Monday, September 13, 2010

Dispelling the myth that yellow shirts only protested peacefully

.

37 comments:

Ricefield radio said...

Hobby, we all know that is a fake video to vilify the PAD. Red shirts played the part of the good upstanding PAD and, I even heard, Suthep said it was paid for and produced by the escaped convicted fugitive criminal republican Thaksin...LOL

Leosia said...

I don't think it matters either way. Both red and yellow broke the law in their protests - and the government, police and military all take sides. Democracy and transparency (or the "idea" of democracy) is against Thai culture - which is more about power, wealth, nepotism, corruption and deference. What Thailand needs is a kind of modified communism, which maintains stability, security and encourages economic growth and foreign investment.

Hobby said...

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend (not to the death though:) your right to say it.

antipadshist said...

Hobby,

keep up the good work !

PADshists - No Pasaran !

:)

(I'm still in my slumber - but can see that you've resumed your blogging activity)

Hobby said...

Thanks AntiPadshist/MediaWar.
I've been wondering where you got to, but can understand you taking a rest given that when you are blogging and commenting you really run hot:)

StanG said...

Hobby, in your anti-coup, pro-red crusade, didn't you notice that PTP is planning to elect one of the coupmakers as their party chief?

Even if now it looks like Kowit won't make it in the end, only three days ago he was considered a shoo in.

That would be a nice gift to the red shirts on the coup anniversary.

These things don't seem to register with you at all.

It didn't register when Thaksin's brother, the chief of party MPs at that time, was talking favorably about a new coup either.

Where's your head at? How do you justify it to yourself? How can you turn a blind eye to these obvious contradictions in your model?

I, on the other hand, am perfectly fine with these developments as I believe reds don't give a rats ass about democracy or elections, they are just foot soldiers to bring Thaksin back by any means necessary.

hobby said...

StanG: None of that surprises me at all, and it fits in well with this old blog.

"It's a brilliant setup, the trap is now complete - after decades of one sided propaganda, no political party can touch on the subject of detoothing LM without committing political suicide.

Parliamentary debates are worthless when all any ambitious arsehole has to do is invoke the monarchy's name and stage a coup (or suppress a protest that merely seeks an election)
"

You should check my Twitter - this morning I was defending you as more articulate & rational than the average redneck or vested interest type of yellow/Dem/PAD supporter - maybe I was wrong about that :)

hobby said...

StanG: To the vast majority of redshirts Thaksin represents democracy because he was the last elected PM before the military & judicial coups.

Genuine democracy means its the people who elect and remove their politicians - that's what I believe in, and you obviously dont.

StanG said...

You are avoiding my question - how can reds even consider electing a coup maker as their party leader if they are so committed to electoral democracy? How can they consider voting for a person who was part of Thaksin's "illegitimate" removal?

Or are you saying that there are absolutely no restraints on any methods as long as they can bring Thaksin back, ie restore electoral democracy by staging another coup or a revolution, or appointing a coup maker as a party leader?

Don't you at least notice that your view in self-contradictory?

They have just re-appointed the guy who tearfully resigned less than a week ago. He himself is not elected by the poeple, btw, not an MP, and so can't legally lead the opposition.

What a circus!

Hobby said...

What I'm saying is that Thailand is so warped by the decades of propaganda & myth making, that all political parties have to play on obscene game of showing allegiance to you know who.
Abhisit & CRES have disgracefully tried playing the old 1976 style royalty card, and it seems PT &/or UDD wanted to be seen to be just as loyal as the (un)Democrat Party.
(not forgetting that other ultra loyal coalition partner, BJP, whose banned defacto leader pledged after avoiding a conviction in the Rubber Sapling case to "protect the monarchy until my last breath" :)

We have been over most of this before, so in short: Thai style 'democracy' is stacked against the reds, and to try to get a small foothold, they are forced to consider the grovelling method (like Thai victims of the draconian Lese Majeste law are forced to crawl before they will have any prospect of being released)

But overall I don't really care whether the government is red, yellow, green, blue or pink, as long as they are elected, and there is no interference from the Military, the Invisible Hand, the Network or the State within a State

StanG said...

So you are saying that PTP doesn't represent the reds and that it's just a run off the mill, subjugated Thai political party. Fine by me, that's what I've been saying all along.

What I don't understand is your point on insisting and limiting red demands to the elections. I've been telling you for ages they don't care about elections, now you are saying they don't even have proper representatives to elect yet you still insist it's only the elections that they ever wanted and needed.

What's the point of this vision of democracy when you yourself don't believe it would represent the people?

PAD has been telling us it's non-representative, you are now telling me it's non-representative, so what's the point in shoving it down everybody's throats?

I can offer two explanations - everything goes as long as it brings Thaksin back, or you firmly believe that if Thais stick with this vision of democracy against all evidence against it, it would still deliver them heaven on earth.

Well, if it's the second - does your "religion" allow any room for skepticism? You do know that non-representative democracy manipulated by the richest slice of the population would be a very tough model to sell in the West itself?

Hobby said...

You missed the point again: - How else will they get a foothold in a rigged system?

No political party is perfect, and Thailand politics is full of characters I find unsavory (and your pals Abhisit & Korn are not excluded from that list:)
Also remember PTP is what's left after 111 were taken out of the game.

I am under no illusion that a PTP government will instantly fix everything in Thailand - my main concern has always been that the government should be elected by the majority of the population, and be allowed to govern without outside influence - that's the starting point and the most important change Thailand needs. (once that happens and the precedent of having governments elected and removed by the people has been established, then all sorts of good things can happen - if PTP don't live up to their expectations, resdhirts might even choose the Democrats one day:)

StanG said...

Hobby, didn't you notice that people had absolutely no say in any of these leadership shenanigans in PTP. It's a party to serve Thaksin, he called all the shots and changed his mind half way through and turned the whole show into a farce.

And you keep chanting your mantra "elected by the people", "elected by the people"...

He needs people only to put a cross next to his party number once in every four years, and, as everyone knows, he is very adept and persuading them to do just that, but then they are completely excluded, and then you come on with "let him do whatever he wants without outside influence".

That is a seriously flawed approach to governing that Thai society has completely rejected, and, as a principle, it's totally unacceptable even to the reds, if you take their rhetoric at the face value.

Thai people don't even pause to consider it seriously, yet you tell them just do it on faith, it will all work out fine.

Hobby said...

I choose to trust the electorate, rather than any individual or network.

Why are you so fearful of letting the Thai people decide who governs their country?

Hobby said...

btw, I've moved on from my anti-Thaksinism mindset - you should try it too (it's quite liberating:)

My new mantra is:
LET THE EYE-OPENING CONTINUE :)

hobby said...

StanG: Do you really think Kowit had much to do with the coup planning?
(He also was a minister in the Samak & Somchai PPP led governments, so what's the big deal now?)

As for approving coups, the only coup that should be approved is one that undoes the 2006 coup, returns the 1997 constitution, and calls an immediate election (but would the coup endorser approve of that coup?555:)

StanG said...

Of course reds would say that appointing a coup maker as their political leader is not a big deal. What else do I expect them to say? I certainly do not to conform to their own ideology as I don't believe they themselves take it seriously.

Read BP's "but he was a good coupmaker" excuses. Kowit's got strong connections to ammart, too.

Ammart connected coupmaker as a leader of self-professed anti-coup, anti-ammart movement.

They have gone completely insane.

On Thai Intelligence blog they say Manager folks had ten orgasms over this already. Then they say Kowit was dumped precisely because of these contradictions.

As for moving past Thaksin - another case of self-inflicted blindness. He was all over this PTP leader farce, from resuming his tweets to reconciliation announcement to Wichaidit's resignation to rumors of Kowit to MPs flying to meet him in Moscow to the sorry ending.

Nevermind, all these debates don't really matter as you admit support for another coup if it goes your way.

Perhaps it's also a time to admit that red presentation to the society is being further discredited by such logic and they have zero chance of acceptance.

StanG said...

Correction, should have been:

I certainly do not expect them to conform to their own ideology

hobby said...

Get your facts correct: I said the only coup that should be approved is the one that undoes the last one (which should not have been approved).

Da Torpedo is in jail for 18 years for (crudely) pointing out the obvious fact that the military coup should not have been approved.

There is a better way and it should be clear to everyone (even you) that the Thai people have been sold short by their coup endorser.

StanG said...

"I said the only coup that should be approved..." - makes absolutely no difference. Makes me wonder, though - does it matter against which government? Would you approve a coup against Samak/Somchai, or the government that comes after next elections?

Also, is there any expiration date on this coup license?

Hobby said...

StanG: When will you get it? The military coup expires the day there is an election that is not undone by the network (via military/judicial interventions).

That could have been when the Samak/Somchai governments were in place, but the 'higher authorities' just couldn't leave things as the people wanted, hence we are still arguing about a 4 year old coup today.

StanG said...

"The military coup expires the day there is an election that is not undone by the network (via military/judicial interventions)."

Basically, you are saying that every time reds scream of judicial/military intervention in parliament affairs, the coup is allowed.

I say every time because the coup is warranted now, and will be warranted again in the future if PTP can't form the govt and lay the blame on the outside intervention.

Out of curiosity - how many casualties do you expect from your "coup to restore democracy"?

Hobby said...

Still don't get it do you - it's not about having a new coup, its about undoing the one that should not have happened.

Simple solution has always been for Abhisit to call an election - if he wins its all over and he would clearly be the legitimate leader - no dispute from me.

Right now 111 are banned, PT is in disarray, most redshirt leaders are in jail or on the run, yet he's still not confident he can win an election - will he ever be?

StanG said...

"it's not about having a new coup, its about undoing the one that should not have happened."

No, I get it, as long as the goal as noble as this, anything is acceptable, including a new coup.

Hobby said...

StanG: You seem to be forgetting that it's you who is the coup supporter/justifier, not me
( anymore :)

StanG said...

This is a comment by StanG that seems to have been lost in cyberspace:
Just a few comments earlier you said that a coup to undo the 2006 should be supported, or maybe you meant to say could be supported.

What does that make you if not a coup supporter?

I'm afraid there's no point in arguing any further, words mean nothing to you, you just throw them around and if when you contradict yourself you just deny everything.

You do not respect even the internal logic of your arguments, forget about how it appears to the others.

Take Thaksin's case, for example. PTP members know the party belongs to him, government MPs know the party belongs, to him, government supporters know the party belongs to him, and even PTP own supporters know that the party belongs to him.

I can't for the life of me think of any acceptable, logical reason for someone like you to keep pretending otherwise.

hobby said...

We are back to here (see above):

"To the vast majority of redshirts Thaksin represents democracy because he was the last elected PM before the military & judicial coups.

Genuine democracy means its the people who elect and remove their politicians - that's what I believe in, and you obviously dont.
"

Isaan Dweller said...

Interesting clip. Is there a background story to this?

Who are the yellow demonstrators chasing, and why?

Agent of the Free said...

Nice picture of 'you know who' behind the thug with the pistol. I suppose to the PAD that justifies their actions.

Hobby said...

If you watch the clip on youtube there are lots of comments which might help get more understanding of the situation.
(I'm not sure if the PAD guards firing the guns think they are defending the guy in the picture, killing in his name, or just using it as a giant amulet to protect themselves? :)

Isaan Dweller said...

It seems some motorbike taxi "red" supporters were name calling, beating up and even shooting at some "yellow" supporters as they passed by.

After a few of these wounded "yellow" supporters were sent to hospital other "yellow" supporters started chasing the "red" troublemakers.

And thats what we are seing being filmed. And is why they are torching the motorbikes as well.

So my questions is: If the yellows are responding to red violence in the video - why use it as a mythbuster to "prove" yellows demonstrated violently?

They we're reacting to violence - not instigating it.

In all fairness - a rather big difference wouldn't you say?

Hobby said...

What were the PAD/yellows doing at the time?

Oh yeah, I remember now - they were blocking the road to the old airport and about to embark on their next mission, the takeover of an International Airport.

If you still believe in fairytales that PAD is non violent, here is one quick link I found to bring you back to reality (that link refers to one of their well behaved days so you can imagine what they are like on the less restained days - if you care to open your eyes:)

Everyone knew that the PAD/yellow stategy was to provoke and they kept upping the ante (backed up by the simultaneous judicial/military actions/inactions) till the elected government got toppled - UDD/redshirts tried similar protest strategies, yet they end up jailed on the run or in exile - have you considered why it works for one color but not the other?

The positive thing from all this is that the eyeopening continues, the genie is out and cannot possibly be put back in the bottle now.

Isaan Dweller said...

Why so agressive? :)

I was just wondering about the fariness of the video as evidence on their violent protest.

The video has nothing to do with their protest. Then why portray it as such?

The fact that PAD had a few violent guards of the likes that the UDD had many - is not new.

But why use crappy videos taken out of context and provide lies as mythbusting truths?

Is that what you have to do to prove your points?

Poor people of Thailand don't need this kind of shite to help them.

They deserve better.

Hobby said...

Apologies for being 'aggressive' - my only excuse is I thought you were Trep/StanG under a different guise (but even then thats no excuse:)

You have raised a good point about context, and the how provocation often precedes violence - it's my observation (big picture) that the redshirts have faced much more provocation than yellowshirts, and the continuing double standard is further such provocation.

Regarding the relative violence of each colour, neither side can claim they are non-violent, but it is also clear that the redshirts have been under much more (systemic) provocation, and yellowshirt violence often reaps rewards rather than punishment.

btw, I chose this video because I like the picture the guy behind the shooter is carrying:)

Isaan Dweller said...

Thank you for your apology Hobby. I, and StanG, are not the same person.

You have a point in your comment about systemic provocation. The UDD has been far more violent and aggressive than the PAD and one might attribute that to systemic provocation.

But only if you accept is as a fact that the UDD represent the poor population of Thailand. Which they don't.

There are many poor people in PAD that come from the southern, and middle, parts of Thailand. Parts where the UDD wouldnt get as much as one single vote.

If you, on the other hand, accept UDD as a political tool only (as Thaksin advocates) then I'd say both PAD and UDD have equal issues with "systemic provocation".

And, to my understanding, UDD and PAD are both extremist political tools used by oligarks craving power. With UDD being far more violent than PAD.

And just as there are elements within the UDD that have real and valid political agendas that need to be focsed on the same goes for PAD.

Within PAD you have fanatic fascists and people that are too nationalistic to be accused of having a healthy mindset.

As you have good and sound people with REAL democratic progress in mind for the benefit of all.

So both organisations deserve some bashing and both have good elements within its ranks.

It's their leaders that make them stink.

Hobby said...

I don't except your contention that ordinary redshirts are extremists - asking for democracy is not an extremist position in my book!

I also don't think the original yellowshirts were all extremists, however any remaining yellowshirts must surely be (or gullible brainwashed fools).

However I do agree with your overall point that there are problematic elements in both groups, and that's why I maintain its best to go with democracy, and free access to information.

There are a group of commenters (like StanG) that try to argue what has gone on over the last 4 years is acceptable, and that the process by which Abhisit became (and keeps) the prime ministership is legitimate.
Anyone who pushes that line is either a fool, or has vested interests!

Do you think the 2006 miltary coup was an acceptable course of action, and there have not been (ongoing) double standards against the redshirts?

If your answer is Yes, then you are clearly wasting your time here, and you are likely to be met with 'aggresiveness' and/or ridicule.

If the answer is No, then please keep commenting:)

Anonymous said...

Issan Dweller: You have your facts wrong.
TRUE: It seems some motorbike taxi "red" supporters were name calling,
FALSE:beating up
FALSE (though they were throwing things): and even shooting at some "yellow" supporters as they passed by.

FALSE (very!): After a few of these wounded "yellow" supporters were sent to hospital other "yellow" supporters started chasing the "red" troublemakers.

I would add that to call this a "crappy video" is not only wrong on several levels, but it also shows a lot of disrespect to the TPBS cameraman who filmed it at risk to himself and was threatened by the PAD guards.

I have to laugh at what an expert you are on the whole situation when you weren't even aware of what this very well-known incident was about.