are very great.

Edited January 24, 20179 yr by jayboy

13 hours ago, smedly said:

seriously, go tell the man to his face, like I have said many times on here - make your comments about someone like they are standing in front of you

 

no I didn't think so

So why do you post on an anonymous forum?

And most people haven't a clue what reconciliation is, nor the context this government intends it.... Other than pontificating bs

complete nonsense headline based on complete nonsense source and a complete nonsense concept....how anyone could take it seriously is beyond me.

Edited January 25, 20179 yr by Alan Deer

20 hours ago, jayboy said:

To be fair and though it's no excuse the military genuinely believed by seizing power the country could be made a better place.Even the most tinpot dictator does not have a Marvel Comic type determination to make the world a worse place.In the case of Thailand there is also a long history of military intervention in politics most with dire results but some successful in moving a logjam.The instinct to intervene is built in and one can disapprove of military coups and still believe the perpetrators are decent patriots (in their own eyes).

 

The way I look at it is that those who knew better, who understood the context and the threat to democracy: the politicians of influence - but still embraced the likes of Suthep (literally in the case of Abhisit).Hard to forgive these expensively Western educated people:easier to forgive simple minded generals who were trying to do good by their own lights.

 

Richard Lloyd Parry summarises the issues brilliantly.

 

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n12/richard-lloydparry/the-story-of-thaksin-shinawatra

 

Money quote:   Many people bear responsibility for Thailand’s divisions, prominent among them Thaksin, who must dearly wish that he had rubbed his enemies’ noses in it a bit less gleefully during his years in office. But the suave villainy of the Democrat Party, and of men like Abhisit and Korn, is insufficiently recognised. They understand how democratic opposition works, and how defeat, over time, strengthens losing parties, by purging them of what is unrealistic and superfluous, and forcing them into congruence with the aspirations of voters. Twice they have had the opportunity to reject military force and to insist on the primacy of elections; twice they have held the generals’ coats for them, and watched civil rights being trampled on, in the hope of gaining some respite from their own chronic unelectability. The Democrat Party’s leaders – young, attractive and cosmopolitan – could have positioned themselves as mediators between a corrupt, complacent old elite and a corrupt, arrogant new power. Instead, they chose their natural side in the class war, and achieved the feat of losing the moral high ground to a man such as Thaksin. Their responsibility, and their disgrace, are very great.

To be fair and though it's no excuse the military genuinely believed by seizing power the country could be made a better place" - why the military took power is pretty clear....and that's not why.