# If and buts...



## KhwaamLap (Feb 29, 2008)

If the government did fold and declared elections, what is likely to happen?

I believe nothing much. Another coalition government with the likes of Newin's group controlling because of the threat of swinging support. 

If the Reds did not win such an election, would they pack up ad go home in peace? If the Reds do win, will the Yellows and Blues (and Pinks) let it rest there?

Is simply folding to their demands a way to achieve peace - or just postpone it until those elections.

With the military/government's stand-back approach (which is be attacked in the world's press alongside complaints of 21 deaths - talk about mutually exclusive!) - there must be real fear of Yellow/Blue shirts taking to the streets for really bloody confrontations that have not been seen here in anyone's memory. In 1992 HM could stop it because it was military and students, but with two (or three) distinctive groups/mobs set on violence and a military in furry handcuff, what's going to stop it.


----------



## KhwaamLap (Feb 29, 2008)

And as if I spoke to soon, the EC (Election Commission) has ruled for dissolution. This has to be ratified by the Constitutional Court which may well take months anyway, but could see Abhisit and other executives banned for 5 years from politics. 

How's that Iron Maiden song go, Mother Russia - maybe the words could be changed to fit Thailand (land of the free!). What credibility does democracy have when terrorists can dictate a change of government with a handful of AK47's, Molotov cocktails and grenades! What precedent does this set going forward - not happy with the government, shoot a few soldiers.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2010)

About as much credibility as when a few activists in yellow achieved pretty much the same thing, might I suggest? Or when 'terrorists' stormed the Bastille and kicked out the then elite from their palaces? Or when 'terrorists' demolished the 'Wall'? Etc etc...

I've talked to these people. Labelling them as terrorists is about as accurate as describing your MIL as a revolutionary radical subversive suicide-bomber, for the most part! C'mon...


----------



## KhwaamLap (Feb 29, 2008)

When I say terrorist, I mean the terrorists - not the innocent demonstrators - the ones blowing up bombs, shooting their own and soldiers, kidnapping people and so on. The demonstrators have been there now for weeks, and nothing but defiance from the government. Then, after the EC is stormed by the reds and threatened to come to a decision on an old accusation (before Abhisit was leader), before the 20th, suddenly there is an early decision straight after the 21 deaths and 850 injuries on Sat.

Storming the Bastille was completely different as those people had NO political recourse at all and it was an absolute monarchy not democratic government - chalk and cheese. The wall "fell" after the soviets pulled out due to the collapse of the soviet union - not due to a revolt. 

A better analogy would be when the anti-western, anti-war, pro-muslim demonstrations happened in London a few years back, where some demonstrators openly called for the death of citizens and attacked police - of course Tony Blare didn't get kicked out by a besieged and threatened electoral commission.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2010)

On that subject, how long did it take the Electoral Commission to rule on Thai Rak Thai and the People's Party? A few months. On the Democratic Party's illegal acceptance of a quarter of a billion? More than a year. And it would have dragged on much longer, had not a few thousand red shirts demonstrated outside the EC office to demand action.

Double standards...

And you jump to conclusions about the shootings. Nine red shirts died from their wounds having been shot by high velocity bullets. The Army is hardly united - their deputy commander is far more gung-ho. Who knows who was responsible... it could have been renegade soldiers, red shirts, or snipers with their own agenda from the likes of PAD supporters. The whole thing is a mess, and no one can categorically state that one or other faction was responsible.

And I stand by my broad analogies - everyone is regarded as a subversive/terrorist etc, by a government attempting to control those who oppose by using violence. Winners write the history books, then the descriptions of the former renegades miraculously change.


----------



## Guest (Apr 13, 2010)

_(The double standards comment referring to the approach from the authorities, of course )_

I rather like this Bangkok Post editorial by Atiya Achakulwisut today. Although reading between the lines it is rather despairing, and shows the extent to which reasonable Thais feel that events have taken on a momentum of their own. They are confused, and seem to have little idea how things can be improved, nor who is responsible and trustworthy enough to lead the country towards national reconciliation. 

An excerpt from the full piece:



> Are 21 deaths enough? Some people do not believe so. Some people believe that no matter how the current standoff ends - whether the red shirts can prevail in their demand for a House dissolution, or the government miraculously manages to disperse the crowds - this hatred will not be extinguished. And it's this immense feeling of antagonism and divisiveness among fellow citizens that will see our country plunge deeper and deeper into an abyss that has no colour because it will be black as pitch.
> 
> While we do not have enough information yet as to who actually opened fire on whom - whether there was indeed an unidentified group of mercenaries who could have shot and bombed members of the red shirts, the military or probably both - we should have realised at least this much: that there are military elements in both warring factions.
> 
> ...


One point... while the 'looking ahead' comment is no doubt correct, this method of protest to achieve political goals was not initiated by the red shirts. PAD and its yellow shirts led the way, and equally importantly, the total inability of the authorities at the time in bringing an end to the Government House and airport occupations by PAD, has given rise to similar movements bolstered by the belief that the forces of order are either impotent, incompetent, or both.

Without the PAD saga, this wouldn't be happening today.


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2010)

KhwaamLap said:


> When I say terrorist, I mean the terrorists - not the innocent demonstrators - the ones blowing up bombs, shooting their own and soldiers,../....


Bangkok Post - "Military admits firing at reds"

I think it's pretty clear from that report, based on an official army communiqué, who shot who, for the most part.


----------



## KhwaamLap (Feb 29, 2008)

Not really - when videos are still surfacing of the "men in black" carrying M-16 carbines and some with same dress with riot shields, with the Reds. RED denials notwithstanding, one guy photographed in balaclava (open faced) and all in black carrying an M-16 has been identified by the army as an ex-Ranger and 'current' Red Shirt guard. TV here has been showing video clips for days now showing bullets flying everywhere, hitting the monument. They could not have come from the Army ranks by the direction. Reds on bikes carrying automatic rifles were videod and photographed.

The army are supposed to have guns. They are supposed to use them when being fired upon. Peaceful demonstrators aren't. At least on of the autopsies showed powder burns on the guy - he was shot point blank in the back - hard to do that from behind army lines with an assault rifle. Six were shot between the eyes - sniper shots, almost impossible for this to happen any other way. France 24 reported that they saw no soldier carrying high power rifles (sniper rifles) that would have been required - and they were behind Army lines freely recording (in fact one reporter was hurt by an incoming grenade from an M79 grenade launcher).

Most of the BKK Post stuff seems to come from France24 reports. They have never explained how they can tell the difference between live and plastic rounds being fired, although asked several times. Their video clips do not show anything clearly - either reds or army actually firing at anyone with live amo. 

From another post on another forum:


> [The Armies plan of action was...] Stampede the crowd with teargas, baton/shield, rubber bullets for the truely aggressive, and live rounds in the back firing upwards for sound effect. Then.... Somebody changed the rules. Instead of a bottle, molotov cocktail, brick-throwing mob, they were facing live rounds and M-79 grenades incoming. At this point they have only two choices. Attack in full combat mode (killing as many of the 'enemy' as possible) or run for their very lives thereby stopping the killing? Fortunately for all involved the Army chose correctly and quickly pulled back as option 'A' was never on the table. This is a Army that Thai can be proud of as they acted in he most professional and moral way.


 The Army had 100 troops with shrapnel injuries - from grenades.

For weeks Abhisit had made no moves, no force, no attacks, just monitoring and careful controlling and guarding measures. What would the army/government have to gain from the deaths of ANY protestors? The army/government has nothing to benefit from using agent provocateurs. The reds, however, do. 

Seh Daeng was training millitarised reds in Hua Hin just last Autumn - he said as much live on TV. He has also threatened to use them against the Army of several occasions including right up to the incident.

It is certainly no clear who shot who.


----------



## KhwaamLap (Feb 29, 2008)

I agree the PAD occupation of the airport was not a good thing. Even if exacerbated by the morons in charge. Mumma always told me two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

Well KL, it's just that originally, you seemed to suggest that the redshirts were firing at their own. But from that Bangkok Post article, quoting an _army _spokesman:



> Col Sansern told a news conference yesterday soldiers only fired live rounds for two reasons. First, they fired into the air to intimidate demonstrators, and then at advancing crowds to protect the lives of wounded comrades. They fired only one bullet at a time and did not switch to fully automatic to avoid causing more casualties, he said.


Perhaps the colonel is being misquoted? But that sounds pretty clear to me, with respect to most of the civilian deaths. And if that's the officially watered down version, well...

As for the idea that UDD blackshirt sympathisers were responsible for killing their own, as someone remarked in another discussion forum (words to the effect of):
_
"So the gunmen dressed up in the uniform of the their own blackshirt 'police', deliberately so that the world's media could identify them as being from the UDD ranks, then took up position in front of the cameras to take out their own people? Is that a serious theory?"_

Oh right. A double bluff, maybe.

The most likely scenario? A well trained police force supported by the army could control a crowd using water cannon, rubber bullets and tear gas. The hopelessly poorly organised Thai forces of order panicked after an ill-conceived attempt to dislodge the crowd using rubber bullets failed and an angry crowd advanced on them. The army retreated in total chaos and fired using their "single-shot live rounds" in the process. That is why 80% of the casualties, deaths and injuries, were civilian.

Yes there were some grenades. But the source of these has yet to be identified. And with 18 civilian deaths so far, 700 injured to the extent of needing hospital treatment, some still in critical condition today, then the UDD could be forgiven for thinking - seeing as the government had promised not to use force - that they were in a pitched battle once the bullets, rubber coated or not, started to fly in their direction.

As for the other reports you mention they are largely unsubstantiated. An international organisation has already asked for an independent outside investigation into the deaths and injuries of so many civilians. Whether the Thai authorities accept this will be an indicator as to how they feel the conclusions would reflect their performance and actions. Of course the odds are that they will refuse.

Given that there are substantial numbers of PAD etc. supporters in Bangkok, that there are various dissident factions within the army that would like to see matters brought to a head, are you genuinely not considering the possibility that 'mischief-makers' would have taken this golden opportunity to infiltrate the UDD ranks where they could pretty much do as they please, hidden amongst crowds numbering in the tens of thousands? They would hardly likely have worn their yellow or blue shirts, or their army fatigues.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

What gets me in this latest BP report, is the reported loss of "6 anti-aircraft guns" and "600 anti-aircraft rounds". What on earth did the army cart that lot to a civilian demonstration for, in the first place? Did they expect Thaksin to fly in at the head of a flight of Cambodian Air Force fighters?

I find the whole thing incredible. Can you imagine anywhere in the West where the army, faced with a crowd surge from the protesters after you'd just aborted an attempt to dislodge them using force, "losing .../... nine M16 rifles, 25 Tavor rifles, six anti-aircraft guns, 116 shields, 105 batons and 80 body armour suits" and "ammunition .../... including 580 rubber bullet rounds, 600 anti-aircraft rounds and 8,182 M16 rifle rounds"?


----------



## californiabeachboy (Jul 29, 2009)

*Why doesn't the government just call an election?*



KhwaamLap said:


> If the government did fold and declared elections, what is likely to happen?
> 
> I believe nothing much. Another coalition government with the likes of Newin's group controlling because of the threat of swinging support.
> 
> ...


I am a newbie to Thailand, having just returned from my first visit, so I am trying to understand what is going on. Why doesn't the government just call an election sometime later in the year. I realize they have made general statements to that effect, but pick a certain date, and keep reinforcing it. Of course, that won't appease the hard core, but it may take some of the steam out. I am assuming it is because they believe they would lose.

It seems to me this started a couple of years ago with the yellow shirts and the airport. I know from doing mediations that once one party wins (maybe unfairly) the other party will try to get revenge. Even though, in my humble opinion, Bush was the worst President ever, I never advocated his impeachment. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and suffer for a few years in order to preserve the big picture. My sympathies from a policy standpoint are probably with the Red Shirts, but I find myself hoping they don't succeed in bringing down the government. That will only embolden the other side to try the same thing a few years from now.


----------



## Serendipity2 (Feb 22, 2009)

californiabeachboy said:


> I am a newbie to Thailand, having just returned from my first visit, so I am trying to understand what is going on. Why doesn't the government just call an election sometime later in the year. I realize they have made general statements to that effect, but pick a certain date, and keep reinforcing it. Of course, that won't appease the hard core, but it may take some of the steam out. I am assuming it is because they believe they would lose.
> 
> It seems to me this started a couple of years ago with the yellow shirts and the airport. I know from doing mediations that once one party wins (maybe unfairly) the other party will try to get revenge. Even though, in my humble opinion, Bush was the worst President ever, I never advocated his impeachment. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and suffer for a few years in order to preserve the big picture. My sympathies from a policy standpoint are probably with the Red Shirts, but I find myself hoping they don't succeed in bringing down the government. That will only embolden the other side to try the same thing a few years from now.



californiabeachboy,

I'll agree Bush was a disaster but I think Obama is far, far worse. 

Bush, despite his faults did try to restrain the growth of government and to protect Americans although I think both Gulf wars were a mistake and a quid pro quo to Israel. That said, Obama is clueless on foreign policy and seems bent on unilaterally undercutting our ability to defend ourselves. Bush also had a hostile congress controlled by Democrats the last two years of his administration. Now they control the house, the senate and the presidency and we see them on a spending spree to end all spending sprees. You can thank Obama personally for his idiot universal health care bill which will rob Medicare of $500 BILLION and give that money to instead cover illegals. So much for defending the people. :/

Neither Bush or Obama was much on sealing our southern border either but Obama, with Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security is a disaster and has already tried to stop Arizona from arresting illegal invaders from Mexico, stopped construction of the border fence and has signaled that they will probably be given amnesty.

Hopefully you won't blame Bush for those - or the myriad bailouts of the mega-banks, Wall Street, the Big Three [excluding Ford but including Gettlefinger] that will cost us $ TRILLIONS. Your contribution, just like your monthly donation to the Social Security system, is appreciated. Give 'til it hurts californiabeachboy - then give even more. We are facing massive tax increases and a substantial reduction in health care. When you become a senior it will get even worse.

Serendipity2


----------

