There has been so much misinformation in the foreign press about Thai politics and the present crisis. Much reporting implied that the red-shirt terrorists were popular democrats fighting an authoritarian elite. I wonder if this bizarre foreign fantasy abetted this tragedy.
Abhisit bent over backwards to accomodate the terrorists, who have now gutted the heart of Bangkok. Meanwhile Thaksin (in an undisclosed location?) gloats about his guerilla war.
No, it isn’t. That’s my whole point. *Septimus avoids viewing shades-of-gray issues as black-and-white *But also avoids pretending that black-and-white issues are shades of gray.
I’ve mentioned some of Thaksin’s sins in other threads (and do not doubt that the red-shirt terrorists are nothing else than thugs paid to get Thaksin his billions back), so will go quietly. The thread title says it all. Does anyone doubt it?
While I’m confident that many red shirt supporters were paid or dupes of some sort, I’m also now convinced that some other less savory characters crowded under this umbrella. I hope it doesn’t become the case that some communist or other agitators don’t begin a sort of insurgency in Thailand.
As for Abhisit vs Thaksin, that’s no contest.
Thaksin wasn’t thrown out because he was corrupt or evil, though (although he certainly was, and he certainly did run roughshod over the courts and civil service). He was thrown out because he pissed off the monarchy, the army, and the rich, and instead of using democratic methods to get rid of him, they overthrew him.
So, yes, I do doubt it. Thailand will not progress until it limits the power of the monarchy and respects the will of the people, and the people behind Abhsit have no intention of doing that.
Oh, come on. Do you really consider that article unbiased? I’m surprised the article didn’t point out that Thaksin was petting a white Persian cat.
Personally, I don’t believe anyone even remotely familiar with the situation would judge Abhisit more evil than Thaksin.
Not Abhsit, but his supporters.
Yes, my OP title ended up rather silly. That I posted at all was a reaction to another Doper in another thread. I look for shades of gray when there are shades of gray, but prefer to look at more black and white issues as black and white. The other Doper seemed over-eager to take a default position that all political conflicts are gray versus gray.
Heck, even I’d agree the two sides in the [2010 Thai political protests](2010 Thai political protests) are shades of gray, but one gray is quite light, the other quite dark. (Anyway, black vs white is simpler than the Thai names for sides here: red, yellow, white, blue, pink, many-color, no-color … how many colors are we up to now? :p)
And of course, the vast majority of the “protesters” were apolitical unfortunates caught up in the confusion, many thinking a paid trip to Bangkok would be quite a lark!
By the way, the Wikipedia page cite above takes a neutral or pro-red tone. If anyone here is a Wikipedia editor, it might be good to correct their pages.
Here’s a video which may help dissipate any remaining doubts about red-shirt’s evilness.
(Sorry for duplication: I posted this also in the MPSIMS thread.)