Natthawut: 'Terrorists' rebel soldiers

[Julian2]

I talked to some guys from Bangkok at a Songkran party today. My Mrs called them Chinese, but they were Chinese/Thai.

 

After the usual conversation openers of what the women were like in Chiang Rai and why I didn't drink they cut to the chase and asked me what I thought of the Red Shirts.

 

Now I was quite impressed with the way they asked me, they genuinely wanted my opinion. I said I didn't believe the military had any part to play in a democracy (wrong answer) and they literally pleaded with me to believe that an election wouldn't be good for Thailand. One admitted the Democrats could not win.

 

He said, and I quote to the best of my memory...

"Thailand is not like Europe, when democracy puts people like Thaksin in power there is no place for it here".

 

So there you have it, I genuinely liked these guys, I've known one for a while and he maintains a nice house with an aging mia noi who drives a late model SUV. Wealthy middle class I'd describe him.

 

Hasn't changed my opinion but it gave me a glimpse of the other side of the coin without being called an escaped lunatic.

 

 

[shygye]

Having people on your side claiming Thaksin killed more people than Hitler really helps your cause.

 

So this is your reason? Well' date=' who said that? When and where?

 

It doesn't say much for your sense of rationality if the first thing yo ucan think of in yrou defense is that youre reacting to some nutty idea that no one here said.

 

 

[/quote']

 

I also saw the Hitler post in this thread. Maybe a mod deleted the post?

[buffalo_bill]

Waerth is a loan shark

[waerth]

Waerth is a loan shark

??? explain ???

[Wallenda]

Hasn't changed my opinion but it gave me a glimpse of the other side of the coin without being called an escaped lunatic.

 

 

Shygye, there was some mention somewhere recently, someone comparing Thaksin being elected to office with Hitler and Mussolini reaching power that way. I didn't see anything about Thaksin killing more people or anything like that. The point that those 2 did reach power via elections is actually something worth thinking about: basically, what if a democratic election brings to power a person whose goal is to destroy democracy. Now Thaksin wouldn't SAY he's aiming to destroy democracy, but a democracy doesn't function as one any more if power is unchecked and consolidated in one branch or person. It then becomes, in function, an autocracy, which is the opposite of a democracy. Voting is not the defining characteristic of democracy, equal access to power is. I think even the most red supporting person here would have to admit that that's exactly what Thaksin was doing, striving to consolidate power for himself and get rid of any of the checks that might allow Thailand to some day become a healthy democracy. (they are far from it now, but heading toward one man autocracy is not the way to get there)

 

The parallels to Hitler and Mussolini in the early days are actually underlined yet more clearly with this incident last Saturday and what is seen happening in Bangkok now. People on the street are seeing the reds now as violent, intimidating law-flaunting thugs.* Example, if yo uare driving in an area where they are, they will pull you over and check you and yoru car. That is not peacefully demonstrating. That's imposing power, setting themselves up as an authority on the street. Making themselves police. That's the black shirts and the brown shirts in the early days, to a T. Now I'm not going to say here that Thaksin is the next Hitler, that's ridiculous. But I definitely see him as aiming to be another Asian strong-man, a Suharto or a Marcos. These were really nasty characters who would think nothing of having their opponents imprisoned or assassinated. If you can't picture Thaksin doing that, well what about these masked gunmen Saturday? What about all the extrajudicial drug war killings? It just seems like there's a lot of murder in this guy's wake, and a lot of people who want to think it's not necessarily his fault. If it's not, it means he has no control over the things he puts into motion, and again I would have to ask, isn't he dangerous if he keeps putting these things into motion that end up getting lots of people killed? And how many times can we believe it when he plays dumb and claism to have no control? And that is exactly the way those old European fascists played it whenever their thugs would murder. He knows that he has pepole now standing on stages preaching hate propaganda. He is well educated and knows well that this is fire he is playing with.

 

So Julian, yes I think it's absurd to say he killed more than Hitler of course, that's nuts. But he scares me. He seems like a really nasty piece of work, much worse than anyone who's been in power in that country. Far far more ruthless.

 

 

* see Stickman's weekly posting this week -- where he was impressed and sympathetic to their protest a few weeks back, his latest describes them now as frightening and ... well, describing the scene before Saturday, he said this:

 

Last night I wandered around parts of central Bangkok. It felt like we were on the verge of civil war. Police had abandoned their traffic control booths and red shirts controlled the Nana and Sukhumvit soi 8 intersections, only allowing those vehicles with red stickers, ribbons or flags to pass, all others diverted or made to do a U-turn. The red shirts had gained control of key intersections with ease - and there weren't even that many of them. The sight of these youngsters rejoicing in the street, dancing, waving red flags and celebrating being in control was sickening, but not as sickening as the way the brown shirts had fled their post.

[shygye]

... but it goes back to a an elected politician is ousted by a military coup and not by an election. Then another post coup elected politician is tossed out because he was on a cooking show.

 

As for the drug war killings, I have stated MANY times that all the MPs and royals and hiso supported it! Not even the Thai Lawyer Assoc. complained.

[kamui]

... but it goes back to a an elected politician is ousted by a military coup and not by an election. Then another post coup elected politician is tossed out because he was on a cooking show.

 

As for the drug war killings, I have stated MANY times that all the MPs and royals and hiso supported it! Not even the Thai Lawyer Assoc. complained.

 

That's the problem. A thug came into power through a (almost) democratic election and had been ousted by non democratic means. Now the *convicted* thug claims that he should be elected again - and he even has the support for being elected again.

 

I don't see that there is a solution.

 

By the way, Hitler came into power through a democratic process too. But there was real force to oust him, except some isolated freedom fighters who failed.

[Julian2]

Hitler's rise was probably politically closer to Abhisit's; failing to gain a majority in parliament, (he got about 35% of the vote) he "persuaded" the German president to appoint him Chancellor.

Still, what's a little history manipulation these days?

 

One of my Thai friends tried to explain that Thaksin had risen to power by bribing people to vote for him, and I countered that this was quite a sensible method, I had often voted for politicians on the strength of promises which hadn't been delivered. Far better to get your money up front.

They thought that was hilarious!

 

That Hitler post I quoted did disappear, can't for the life of me think who made it, but maybe they deleted it while they still had time.

 

[Wallenda]

... but it goes back to a an elected politician is ousted by a military coup and not by an election. Then another post coup elected politician is tossed out because he was on a cooking show.

 

It's not that simple if the elected person is really only trying to wipe out the democracy. What if there was a real chance to oust Hitler in 1933, do you think it would have been wrong to do it? What about the assassination attempts of Hitler and Mussolini? Were they wrong? Is it democratic to support playing by the rules when up against someone you see is not, and whose goal is obviously to change the rules to his advantage, and get rid of the democracy itself. I mean, would it be right to respect the rights of the Taliban getting themselves elected when you know they're gonna be chopping off people's hands, forcing women to quit their jobs, not allow girls to go to school, reinstitute stonings, etc.?

 

You are citing principles of democracy as your reason for supporting the guy, but he himself doesn't value those principles. If he goes in, he'll be doing his best to wipe out real democracy. So what are you supporting then? If it's democracy you really want to see, I don't understand how you could think Thaksin is a guy to get the country closer to that.

[Wallenda]

Hitler's rise was probably politically closer to Abhisit's; failing to gain a majority in parliament, (he got about 35% of the vote) he "persuaded" the German president to appoint him Chancellor.

Still, what's a little history manipulation these days?

 

 

Abhisit couldn't be further in character from Hitler and the early days' Nazis. In the 1920s, they were most famous as a big group of super-nationalist racists who would move around as bands of thugs ganging up and beating their opponents. That would include political opponents like socialists and communists, Jews, gays, and even targeted nightclubs that put on risque shows, beating up MC's, club owners, performers and customers.

 

This was the essence of the nazis: their basis was thuggery and hate propaganda.

 

To compare Abhisit is to cherry pick to a point that makes your positin look dishonest. No serious person could think that what characterized the nazis was the way they rose to power through certain parliamentary tactics. Yo umay as well say that Abhisit is like Hitler because he wears his tie in a double windsor knot the way the fuhrer did. They both really got on great with little kids and adored their dogs. Cmon.