I find the repetitive phrase like ‘residence/Yellow Shirts’ a grossly distortion of fact to the point of having that mind-bending quality. If you are a Red Shirt supporter, why not front up to it. There is no shame in that. But please do not act like Jatuporn, by denying that those smashing Abhisit’s car were not really real Red Shirts.
Both Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts are just equally easily exploitable. Both were simply whipped up emotionally to stand up against what each perceive to be what was wrong.
About the so-called ‘double standard’, it is being repeated so much that it begins to sound like a parrot. The reality and the problem is that there is not any ‘Standard’ in the first place. Somchai was dumbfound with the Yellow Shirts, Abhisit got lucky with the way he dealt with the Red Shirts. Both circumstances are different with the exception that the Yellow Shirts suffered more fatal wounds among its supporters then the Red Shirts. If any thing, perhaps, in the Red Shirts case, at least they benefit from the mistake learned from the mishandling of the Yellow Shirts. Imagine if the Thai police were to fire tear gas at the Red Shirts and killed a few in the process, I hate to imagine what the consequence might be, with the uncontrollable mob.
I think credit ought to be given to Veera for calling off the protest.
Jim: Q:”Has Abhisit created a new Stalinist (”Land of Smiles”) social and political environment in his attempt at the coercive muting all Other truths and disparate voices?”
A: No. He hasn’t created it. It’s been shaping up this way for a long time, way before Mark Veg, who is merely opportunistically, cynically & perversely perpetuating a situation handed to him on a silver platter – just as his antecendents have always done.
I find the preponderance of posts on this site which imply that there are 2 sides (goodies & baddies) in the current Thai situation extremely naiive. The truth is that there are many ‘sides,’ & they’re all controlled by the ‘baddies’ (i.e. the elements which lie, cheat, extort, siphon funds, employ brutal violence, and appear to be only interested in grabbing power so that they can be the inheritors of this viciously corrupt & lawless state.). If there were ‘goodies’ in Thailand, an unrealistically simplistic view, they would be those who are powerless & could never have aspirations in that direction.
Your apparent alignment with the Reds is ridiculous. (If you were ‘Thaksin’s handyman,’ OF COURSE it would be a problem. I don’t believe you are, but how could you possibly make a statement like that?) Your lack of distance, as a social scientist, in describing the current events, destroys your credibility & brings no credit to the reputation of your institution. As does your promiscuous & convoluted use of language (One expects a senior Humanities academic to be relatively literate.).
What political harmony?
There has only been a standoff in succeeding administrations and not a lot of sincere harmony that left room for improvement.
Having read the Economist article, I can find little wrong with it.
The Economist’s observations are reasonably sound. The concept that Thailand’s head of state is totally removed from politics is logically unsupportable at best. I know of no country where the head of state is completely cut off from influence from or influence over government and events. although the Economist article on 16 April echoes Handley’s book in respects, it is a good wrap-up of the situation here despite discomfort in admitting it. The sensitive issue of members of the Privy council being involved in deposing Thaksin and ‘someone’ being totally devoid of knowledge or possible involvement is nice in theory but does not wash well.
To Dickie and his mates who insist on deflecting from the issues raised in my original posting: maybe you guys should read a bit more critically and between the lines too (& like for instance about Newin seen & photographed on a motorbike organising blue shirts at Pattaya), ask more open-ended questions among a wider range of informants, rely less on the now disgraced English language propagandised mouthpieces for the government (you know which pieces I am talking about), give more credit to possibilities raised in blogs that do not necessarily affirm with you own prejudices, learn to listen more- and then…and then -you may just actually come to know as much as I know!! 5-5-5-5!! And if you friend Abhisit calls for free and fair elections, reverts to the 1997 democratic Constitution, prosecutes as promised earlier the PAD leadership in accordance with the current law, and overhauls the stacked judiciary, – then I will be the first to kiss his feet!! Thanks guys- I enjoyed the banter!!
nganadeeleg, if this were a scoop, ‘leaked sources’ wouldn’t be enough for me either. But what is written isn’t an ‘exclusive’, ‘read all about it’ type of article. It’s a reflection. It is a reflection with a particular bias, of course. But I find that perfectly understandable. What occurs after the initial post is not so relevant because they are responses to individuals. I am far from being an academic too. If people are tired, why don’t they drop it?
Dickie, there are many articles which require proper referencing. A comment or a brief reflection are hardly articles which require referencing. Jim could be saying ‘in fact’, in regards to what he believes to be facts. Then it is his belief against one who has a different belief from facts. The facts surrounding the events, the 156(?) deaths are not established, and personally I don’t think it helps making claims to any truth when there is no or little evidence. That’s not to say that there isn’t any evidence(?) Obstinance on either side is equally culpable. But if you think you can pursue this beyond the face value of what Jim says then you’re only going to dig yourself into a hole. It’s good you’re thinking about it though!
I more trust an academic who posts with his real name to have a reasoned belief irrespective of evidence immediately presented, than someone who applies seemingly emotionally charged and irrational legal appeals! The irrationality is what lumps people into the lunatic basket. This is a forum where you can post anonymously. What more can you expect?
I made a reply to your comment (#23) but probaby NM moderators decided against posting it.
alrigh, I’ll not repeat all that again (shame, it was a very nice detailed answer to you) , but just say this :
you accuse me of being “intellectually dishonest” because you claim that I “believe” words. pls point to me ANY single place here where I use word “believe” ?
it looks like you slant me for something you IMAGINE I said !
at the same time – you say thing like :
“I don’t doubt Abhisit …”
which practically means : “I believe Abhisit”
because doubt = disbelive, and “don’t doubt = believe”
see dictionary, particularly what is Antonym for word “doubt” !
Abhisit has finally said something about Blue -shirts – I might be wrong, but I think this is the FIRST time ever he spoke about them :
Interview With Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva
“The blue shirts were there for a couple of reasons. First is that I think they saw that the police could not handle the red shirts, and that a number of people, including local people, didn’t want that to happen, so they were actually positioned behind the police line to make sure that the police just don’t allow people to go through. We were trying to say, look, everybody has to be very careful, we don’t want this to generate into violence and bloodshed, and so that’s why the blue shirts were like an organized group to back up the police , but we clearly said that any group involved must not use violence, and anybody who violates that will be prosecuted, so there will be cases brought against both blue and red shirts. ”
I honestly don’t know if these buses have been driven there by agent provocateurs, or the gas tanker placed at Din Daeng apartments.
Usually it is my experience that, lacking evidence of the contrary, the simplest explanation is the one coming closest to the truth. And in this case i so far believe that it is a case of protesters having been very angry, and just lost control. Human nature.
In my youth i have taken part in many violent protests in Germany, and it was normal that cars were set ablaze by protesters. Don’t get me wrong – i do not condone this, it was just the way things were at the time in Germany, and i am not proud that i have taken part in these protests then. I was very young and stupid, and it was fun at the time, but i have not thought about the consequences.
But on the other hand, maybe because of my experiences i do not see the burned buses as a major issue (the gas tanker could have become one, but fortunately that was averted). This is just the way things are when protests get out of hand.
I will try to follow up the issue though, i have read Jim Taylor’s post. i will ask people who are experienced, and whose judgments i respect. I do not know who Jim’s sources are. Things like this are of course possible, and that the Blue Shirts have been used in Pattaya as agent provocateurs is clear.
I personally don’t think that it is likely that these blue shirts in red shirt disguise have driven up those buses because the Red Shirts do know each other from the many protests. But who knows. Strange things happen at times, and much of these conflicts are very murky indeed, and concrete evidence is more than hard to come by.
There is a lot more i could write, but i do not have sufficient evidence or proof, but only suspicions, and i could be badly wrong. One thing i have learned following for three years this mess – things are often not as they appear, and i have to be very careful not to lose myself in conspiracy theories (of which some are likely). At times i have been mislead, by purpose, or because people unconsciously made fact out of rumor, and therefore i try to make sure that what i write is supported by enough evidence. When i have enough evidence of collusion (such as with the Blue Shirts in Pattaya), i will write about it, or at least some of it, enough for people to get the picture, and without bringing me and my sources in danger.
Reporting on these socio-political conflicts is like moving through a maze full of booby traps – physically, psychologically and intellectually incredibly demanding.
coz as I said – from this video you can’t see ANYTHING except the dark DOTS on the dark screen – not even faces, not even “color” of t-shirts (or whatever they are dresssed int).
that’s why police and government did not and can not possibly use it as ANY evidence – even though they might play it for some reference, nothing else.
they can’t even use these students as a credible witnesses – since they were so far away. if they could – they would. but they know very well, that these students can’t provide any other more credible information than this video – because they themselve DID NOT see anything else, any FACES etc.
so, Daniel – even government and police are obviously smarter than you are ! 😉
“But there’s other replies from red shirts like … you!!! which was more prominent. … ”
… Those kinds of reasoning is the most irresponsible irritating annoying disturbing excuse I’ve ever seen! …
…. Those kinds of reasoning is the most irresponsible irritating annoying disturbing excuse I’ve ever seen! …
this is what I call MORONIC , coz you assume too much – like me being a protester or a red-shirt. 🙂
sorry to dissapoint you – I’m neither a protester nor a red (or any other color) shirt. yeah, I have many-colored T-shirts though.
REASONING ?
what any other reasoning is needed here? I said the truth and stand by it: on this video can’t see anything else than black DOTS – no any faces, no other details to prove who did what and when.
therefore – any attempt to prove anything by this video is simply ridiculous. because DOTS – are not faces or persons. these DOTS can be anybody. seeing DOTS is not sufficient amount of information to make any conclusions.
sure, it can be surmised who / where the army / protesters were – the position of the clashing sides. but it is not sufficient to surmise – WHO those supposed “red-shirts” (or other color shirts ?) were ?
DO YOU SEE ANY COLOR there in this video – except some brownish poor light with black spots, dots and patches ?
this is very simple reasoning. and if “OMG” is your only reaction to such reasoning – well, then it shows pretty much who is moronic here, doesn’t it?
because “OMG” is just an expletive – it can’t be considered as a serious argument.
so, I agree with what you said : it is a waste of time to argue …. with you ! so, from now on I’ll simply ignore you and skip your comments as moronic.
you quoted nation as saying, “Suthep encouraged provincial governors to launch campaigns to educate people about democracy and instil a democratic spirit. ”
seriously, what is wrong with Suthep? Did you know that Provincial Governors in Thailand are appointed and not elected? How can you lecture about ‘democracy’ much less 2 elected bodies to make a constitution when you cannot even have an elected Governor?
How come only Bangkok gets to elect their Governor? Is it because Bkk people are the only educated ones in the country? Or the ones who cannot be ‘bought’?
Why can’t they, this anonymous professorial circle, treat Jim Taylor with the respect they seem to demand themselves?
Perhaps because they are getting tired of hearing about leaked sources, informants etc, and how great Thaksin was (without conceding that he ever did anything wrong – legally, ethically or morally).
Jim, can you offer anything more on this snippet from the past: Leaked sources indicate that Thaksin’s billions have been used by these same people taken out of his domestic bank accouts (at the time frozen) so Thaksin had to be found guilty at any cost- even changing the law and emplacing judiciary that were anti-Thaksin and pro-Democrat (who were in alliance with the military for their own ambitions). Thaksin therefore has to be found guilty and he must be imprisoned.
I’m not saying it not true, or true, but I’m sorry ‘leaked sources’ just isn’t enough for me, and I’m not evenclose to being an academic!
Once you come good on that one, I’m sure you will have all the respect you deserve.
And I thought NM would be delighted with this piece of Thai political news. Two elected bodies . . . TWO! When we Thais decide to embrace democracy . . . we always double our efforts.
Nick Nostziz, (#173) I have avoided putting in my meagre 2 cents worth on this post, but have been following all the comments, with great interest.
The “hysteria” being voiced by some of the posters on this and some of the related topics on NM, does not seem very productive, to me.
I feel some of the posters are becoming so immersed in the “propaganda” war, they are losing sight of the issues.
To your credit, you have tried to maintain your stance without resorting to the gross distortions, which appear to be coming from some of the other voices – on all sides (there are more than 2 sides, I think we all agree on that).
I respect your comment in an earlier posting where, whilst not exactly “taking sides”, you do make your “sympathies” quite openly known.
You have also attempted to answer your critics, with what to me appear to be quite rational points – particularly for someone who one could easily call you, an “imbedded” reporter(even if not officially recognized as such).
I have often not agreed with your comments, but I do agree with your last paragraph :
“Much depends now, of course, how the Red Shirts and the other factions will proceed in the future, but that we will only know when things happened. I won’t speculate here on what may happen. I will continue following the events as much as i can, as long as i can stay relatively safe.”
Please keep your pledge and remain objective (as much as you can).
He might as well cite ‘respected academic-journalist’ Chang Noi:
‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarhcy is not involved.’
‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarchy is not involved.’
Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban also urged provincial governors to use ideas from the “Stop Hurting Thailand and Stop Violence” network to launch similar campaigns in order to bring peace to society. The country’s security was a worry to many Thais and foreigners alike.
Suthep encouraged provincial governors to launch campaigns to educate people about democracy and instil a democratic spirit. “We have to do this because people have been confused, especially with constitutional amendments that distort democracy theories and manipulate them to suit political and self interest,” he said.
He said political discord was caused by pure ignorance. “Provincial governors know the root causes of the problems but they adopt a hands-off attitude by saying the problems should be resolved by politicians,” he said. Training and campaigns on constitutional monarchy must be organised to restore public faith and confidence in this ruling system.
Suthep instructed provincial governors to prevent the public from crossing the line and organising violent protests. “They must not breach the Constitution and if any governors cannot handle the problems, they can reach me for help immediately,” he said.
He said if any village or province takes sides, it means the people do not have a basic understanding of democracy. “It is the duty of provincial governors to campaign for democracy, campaign against vote buying and electoral fraud,” he said.
Provincial governors were also instructed to launch projects that allow the public to exhibit their loyalty to the monarchy.
Your few last posts beginning with wherein you challenge your doubters to provide counter-evidence have been incredible.
I really did like your report, a lot in fact. I’ve been sending a lot of my friends and people I know to view this site.
Especially post #173 where you have pointed the obvious and sad double-standards made by this government in their persecutions of ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ shirts. As well as the more obvious clampdown on the ‘Red’ media while leaving ASTV and the remainder untouched.
There is one question whose answer (if you have sources) that should be answered. In another post a “Jim Taylor” stated factually that the ‘blue shirts’ were behind the parking of the gas tanks and driving the buses into the soldiers. While this is plausible, is there any evidence that you know from your experience that it is in fact ‘true’. During the height of the crisis, where you were (not just at Din Daeng), did any “red shirts” tell you this, or even bring this supposition to you?
I ask because I had only one source who was actually there at the red shirt protest (and whose name I didn’t keep), I have no way of countering or collaborating Jim’s theory, sorry ‘factual events of what happened’. But as you have been there (and I can get in touch with you through here), I just thought I’d ask.
You’re right, as Jim also has said, it is a confusing time.
Also, I do mind being lumped with Vichai N, and I haven’t gone so far to call anyone “Thaksin’s Lackey” or come up with some weird sorry name.
However, I do have problem with Jim’s assertion of ‘fact’ that 156 people died, and his other opinions and assertions that he is passing on as the ‘truth’.
His point on ISOC’s non-credibleness did not need for him to insert ‘facts’ that he cannot prove.
I don’t care if you don’t respect me, besides, I’m not an academic nor am I an opinion-maker or political consultant/etc.
If Jim had simply been ‘asking people to question things’ I would commend him. If he set up different scenarios as ‘probabilities’ and ‘possibilities’ you would probably see me here defending him against Vichai N., et al.
But instead, Jim decided to throw opinions and rumors around as “facts”.
I advise you to go read “Nick Nositz’s” first hand account on the red shirt movement (if you haven’t done so already), and you will see how clearly he differentiates ‘hearsay’ from fact, and leaves the reader to come to their own conclusion. Jim however, has not left that window open, he simply states that his “sources” provide the ‘truth’ and as such, everyone who doesn’t believe him (or dare question him) is a close-minded rightist bigot.
So my question then is, how is that different from PAD/Sondhi who claims Red Shirt are all paid?
For example:
“Before a number of leaders walked out they raised a question to be passed to the army boss General Anupong: “when Somchai was elected PM why did he force him to resign and yet this time he did not do the same thing?””
—> Valid point that needs to be questioned and applauded. Why did Anupong have double-standards?? Its a question that can lead readers to very obvious conclusions, that are all valid.
But “(actually caused by Abhisit’s agent provocateurs, or Newin’s Blue shirts wearing Red, such as the seizing of buses) ”
—> Is an plausible opinion inserted as ‘fact’ because of the word ‘actually’ instead of the the world ‘likely caused by…’
the word ‘actually’ doesn’t let a reader decide, it tells him an opinion based on sources he ‘heard’ (which are partisan sources mind you)
Again I state, if he tried to pass these ‘facts’ or ‘allegations’ in an Adelaide court of law (since Thai courts are run by kangaroos), would he be able to prove his facts?
If not, then he should do the intellectually honest thing and reword himself accordingly. He is an academic, and he knows what I am saying.
Its sad that such a good first hand account loses all credibility because of one word.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The crushing of the Red Shirts
I find the repetitive phrase like ‘residence/Yellow Shirts’ a grossly distortion of fact to the point of having that mind-bending quality. If you are a Red Shirt supporter, why not front up to it. There is no shame in that. But please do not act like Jatuporn, by denying that those smashing Abhisit’s car were not really real Red Shirts.
Both Red Shirts and Yellow Shirts are just equally easily exploitable. Both were simply whipped up emotionally to stand up against what each perceive to be what was wrong.
About the so-called ‘double standard’, it is being repeated so much that it begins to sound like a parrot. The reality and the problem is that there is not any ‘Standard’ in the first place. Somchai was dumbfound with the Yellow Shirts, Abhisit got lucky with the way he dealt with the Red Shirts. Both circumstances are different with the exception that the Yellow Shirts suffered more fatal wounds among its supporters then the Red Shirts. If any thing, perhaps, in the Red Shirts case, at least they benefit from the mistake learned from the mishandling of the Yellow Shirts. Imagine if the Thai police were to fire tear gas at the Red Shirts and killed a few in the process, I hate to imagine what the consequence might be, with the uncontrollable mob.
I think credit ought to be given to Veera for calling off the protest.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Jim: Q:”Has Abhisit created a new Stalinist (”Land of Smiles”) social and political environment in his attempt at the coercive muting all Other truths and disparate voices?”
A: No. He hasn’t created it. It’s been shaping up this way for a long time, way before Mark Veg, who is merely opportunistically, cynically & perversely perpetuating a situation handed to him on a silver platter – just as his antecendents have always done.
I find the preponderance of posts on this site which imply that there are 2 sides (goodies & baddies) in the current Thai situation extremely naiive. The truth is that there are many ‘sides,’ & they’re all controlled by the ‘baddies’ (i.e. the elements which lie, cheat, extort, siphon funds, employ brutal violence, and appear to be only interested in grabbing power so that they can be the inheritors of this viciously corrupt & lawless state.). If there were ‘goodies’ in Thailand, an unrealistically simplistic view, they would be those who are powerless & could never have aspirations in that direction.
Your apparent alignment with the Reds is ridiculous. (If you were ‘Thaksin’s handyman,’ OF COURSE it would be a problem. I don’t believe you are, but how could you possibly make a statement like that?) Your lack of distance, as a social scientist, in describing the current events, destroys your credibility & brings no credit to the reputation of your institution. As does your promiscuous & convoluted use of language (One expects a senior Humanities academic to be relatively literate.).
“…the Thai monarchy is not involved…”
What political harmony?
There has only been a standoff in succeeding administrations and not a lot of sincere harmony that left room for improvement.
Having read the Economist article, I can find little wrong with it.
The Economist’s observations are reasonably sound. The concept that Thailand’s head of state is totally removed from politics is logically unsupportable at best. I know of no country where the head of state is completely cut off from influence from or influence over government and events. although the Economist article on 16 April echoes Handley’s book in respects, it is a good wrap-up of the situation here despite discomfort in admitting it. The sensitive issue of members of the Privy council being involved in deposing Thaksin and ‘someone’ being totally devoid of knowledge or possible involvement is nice in theory but does not wash well.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
To Dickie and his mates who insist on deflecting from the issues raised in my original posting: maybe you guys should read a bit more critically and between the lines too (& like for instance about Newin seen & photographed on a motorbike organising blue shirts at Pattaya), ask more open-ended questions among a wider range of informants, rely less on the now disgraced English language propagandised mouthpieces for the government (you know which pieces I am talking about), give more credit to possibilities raised in blogs that do not necessarily affirm with you own prejudices, learn to listen more- and then…and then -you may just actually come to know as much as I know!! 5-5-5-5!! And if you friend Abhisit calls for free and fair elections, reverts to the 1997 democratic Constitution, prosecutes as promised earlier the PAD leadership in accordance with the current law, and overhauls the stacked judiciary, – then I will be the first to kiss his feet!! Thanks guys- I enjoyed the banter!!
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
nganadeeleg, if this were a scoop, ‘leaked sources’ wouldn’t be enough for me either. But what is written isn’t an ‘exclusive’, ‘read all about it’ type of article. It’s a reflection. It is a reflection with a particular bias, of course. But I find that perfectly understandable. What occurs after the initial post is not so relevant because they are responses to individuals. I am far from being an academic too. If people are tired, why don’t they drop it?
Dickie, there are many articles which require proper referencing. A comment or a brief reflection are hardly articles which require referencing. Jim could be saying ‘in fact’, in regards to what he believes to be facts. Then it is his belief against one who has a different belief from facts. The facts surrounding the events, the 156(?) deaths are not established, and personally I don’t think it helps making claims to any truth when there is no or little evidence. That’s not to say that there isn’t any evidence(?) Obstinance on either side is equally culpable. But if you think you can pursue this beyond the face value of what Jim says then you’re only going to dig yourself into a hole. It’s good you’re thinking about it though!
I more trust an academic who posts with his real name to have a reasoned belief irrespective of evidence immediately presented, than someone who applies seemingly emotionally charged and irrational legal appeals! The irrationality is what lumps people into the lunatic basket. This is a forum where you can post anonymously. What more can you expect?
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
@Dickie Simpkins #23
I made a reply to your comment (#23) but probaby NM moderators decided against posting it.
alrigh, I’ll not repeat all that again (shame, it was a very nice detailed answer to you) , but just say this :
you accuse me of being “intellectually dishonest” because you claim that I “believe” words. pls point to me ANY single place here where I use word “believe” ?
it looks like you slant me for something you IMAGINE I said !
at the same time – you say thing like :
“I don’t doubt Abhisit …”
which practically means : “I believe Abhisit”
because doubt = disbelive, and “don’t doubt = believe”
see dictionary, particularly what is Antonym for word “doubt” !
so, WHO is “intellectually dishonest” ? 😉
The crushing of the Red Shirts
@ Nick #173
Abhisit has finally said something about Blue -shirts – I might be wrong, but I think this is the FIRST time ever he spoke about them :
Interview With Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva
“The blue shirts were there for a couple of reasons. First is that I think they saw that the police could not handle the red shirts, and that a number of people, including local people, didn’t want that to happen, so they were actually positioned behind the police line to make sure that the police just don’t allow people to go through. We were trying to say, look, everybody has to be very careful, we don’t want this to generate into violence and bloodshed, and so that’s why
the blue shirts were like an organized group to back up the police
, but we clearly said that any group involved must not use violence, and anybody who violates that will be prosecuted, so there will be cases brought against both blue and red shirts.
”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/world/asia/06thai-excerpts.html?_r=2&ref=asia.html
well, let’s see how Abhisit will prosecute the Blue shirts. so far, 5 months he is in office, he didn’t do much to prosecute PAD.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
“Dickie Simpkins”:
I honestly don’t know if these buses have been driven there by agent provocateurs, or the gas tanker placed at Din Daeng apartments.
Usually it is my experience that, lacking evidence of the contrary, the simplest explanation is the one coming closest to the truth. And in this case i so far believe that it is a case of protesters having been very angry, and just lost control. Human nature.
In my youth i have taken part in many violent protests in Germany, and it was normal that cars were set ablaze by protesters. Don’t get me wrong – i do not condone this, it was just the way things were at the time in Germany, and i am not proud that i have taken part in these protests then. I was very young and stupid, and it was fun at the time, but i have not thought about the consequences.
But on the other hand, maybe because of my experiences i do not see the burned buses as a major issue (the gas tanker could have become one, but fortunately that was averted). This is just the way things are when protests get out of hand.
I will try to follow up the issue though, i have read Jim Taylor’s post. i will ask people who are experienced, and whose judgments i respect. I do not know who Jim’s sources are. Things like this are of course possible, and that the Blue Shirts have been used in Pattaya as agent provocateurs is clear.
I personally don’t think that it is likely that these blue shirts in red shirt disguise have driven up those buses because the Red Shirts do know each other from the many protests. But who knows. Strange things happen at times, and much of these conflicts are very murky indeed, and concrete evidence is more than hard to come by.
There is a lot more i could write, but i do not have sufficient evidence or proof, but only suspicions, and i could be badly wrong. One thing i have learned following for three years this mess – things are often not as they appear, and i have to be very careful not to lose myself in conspiracy theories (of which some are likely). At times i have been mislead, by purpose, or because people unconsciously made fact out of rumor, and therefore i try to make sure that what i write is supported by enough evidence. When i have enough evidence of collusion (such as with the Blue Shirts in Pattaya), i will write about it, or at least some of it, enough for people to get the picture, and without bringing me and my sources in danger.
Reporting on these socio-political conflicts is like moving through a maze full of booby traps – physically, psychologically and intellectually incredibly demanding.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
@DanielCU #168 (and previous)
OMG – is what I consider moronic here
coz as I said – from this video you can’t see ANYTHING except the dark DOTS on the dark screen – not even faces, not even “color” of t-shirts (or whatever they are dresssed int).
that’s why police and government did not and can not possibly use it as ANY evidence – even though they might play it for some reference, nothing else.
they can’t even use these students as a credible witnesses – since they were so far away. if they could – they would. but they know very well, that these students can’t provide any other more credible information than this video – because they themselve DID NOT see anything else, any FACES etc.
so, Daniel – even government and police are obviously smarter than you are ! 😉
“But there’s other replies from red shirts like … you!!! which was more prominent. … ”
…
Those kinds of reasoning is the most irresponsible irritating annoying disturbing excuse I’ve ever seen! …
….
Those kinds of reasoning is the most irresponsible irritating annoying disturbing excuse I’ve ever seen! …
this is what I call MORONIC , coz you assume too much – like me being a protester or a red-shirt. 🙂
sorry to dissapoint you – I’m neither a protester nor a red (or any other color) shirt. yeah, I have many-colored T-shirts though.
REASONING ?
what any other reasoning is needed here? I said the truth and stand by it: on this video can’t see anything else than black DOTS – no any faces, no other details to prove who did what and when.
therefore – any attempt to prove anything by this video is simply ridiculous. because DOTS – are not faces or persons. these DOTS can be anybody. seeing DOTS is not sufficient amount of information to make any conclusions.
sure, it can be surmised who / where the army / protesters were – the position of the clashing sides. but it is not sufficient to surmise – WHO those supposed “red-shirts” (or other color shirts ?) were ?
DO YOU SEE ANY COLOR there in this video – except some brownish poor light with black spots, dots and patches ?
this is very simple reasoning. and if “OMG” is your only reaction to such reasoning – well, then it shows pretty much who is moronic here, doesn’t it?
because “OMG” is just an expletive – it can’t be considered as a serious argument.
so, I agree with what you said : it is a waste of time to argue …. with you ! so, from now on I’ll simply ignore you and skip your comments as moronic.
Cheers, adios !
Shock proposal! Use elections to sort out differences!
Sri #4
you quoted nation as saying, “Suthep encouraged provincial governors to launch campaigns to educate people about democracy and instil a democratic spirit. ”
seriously, what is wrong with Suthep? Did you know that Provincial Governors in Thailand are appointed and not elected? How can you lecture about ‘democracy’ much less 2 elected bodies to make a constitution when you cannot even have an elected Governor?
How come only Bangkok gets to elect their Governor? Is it because Bkk people are the only educated ones in the country? Or the ones who cannot be ‘bought’?
Suthep is absolutely pathetic. So is Anusorn.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Why can’t they, this anonymous professorial circle, treat Jim Taylor with the respect they seem to demand themselves?
Perhaps because they are getting tired of hearing about leaked sources, informants etc, and how great Thaksin was (without conceding that he ever did anything wrong – legally, ethically or morally).
Jim, can you offer anything more on this snippet from the past:
Leaked sources indicate that Thaksin’s billions have been used by these same people taken out of his domestic bank accouts (at the time frozen) so Thaksin had to be found guilty at any cost- even changing the law and emplacing judiciary that were anti-Thaksin and pro-Democrat (who were in alliance with the military for their own ambitions). Thaksin therefore has to be found guilty and he must be imprisoned.
I’m not saying it not true, or true, but I’m sorry ‘leaked sources’ just isn’t enough for me, and I’m not evenclose to being an academic!
Once you come good on that one, I’m sure you will have all the respect you deserve.
Shock proposal! Use elections to sort out differences!
And I thought NM would be delighted with this piece of Thai political news. Two elected bodies . . . TWO! When we Thais decide to embrace democracy . . . we always double our efforts.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Nick Nostziz, (#173) I have avoided putting in my meagre 2 cents worth on this post, but have been following all the comments, with great interest.
The “hysteria” being voiced by some of the posters on this and some of the related topics on NM, does not seem very productive, to me.
I feel some of the posters are becoming so immersed in the “propaganda” war, they are losing sight of the issues.
To your credit, you have tried to maintain your stance without resorting to the gross distortions, which appear to be coming from some of the other voices – on all sides (there are more than 2 sides, I think we all agree on that).
I respect your comment in an earlier posting where, whilst not exactly “taking sides”, you do make your “sympathies” quite openly known.
You have also attempted to answer your critics, with what to me appear to be quite rational points – particularly for someone who one could easily call you, an “imbedded” reporter(even if not officially recognized as such).
I have often not agreed with your comments, but I do agree with your last paragraph :
“Much depends now, of course, how the Red Shirts and the other factions will proceed in the future, but that we will only know when things happened. I won’t speculate here on what may happen. I will continue following the events as much as i can, as long as i can stay relatively safe.”
Please keep your pledge and remain objective (as much as you can).
Chang Noi on the “grey politics of survival”
The spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Ministry has just provided a perfect compliment to Chang Noi’s artile. See the new post here
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/05/08/the-thai-monarchy-is-not-involved/
He might as well cite ‘respected academic-journalist’ Chang Noi:
‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarhcy is not involved.’
“…the Thai monarchy is not involved…”
He might as well cite ‘respected academic-journalist’ Chang Noi: “Red and yellow and shades of grey”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/04/opinion/opinion_30101903.php
‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarchy is not involved.’
“…the Thai monarchy is not involved…”
By law…
Anyone ever wonder what the penalty for breaking this law would be?
Shock proposal! Use elections to sort out differences!
The Nation, May 8, 2009
…
Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban also urged provincial governors to use ideas from the “Stop Hurting Thailand and Stop Violence” network to launch similar campaigns in order to bring peace to society. The country’s security was a worry to many Thais and foreigners alike.
Suthep encouraged provincial governors to launch campaigns to educate people about democracy and instil a democratic spirit. “We have to do this because people have been confused, especially with constitutional amendments that distort democracy theories and manipulate them to suit political and self interest,” he said.
He said political discord was caused by pure ignorance. “Provincial governors know the root causes of the problems but they adopt a hands-off attitude by saying the problems should be resolved by politicians,” he said. Training and campaigns on constitutional monarchy must be organised to restore public faith and confidence in this ruling system.
Suthep instructed provincial governors to prevent the public from crossing the line and organising violent protests. “They must not breach the Constitution and if any governors cannot handle the problems, they can reach me for help immediately,” he said.
He said if any village or province takes sides, it means the people do not have a basic understanding of democracy. “It is the duty of provincial governors to campaign for democracy, campaign against vote buying and electoral fraud,” he said.
Provincial governors were also instructed to launch projects that allow the public to exhibit their loyalty to the monarchy.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Nick #173,
Your few last posts beginning with wherein you challenge your doubters to provide counter-evidence have been incredible.
I really did like your report, a lot in fact. I’ve been sending a lot of my friends and people I know to view this site.
Especially post #173 where you have pointed the obvious and sad double-standards made by this government in their persecutions of ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ shirts. As well as the more obvious clampdown on the ‘Red’ media while leaving ASTV and the remainder untouched.
There is one question whose answer (if you have sources) that should be answered. In another post a “Jim Taylor” stated factually that the ‘blue shirts’ were behind the parking of the gas tanks and driving the buses into the soldiers. While this is plausible, is there any evidence that you know from your experience that it is in fact ‘true’. During the height of the crisis, where you were (not just at Din Daeng), did any “red shirts” tell you this, or even bring this supposition to you?
I ask because I had only one source who was actually there at the red shirt protest (and whose name I didn’t keep), I have no way of countering or collaborating Jim’s theory, sorry ‘factual events of what happened’. But as you have been there (and I can get in touch with you through here), I just thought I’d ask.
Shock proposal! Use elections to sort out differences!
Colum #1:
some snarky comments are just so agreeable!!
I had a good laugh on this one.
Red faces: Unconvincing psych-ops
Colum #43:
You’re right, as Jim also has said, it is a confusing time.
Also, I do mind being lumped with Vichai N, and I haven’t gone so far to call anyone “Thaksin’s Lackey” or come up with some weird sorry name.
However, I do have problem with Jim’s assertion of ‘fact’ that 156 people died, and his other opinions and assertions that he is passing on as the ‘truth’.
His point on ISOC’s non-credibleness did not need for him to insert ‘facts’ that he cannot prove.
I don’t care if you don’t respect me, besides, I’m not an academic nor am I an opinion-maker or political consultant/etc.
If Jim had simply been ‘asking people to question things’ I would commend him. If he set up different scenarios as ‘probabilities’ and ‘possibilities’ you would probably see me here defending him against Vichai N., et al.
But instead, Jim decided to throw opinions and rumors around as “facts”.
I advise you to go read “Nick Nositz’s” first hand account on the red shirt movement (if you haven’t done so already), and you will see how clearly he differentiates ‘hearsay’ from fact, and leaves the reader to come to their own conclusion. Jim however, has not left that window open, he simply states that his “sources” provide the ‘truth’ and as such, everyone who doesn’t believe him (or dare question him) is a close-minded rightist bigot.
So my question then is, how is that different from PAD/Sondhi who claims Red Shirt are all paid?
For example:
“Before a number of leaders walked out they raised a question to be passed to the army boss General Anupong: “when Somchai was elected PM why did he force him to resign and yet this time he did not do the same thing?””
—> Valid point that needs to be questioned and applauded. Why did Anupong have double-standards?? Its a question that can lead readers to very obvious conclusions, that are all valid.
But “(actually caused by Abhisit’s agent provocateurs, or Newin’s Blue shirts wearing Red, such as the seizing of buses) ”
—> Is an plausible opinion inserted as ‘fact’ because of the word ‘actually’ instead of the the world ‘likely caused by…’
the word ‘actually’ doesn’t let a reader decide, it tells him an opinion based on sources he ‘heard’ (which are partisan sources mind you)
Again I state, if he tried to pass these ‘facts’ or ‘allegations’ in an Adelaide court of law (since Thai courts are run by kangaroos), would he be able to prove his facts?
If not, then he should do the intellectually honest thing and reword himself accordingly. He is an academic, and he knows what I am saying.
Its sad that such a good first hand account loses all credibility because of one word.