Bangkok Protests

Oh - this will be good, go ahead and break out the logical jungle gym to make the analogy that you are making here that will render us into quivering piles of hypocritical blubber.

As you are rock-solid consistent it should be easy for you to illustrate our folly.

 

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere. The alternatives to not cracking down at this point that I see: (1) Let the reds go on protesting. The govt will lose more and more control as it looks weak in tolerating the reds breaking the law, and Thailand spirals down towards anarchy, esp. in the rural areas. (2) Cave in to Red demands for immediate elections. The reds go home and then the yellow shirts start their counter-protests, strangling the Thai economy again.

If the reds were holding peaceful protests without breaking the law and without threatening the livelihoods and safety of other citizens in Bangkok I'd agree with you, but they've clearly broken the law multiple times while being unreasonable in negotiations. The red leaders have essentially dared the Thai govt to use the military force, and that's exactly what's happening now.

 

Sounds very similar to the arguments of the people who try to rationalize the crackdown at the Tiananmen Square.

 

You are right on that there is no easy answer. What ever way you go you are going to piss someone off.

What happens when a protester gets violent first? Does that justify violent actions by the government. A japanese reporter was killed by protesters. Does that justify violent actions? Also soldiers were being injured by home-made bombs. So the soldiers can not retaliate? If an american soldier was shot at in Iraq by a civilian, does he shoot back or seek a more peaceful solution? Offcourse war is a different situation. All I am saying is that peaceful protests is 1 thing, violent ones is another. Are you supporting violent protests? If protests become violent and threaten/harm others in its way, it becomes illegal, and the governmant have to right to employ violent actions in order to stop further harm.

 

I'm pretty sure I've never given my opinion on Tianamen or Iran protests on this site. I don't have a strong opinion on either because I was too young when Tianamen happened and I see Ahmadinejad as a Thaksin-like figure in the sense that he's a shady character, but experts have said that even without electoral fraud he would probably have won the popular vote anyway.

If you think force shouldn't be used, what do you think the Thai govt should do instead?

 

lol, I am not choosing who is morally right based on popular opinion. I view it is whether it is illegal or not. IMO a government does not have the right to use force/violence if it is not threatening the well being/safety of others, particularly those not involved.

first of all, please ignore the reason of protest. I really don't care, cause all I am saying is the WAY that protests are held. In that regard, yes I am supporting the tibetan crackdown. A protest against a government is one thing, a protest violently targetting civilians is another. I am strongly against the WAY the tibetans were protesting by targetting ethinic Han groups in the areas, not the reason they protest. I hope you would agree that murder is illegal. No matter what the motivation behind it is. I am guesssing that you are supporting the reason they are protesting. I hope that you don't feel killing/hurting/looting ethic Han groups in the area is legal/morally acceptable. Just like the war against terrorism, the reasoning, motives behind the war is no problem, but if individuals target musilims (spelling?) who are not terrorists acceptable?

No I do not agree with the tiananmen square crack. I understand the motives behind it, as such a large congregation of people outside the main government complex would pose a serious security risk IF it was to go bad. Also considering that the then president of Russia was going to visit around that time as well. So I guess I understand the motive behind the crack down, but I do not support it. AS the WAY the protest was held, was relatively peaceful. No violence or murder.

In terms of the Thai protests. I support the crack down. Again due to the WAY the protests were held. I am personally strongly against violence, particularly those that threaten others who are not involved.

 

I have recently moved back from Thailand about a month ago (due to a new job). After living there for over a year, I can honestly tell you: the government made the right decision.

I'm not Red nor am I Yellow shirted, but this recent problem had to come to this end. The government gave the reds 2 or 3 opportunities that they would dissolve parliament and call fresh elections. Yet THEY DEMANDED MORE each and every time.

Thaksin is the most corrupt leader. Example: The airport that was completed in 2005. The land that it was constructed on: owned by Thaksin. The construction and subcontract: owned by Thaksin. The monorail custructed to connect downtown Bangkok to the airport: owned and constructed by Thaksin. ETC. ETC.

Thaksin is the biggest ELITIST in Thailand. And yet, the Reds represent the poor rural that are against the elite middle and upper class. In fact, Thaksin was voted into power because of vote buying.

You ask any Red shirt, "why do you want the government to dissolve?" Everyone will answer with this:

1. The government was illegally elected: BS, the original proxy party that was terminated due to election fraud had no power, so parliament voted for a new Prime Minister to serve the remaining term of the removed leader. The parliament is voted by the people, therefore the parliament represents a sort of electoral college. The cabinet members that the people voted for, voted Abhisit into power.

2. We are doing this for Thaksin: WHY?!?! he made BILLIONS of $$$ off of the Thai people, he took advantage of the tax system and never/minimally paid tax for all his sales and gains, and bought high end real estate owned by the government for pennies on the dollar (aka: COLLUSION).

 

Also, the protesters claimed they were not terrorists and that they are peaceful protesters. Let these pictures have you decide:

A Red shirt throwing molotov cocktails at soldiers:



Here you see the Red's using a baby as a human shield to fend off the soldiers:






And what do they do after they accept defeat, they scorch the damn city in flames:



They even inserted violence in their protests in April 2008 while I was there. I'm glad they failed again this time. Terrorists never win.

 

i thought the thread title read 'bangkok protitutes'

thats alot of extra letters my mind just made up

 

I didn't say it's your opinion on Tiananmen. I didn't know your opinion either. I am saying the reasons that you gave for the crackdown in Thailand are annoyingly similar to those given by the people who tried to rationalize the Tiananmen incident.

The pro-Tiananmen crackdown group asked the same question too.

 

That's very simplistic logic. Under that reasoning the US government should've cracked down on MLK's march on Washington.

 

I didn't say that you said it's my opinion My point is you trying to equate the Tianamen crack down to the BK one doesn't mean much to me. Same thing applies to Cokebabies trying to equate this to Tiananmen and Iran. Also, I didn't want to be confused with others on here (like DD off the top of my head) that were calling for the toppling of Ahmadinejad.

Which would matter if the scenarios were equivalent, but from what I understand they are not. Others more familiar with Tiananmen than me have already expounded on this.

So what? Does it make it ok for you to avoid the qn?

If you were criticizing the govt for not taking an alternative course of action that would've ended in less lives being lost, I wouldn't need to ask this qn. Right now I can't agree or disagree with you because you offer nothing.

One more time: If you think force shouldn't be used, what do you think the Thai govt should do instead?

 

Of course the pro-Tiananmen crackdown group was defending an authoritarian government that refused (and still refuses) to have free elections and lacked a free press, inter alia.

Is that what we're dealing with here in Thailand?

 

Oh and adding "(Chinese)" when quoting me about the Thai govt was cute, esp. since Thaksin is Chinese lol.

 

My position is I don't condon using deadly force to crackdown on civilian demonstration, whether the government is democratic or authoritarian. The fact that the Thai government is democratic doesn't mean the Thai civilians can be subject to any type of brutal treatments by the elected regime. Using deadly force on civilians is evil and trying to rationalize it is evil too.

 

It wasn't really a civillian demonstration though - the reds and the yellows each have their own armed factions mostly made up of the military and the police. I mean sure, some of the Reds have homemade-type insurgent weapons like molotov cocktails, but they also have M-16's and grenades - the civillians are just props in most of this for either side.

I'm not saying I wholly condone it either, but it's just kind of silly to not distinguish here.

 

I think the Tiananmen crackdown is wrong. The Thai crackdown is wrong too. Without a viable solution at the moment doesn't make using deadly force on demonstrators right. Your argument is that the government can do whatever evil as long as there is not a reasonable alternative in sight. I have to say your mind set is very dangerous.

 

Doesn't matter, different scenario.

No. My argument is the government should choose the most reasonable course of action, and at some point the rule of law has to be enforced. The alternative to not using military force isn't peace, it will be an escalation of illegal activities that bring harm to other CIVILIANS. I've already pointed out the Reds' storming of a hospital causing patients to be evacuated, and the launching of grenades at a civilian train station. During the crackdown the Reds had assault rifles which they used to fire back. They've also burned down a shopping center, attacked the stock exchange, set fires all over BK, on and on, illegal activity after illegal activity and in lieu of you being able to propose a single alternative, can I assume you think the police/army should just sit back and let them do what they want. It's easy to claim the moral highground when you have no responsibility protecting the rest of the country.

 

This is correct. The protesters weren't holding "peaceful protests," they were armed, attacking and fending off soldiers that would get near their grounds, and felt they were above the law (ex: storming the hospital in search of enemies, bombing the banks in Silom district, etc.) They were acting as terrorists and held Bangkok hostage with weapons and fear.

You can't compare this to Tiananmen Square, because the majority or all of the student/worker protesters were unarmed. They were not terrorizing the public and they were MASSACRED!!