Thread: Five injured as Thai Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts clash

I am sure the Red press is as delusional as some of the opinions piece in the BangkokPost

and your point was ?

let's not forget that Red leaders were taking the country hostage and being paid large sums of money to keep the cattle in place as human shields when the time was right to evacuate the stage.

They were cowards, plain and simple, as much as the army shooters. They left and "escaped" as the first sign of a crackdown, that typical Thai courage we are so familiar with.

Red Leaders == Fleeing Scums == Fugitive Thaksin Shills

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

The Bangkok Post's favourite "balanced" "objective" "liberal" on the Red Shirt protests in May 2010. Remember he wrote this as unarmed civilians were being shot in the head by army snipers.

"It's a rebellion. Put an end to it, swift, severe and certain."

Truth About Thailand: Put an End to this Rebellion

Again, is there something wrong with you?

Why is it you take a quote out of context and misuse it to back up your failed argument?

Oh yes, I know why.....I'm guessing it begins with a T.......

Actually what he wrote is mostly accurate Andrew. You really should come to Thailand sometime. We could meet up and I'll fill in the massive gaps in your awareness of how things operate here. Or is it that you don't want that?

He also wrote this in the same piece you cited...which seems to contradict your..

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

Ahh Voranai.

The man who wrote that the Red Shirts should be crushed.

Seems to me that he laments the lives lost and the destruction caused.

Truth About Thailand: Put an End to this Rebellion

Put an End to this Rebellion

Published: 16/05/2010 at 12:00 AM Bangkok Post

by Voranai Vanijaka

UDD members have lost their lives. This is unfortunate. It should never have happened. They should all be in our prayers and their families should be assisted in any way possible. But they've died in a rebellion against the rightful, democratic government of Thailand.

The security forces that have lost their lives. This is unfortunate. It should never have happened. They should all be in our prayers and their families should be assisted in any way possible.

Journalists and other innocent bystanders have lost their lives. This is unfortunate. It should never have happened. They should all be in our prayers and their families should be assisted in any way possible.

It didn't have to come to this. It shouldn't have come to this. But here we are on the brink of anarchy because of the pride, greed and vengefulness of one man, and of the indecisiveness, uncertainty and lack of leadership of another.

And...

To Thaksin and the UDD, returning Thaksin to power is worth the 50-odd lives already lost. And that figure is bound to rise. More than 1,000 have been injured and that figure will rise. The billions of baht in economic damage. And that figure will rise.

But oddly you don't write about this....you take a line out of a long opinion piece and use it out of context....how very odd.

Originally Posted by TLansford

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

The Bangkok Post's favourite "balanced" "objective" "liberal" on the Red Shirt protests in May 2010. Remember he wrote this as unarmed civilians were being shot in the head by army snipers.

"It's a rebellion. Put an end to it, swift, severe and certain."

- deleted link -

That is clearly "balanced"... like Fox News.

It is shameful that it was written in the middle of the crackdown to justify the gov't position. Other journalists were doing their job and reporting on events.

I am curious about your perspective on the Abhisit offer for elections and the eventual dismissal of that offer just before this 6 day crack-down. The simple, pro-gov't line was that Thaksin squashed the idea, the simple pro-UDD line is that Abhisit attached conditions that made the offer a non-offer.

Yes...conditions.....

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

the rightful, democratic government of Thailand.

be a long time till you see a bigger load .........................

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

Like I said weird how TD's resident anonymous PAD troll misses all the real good stuff...

I am neither a troll or a PAD supporter. It seems you have quite a habit of making up stuff about people.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

Ahh Voranai.

The man who wrote that the Red Shirts should be crushed.

The man who used his column to smear and attack the mother of Nurse Ked and the wife of Ah Kong, neither of whom he gave a right to reply.

As for his account - I wouldn't trust this man to tell me the time never mind give a proper balanced news piece on something like this.

Voranai is another of these fake Thai liberals who overwrites pontifications that appeal to the type of chin-rubber who thinks reading and understanding Voranai makes them some kind of intellectual.

He's a joke.

Why don't you and loose bowels combine your posts?
They are both full of shit!!

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by TLansford

... on the Abhisit offer for elections and the eventual dismissal of that offer just before this 6 day crack-down. The simple, pro-gov't line was that Thaksin squashed the idea, the simple pro-UDD line is that Abhisit attached conditions that made the offer a non-offer.

As far as I recall, the general view was that Abhisit was a puppet controlled by others and that the election offer - some 7 months hence - was a ploy to end the uprising. The future-election could easily have been postponed and the Reds wouldn't have been able to mobilize again with the same force and counter-measures would be in place to thwart it. In other words, they were at the barricades and it was a fight to the finish and had little choice but to insist on immediate dissolution of the court-army fiddled government and an immediate return to the ballot box.

Why couldn't the reds have mobilised again in such numbers? They had many huge rallies after the murders of 2010. I think your reasoning is somewhat at odds with reality here Tom.....

Anyway, here's what good ol' Wikipedia says....

-----
Election proposal

Further information: Thai general election, 2010

On 3 May, Abhisit proposed to dissolve Parlament on September an election on 14 November if the protesters were willing to stand down.[97] The following day Red-Shirt leaders expressed qualified support for the plan, but wanted more information about when parliament would be dissolved.[98][99] On the morning of 8 May, two policemen were killed and several bystanders were injured by a drive-by shooting near the Silom Financial district. Red-Shirt leader Weng Tojirakarn denied any involvement: "We are very sorry and we want to condemn the ones who were behind the attacks."[100]

Protesters demanded that Thailand's deputy prime minister be arrested for causing the deaths of 25 protesters when troops were used against protests on 10 April.[101] The protesters refused to end the rally, and on 13 May, the offer of an election was withdrawn.[102]

-----
Reuters

Thai protest leaders object to election timing | Reuters

Anti-government protesters in Thailand objected on Tuesday to proposed November elections, casting in doubt a government peace overture to end a two-month crisis that has paralyzed the economy. Protest leaders, who had demanded an immediate poll, said they had agreed to enter into a reconciliation process proposed by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, but took issue with his offer for a general election on November 14 and said they were not ready to leave their fortified encampment in central Bangkok.

They said Abhisit did not have authority to set an election date and urged him instead to propose a timetable for dissolving parliament -- a technicality analysts said could give the protesters an opportunity to seek a better offer.

The timing of elections is the most contentious issue in the plan floated by Abhisit on Monday to end a standoff in which 27 people were killed last month and nearly 1,000 wounded.

"We have agreed unanimously to enter the reconciliation process. We don't want any more loss of lives," said Veera Musikapong, chairman of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, known as the "red shirts."

"We are suspicious about the timeframe, which is within the power of the election commission and not the prime minister," he told thousands of supporters at the barricaded site they have occupied since April 3 in Bangkok's main commercial district.

ELECTION TIMING CRITICAL

The red shirts broadly back former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a populist multimillionaire who lives in self-imposed exile after his ouster in a 2006 military coup and subsequent conviction for graft.
The timing of when Abhisit dissolves parliament and holds an election is critical. Analysts say both sides want to be in power in September for a reshuffle of the powerful military and police forces, and passing of the national budget.

If Thaksin's camp prevails and is governing at the time of the military reshuffle, analysts expect big changes including the ousting of generals allied with Thailand's royalist elite, a prospect royalists fear could diminish the power of the monarchy.

"We want Abhisit to come back to us with a clear parliamentary dissolution date instead of an election date and we will meet and consider it again," another protest leader, Jatuporn Prompan, told Reuters.

The protesters showed no signs of leaving their 3 sq km (1.2 sq-mile) tented camp in the upscale shopping district. Asked if they would depart on Wednesday, protect leader Jaran Dittapichai said: "No, no, not yet. We cannot just leave immediately."

STOCKS RISE

The red shirts were likely pushing for an earlier date to dissolve parliament, said independent political scientist Sukhum Nuansakum. "The red shirts are turning the reconciliation offer to their advantage and milking it as much as possible."

Their leaders took turn on the stage criticizing the government for "divisive policies" -- from labeling them "terrorists" to accusing the movement of harboring republicans. They said they would fight those charges.


-----
I think this one covers a lot of it well....

Bangkok: how did it come to this? | Inside Story

Bangkok: how did it come to this?

The red shirts’ failure to agree to a November election pointed to a deeper loss of faith, with fatal consequences, write Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly

18 May 2010

On 3 May, Prime Minister Abhisit made a final offer, laying down what he described as a road map for national reconciliation. The centrepiece of the offer was an election on 14 November 2010, more than a year ahead of schedule. For a few days it looked like a peaceful resolution was in the offing. The reds took their time considering Abhisit’s offer, and their delays and qualifications appeared to be motivated not by intransigence but by a desire to step down from a position of strength. Then the deal came badly unstuck, seemingly over the theatrical technicality of precisely how the deputy prime minister (and security coordinator), Suthep Thaugsuban, should be called to account for the deaths of 10 April. The reds wanted him to report to the police; he insisted on reporting to an investigations office that fell under his own jurisdiction. The red-shirt leaders were also concerned about how the charges of terrorism against them would be handled. These very serious offences can be punished by life in prison or the death penalty in Thailand.

<snipped>

SO WHY didn’t the red shirts withdraw when Abhisit put his 14 November election offer on the table? All the signs pointed to a win by the red shirts’ political allies, the opposition Pheua Thai (For Thailand) Party, at a November election. Why couldn’t the red shirts wait just a few more months to achieve their political objective? Many lives may have been saved.

In the coming weeks and months much will be written about what went on within the red-shirt leadership during the early weeks of May 2010. There are strong signs of a split between moderate and hardline forces. There is much government-led speculation about the role of exiled prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in scuttling the deal. Many of the protesters remain fiercely loyal to Thaksin and there is little doubt that his financial backing has assisted the massive logistical effort involved in staging such a long protest. Some assert that Thaksin is interested in stoking chaos; others suggest that his interests would have been much better served if his political allies could form government after a November election. Much remains unknown and sorting out the details of what went on as the red shirts debated their response to Abhisit’s deal will have to wait until the fog of war clears a little.

But there is a much more fundamental reason for the failure of the red shirts to withdraw and the violent immolation of Ahbisit’s road map: Thailand has lost faith in electoral democracy.

Abhisit’s offer of a November election may have seemed reasonable, perhaps even generous to some, but it was essentially meaningless in a country where respect for electoral decisions has evaporated. The red shirts don’t need long memories to recognise the flimsiness of his offer. Just four years ago, in March 2006, following an earlier round of street protests, Thaksin Shinawatra called a snap election. The Democrat Party, led by Abhisit, decided to boycott the election, because they knew that they would lose. In the end Thaksin’s party received about 60 per cent of the votes cast but the result was cancelled by the courts on a dubious technicality.

Another Thaksin victory was likely in a repeat election scheduled for late 2006. That’s why the army staged its coup on 19 September 2006, pushing aside the most electorally popular government Thailand has ever seen. Although Abhisit said that he disapproved of coups, he has been the main political beneficiary of Thaksin’s removal. But he still couldn’t manage to win an election. In the post-coup election of December 2007 the Thaksin-aligned People Power Party won just short of an absolute majority. Many in the Bangkok elite wouldn’t accept that result either. The anti-Thaksin yellow shirts took to the streets when the new government was only a few months old, occupying Government House and eventually shutting down Bangkok’s international airport. This campaign to overthrow the elected government had the backing of Abhisit’s Democrats, and they got their way when the ruling party was dissolved by the Constitutional Court. With some army-led arm-twisting, Abhisit was finally able to stitch together a parliamentary majority.

Given the chain of events that brought Abhisit to power, why would the red shirts place their faith in his offer of an election? Powerful figures within the government are extremely reluctant to subject themselves to electoral judgement, so how could red-shirt leaders persuade the doubters in their midst that the road map could be trusted? With the yellow shirts openly hostile to the deal, how could the red shirts be confident that they wouldn’t seek to disrupt it?

And even if an election went ahead, recent history underlines the likelihood of extra-electoral intervention, either on the streets or in the courts, to overturn the result. Repeatedly vilified as Thaksin’s crowd-for-hire, how could the red shirts be confident that their future votes wouldn’t be dismissed once again as the product of money politics? Could they rely on the palace to add its moral authority to a defence of the electoral process? Of course not.

The red shirts may have made a fatal error in not accepting Abhisit’s 14 November deal. But their decision is just one facet of a much bigger problem. Thailand’s fatal flaw is its loss of faith in the electoral process, which has opened the way for hardliners to pursue violent alternatives. Even after the surrender of red shirt leaders on 19 May there is potential for further conflict and bloodshed. Sabotage, reprisals and protests in other parts of the country are now being reported. Violence on all sides is deplorable, but remember that those who condemn the red-shirt provocations most vigorously are also those who have consistently denied the legitimacy of their peaceful statements at the ballot box. •

-----
Some Bangkok Pundit pieces worth reading also

Abhisit offers November 14 election | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Reds give a qualified yes to Abhisit’s road map : Part 1 | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Reds give a qualified yes to Abhisit’s road map : Part 2 | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Look at it this way, if you were the Reds, would you have trusted what Abhisit said at that time? If he's going to call an election why wait 7 months? The answer is he was told 'no' and he knew his party would lose anyway. The 7 months was likely never a serious offer.

However, while I agree there was no reason for them, or anyone, to trust Abhisit, the fact remains that he did call an election and had promised elections. And it was a lot longer than 7 months (so what was the point of the red shirt rally again?). So yes, timescale wise it didn't suit Thaksin, but actually Abhisit did call elections. And it is rather poor reasoning to say that he wouldn't have done, when he did.

It is also rather poor reasoning to say that he wouldn't have called elections but the pressure from the red shirts made him do so, when we are also told Abhisit had the backing of the all powerful military and others, who control everything and are untouchable etc etc. One does not follow the other. You can't argue it is an all powerful untouchable amart/military and then say it caved in due to external pressure. That would be illogical...stupid even............all powerful forces don't cave.

Thanks for the links. Some of them I had not read.

Well, the points which I don't think fit are the "simple" explanations. The idea that it was squashed by Thaksin, for example. The "conditions" (that there is peace in the country and media "tow the line") are a bit more credible, ie: the UDD had no reason to believe Abhisit.

On the other hand, if he ever tried to back out of the deal, the UDD would have had justification for renewing protests and IMO, the gov't and military would not have wanted that.

The points about Suthep's case and the potential prosecutions as "terrorists" makes some sense. But it seems to me that the deal fell apart for other reasons that did not have anything to do with reason.

In the end, the UDD wanted clarification on details not directly related to the elections but very relevant to the protesters, and it was Abhisit who pulled the deal from the table. I am curious as to why that happened. I'm not sure that it was based on "reason".

let's not forget that Abbhisit invited the red leaders on TV for a live negotiation, so not believing Abbhisit was ridiculous, he was serious, and went great length to prove it.

and let's not forget the infamous SMS that stopped the negotiation, in front of everyone to see

the Reds were extremely dishonest with an hidden agenda, what was agenda ? we will never know for sure

I don't think that the UDD's agenda or that of Abhisit's was so "hidden". IMO the UDD wanted to force elections immediately, and Abhisit wanted the UDD to go away leaving his government in power.

But the offer for elections seemed, on the surface, reasonable and was, initially, welcomed. So i am curious about Andrew's thoughts on why it fell apart.

Originally Posted by TLansford

IMO the UDD wanted to force elections immediately

on what legal grounds could they force such an election ? because they didn't like the PM ?

he was legitimate despite the silly propaganda by the reds leadership and their "hidden" leader

Originally Posted by TLansford

Andrew's thoughts on why it fell apart.

Andrew seems to be another psychotic red farang, we got quite a few here, Calgary, Sabang, LooseBowel etc... their thoughts are meaningless and worthless, might as well asked some clueless Issaan peasant about it

I'm not surprised when anonymous trolls just outright lie about stuff.

"The fact remains that [Abhisit] did call an election".

No he didn't. That would've required dissolving the house. That never happened.

But lets face it - Abhisit had no democratic mandate to be making any kind of deals, offers or whatever.

He was unelected, remains unelectable and is loathed by vast swathes of Thailand.

The simple truth remains that the only way Abhisit got power was because of his reliance on violent PAD neo-fascist hate-mobs, his pals in the courts and his backing from the Thai Army. He kept that power by unleashing 1000s of Thai soldiers against completely legitimate civilian protests not once, but twice and held on for another year by killing over 90 civilians and turning central Bangkok into a war zone.

All this nonsense about "deals" on the table is complete garbage.

Abhisit had no right to even be in office making deals.

Abhisit, if he had any belief in even the tiniest bit of democracy, would've set an election date as soon as took office as it was patently obvious he had no mandate to rule.

Instead he chose to send snipers against nurses and school children.

He's a criminal. Plain and simple.

^ an ad hominem attack- but does it have anything to do with the red/ yellow shirts?

^ Try googling him. Seems he allegedly has form for attacking people in real life who disagree with his views. e.g. 'Complaining to their employers', etc. Pathetic and despicable behaviour.

Originally Posted by Gerbil

^ Try googling him. Seems he allegedly has form for attacking people in real life who disagree with his views. e.g. 'Complaining to their employers', etc. Pathetic and despicable behaviour.

it is OT

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

I'm not surprised when anonymous trolls just outright lie about stuff.

"The fact remains that [Abhisit] did call an election".

No he didn't. That would've required dissolving the house. That never happened.

But lets face it - Abhisit had no democratic mandate to be making any kind of deals, offers or whatever.

He was unelected, remains unelectable and is loathed by vast swathes of Thailand.

The simple truth remains that the only way Abhisit got power was because of his reliance on violent PAD neo-fascist hate-mobs, his pals in the courts and his backing from the Thai Army. He kept that power by unleashing 1000s of Thai soldiers against completely legitimate civilian protests not once, but twice and held on for another year by killing over 90 civilians and turning central Bangkok into a war zone.

All this nonsense about "deals" on the table is complete garbage.

Abhisit had no right to even be in office making deals.

Abhisit, if he had any belief in even the tiniest bit of democracy, would've set an election date as soon as took office as it was patently obvious he had no mandate to rule.

Instead he chose to send snipers against nurses and school children.

He's a criminal. Plain and simple.

So I agree with you on how he came to be PM and in deed, your point that he had "no right" to be in office is essentially the perspective of the UDD and why the UDD was protesting in 2009 & 2010.

But none-the-less, he did make an offer for elections in Nov '10 and while I have doubts about how sincere he was, it is still not clear to me why this never happened. It would have diffused the situation.

IMO, the plan for the May dispersal was already in place when he proposed the elections. The timing is too clear. I don't think that he *really*wanted the elections in 2010. Abhisit seems to be a politician who is careful to say the right things. It looks like he proposed the elections so that if they were accepted on his terms, then OK, & he still had options to renege. And if the election offer was not accepted, he had the army ready the refusal could be used as justifying the dispersal.

But that is all just speculation.

As for this red-yellow incident, one can barely count on the English language news journals in Thailand to get the events straight, much less provide objective reporting.

I think you have to judge the credibility of any false smear by the simple fact that the person making said smear won't even put their real name to it.

What I can confirm is that an expat was arrested when they returned to the UK, and that they admitted harassment and took a police caution.

This arrest came after a 6month hate campaign of my family although no-one has yet be able to make clear why, if I was such an asshole, my family were directly threatened and targeted.

Of course I have no control over the UK police. I made a complaint to the police, gave them the evidence, they choose to act and the person they arrested admitted the offence.

But I digress.

Yes, Abhisit offered elections and at the time I thought the UDD should've taken them.

But I can also see why they said no. The unelected and unelectable Abhisit is as crooked as they come and was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position. If he was prepared to do that in May he'd certainly have been prepared to do that in November.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

But I digress.

Yes, Abhisit offered elections and at the time I thought the UDD should've taken them.

But I can also see why they said no. The unelected and unelectable Abhisit is as crooked as they come and was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position. If he was prepared to do that in May he'd certainly have been prepared to do that in November.

If he was "ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position", why then did he call an election and relinquish his position....and earlier than was required by law (you know, the whole tenure thing...)?

Just curious...

Originally Posted by Gerbil

^ Try googling him. Seems he allegedly has form for attacking people in real life who disagree with his views. e.g. 'Complaining to their employers', etc. Pathetic and despicable behaviour.

he sounds like a real bully, no surprise from a farang calling himself Red

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

If he was "ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position", why then did he call an election and relinquish his position

He was responsible for killing 100's of innocent protestors campaigning against the illegal unelected junta, coup-issued law proxy.

Live fire zones.

After that it was Hilary gave him his orders, not the monkey

You can't argue with that

Ok, but that doesn't answer the point made by Spooner, which is rather different.