Protesters force Thailand to cancel Asia summit

[ray245]

AP/Yahoo!

PATTAYA, Thailand – Thailand evacuated Asian leaders by helicopter after hundreds of anti-government protesters stormed into their summit site Saturday, forcing the country's embattled prime minister to cancel the meeting.

The latest fiasco in Thailand's political crisis increased the threat of violence and a possible military crackdown.

More than 1,000 demonstrators broke through a wall of unarmed soldiers, smashed through the convention center's glass doors and ran through the building, blowing horns, waving Thai flags and shouting demands for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to resign.

They declared victory after Abhisit was forced to cancel the 16-country summit, where leaders of regional powers China, Japan and India, and the U.N. secretary-general and president of the World Bank, planned to discuss the global financial crisis.

Abhisit later denounced the protesters on national television as the "enemies of Thailand."

The country's political tension has simmered since former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was removed by a military coup in 2006. Thaksin opponents marched last year to remove Thaksin's allies from power, even shutting down the country's main international airport for about a week in November. After a court ordered the removal of the previous government, Abhisit was appointed by Parliament in December — sparking Thaksin supporters to take to the streets.

Their numbers grew to 100,000 in the capital, Bangkok, last week, and some in Pattaya smashed the window of a vehicle carrying the prime minister, who was unharmed.

Seizing the international spotlight of the East Asia Summit this weekend, protesters converged on the seaside city of Pattaya to push for Abhisit's resignation — seeking to embarrass him in front of other Asian leaders.

"We have won. We have stopped them from holding a summit," Jakrapob Penkair, a protest leader, said in Bangkok. "But we have not achieved our goal yet. We will continue to protest in Bangkok until Abhisit resigns."

Abhisit imposed a state of emergency after the summit was overrun, but revoked it six hours later after regional leaders were safely airlifted to a nearby military airport.

The ongoing protests could prompt the military to intervene — a high possibility in a country that has experienced 18 military coups since the 1930s.

"The situation has gotten completely out of hand. Violence and bloodshed is very much possible" if Abhisit does not resign or dissolve Parliament, said Charnvit Kasetsiri, a historian and former rector of Bangkok's Thammasat University. "If the government cannot control the situation, military intervention is not out of the question."

The incident raises questions about the government's ability to enforce law and order. Despite the presence of hundreds of soldiers in riot gear, the protesters met little resistance as they approached the summit venue. Government supporters believe elements within the police are sympathetic to the protesters, partly because Thaksin was himself an officer.

"Deep down, some government and military leaders also suspect some police have sympathy for Thaksin," said Thitinan Pongsidhirak, a political scientist at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.

"No one seems to be in charge within the establishment, the government and the military," Charnvit said.

Tens of thousands of the Thaksin supporters continue to ring Government House, the prime minister's office. They say Abhsit took power illegitimately and want fresh elections. They also accuse the country's elite — the military, judiciary and other unelected officials — of undermining democracy by interfering in politics.

The anti-government protests have already spread to rural provinces, where Thaksin remains popular due to his social welfare policies such as cheap health care.

"Right now, there are two possibilities — either a crackdown on the protesters or Abhisit dissolves Parliament," said Charnvit. "The situation has been pushed forward to a dead end."

A tense-looking Abhisit, speaking on national television, promised to restore the country to "peace and stability" as soon as possible.

"That would be my only goal," he said.

Those protesters in Thailand is freaking annoying, with people from both end of the political spectrum trying to screw their nation upside down with all the useless protest.

[Sidewinder]

Those protesters in Thailand is freaking annoying, with people from both end of the political spectrum trying to screw their nation upside down with all the useless protest.

I second that.

Seizing the international spotlight of the East Asia Summit this weekend, protesters converged on the seaside city of Pattaya to push for Abhisit's resignation — seeking to embarrass him in front of other Asian leaders.

These jackasses don't realize that, not only have they embarrassed the Thai Prime Minister with their out-of-control protests, they also embarrassed themselves, their own leader (Thaksin the Bridge Burner), and their own nation. Thanks, Thaksin supporters, for suggesting to Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and UN leaders that Thais (at least Thais who support Thaksin the Bridge Burner) are uncivilized barbarians who might be violently xenophobic.

[Stuart Mackey]

Thanks, Thaksin supporters, for suggesting to Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and UN leaders that Thais (at least Thais who support Thaksin the Bridge Burner) are uncivilized barbarians who might be violently xenophobic.

Well, I rather suspect that NZ politicians, and our PM (who didn't get out of the airport) don't think Thais are uncivilised, but it is all rather annoying, at least from my perspective.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

These jackasses don't realize that, not only have they embarrassed the Thai Prime Minister with their out-of-control protests, they also embarrassed themselves, their own leader (Thaksin the Bridge Burner), and their own nation. Thanks, Thaksin supporters, for suggesting to Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and UN leaders that Thais (at least Thais who support Thaksin the Bridge Burner) are uncivilized barbarians who might be violently xenophobic.

I think you are missing the point of this entire demonstration. They sought to embarrass the Thai government internationally and show to the visitors that the Thai Government is not a government that is worth negotiating to because it is a lame duck.

This is no different than the Seattle riots during the WTO meeting some time back. Really.

Those protesters in Thailand is freaking annoying, with people from both end of the political spectrum trying to screw their nation upside down with all the useless protest.

I think you are sorely mistaken. Both sides, regardless which corner of the spectrum, view this as a zero sum game and don't give a fuck already. The gloves are off. The military, the royalty, the oligarchy, etc. etc. are all involved.

[cosmicalstorm]

Today the rioters seized tanks in Bangkok...
I was there on a vacation three years ago and they were busy with very large daily protest marches back then too, I wonder how long they can keep this up.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The Thai Government declared a State of Emergency in Bangkok.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 06/1/.html

BANGKOK : Tanks and armoured vehicles rolled through the streets of Bangkok on Sunday as premier Abhisit Vejjajiva cracked down on anti-government protesters in the most serious crisis yet of his rule.

One day after wrecking a summit of Asian leaders, demonstrators fired into the air and attacked Abhisit's car as he was being driven out of the interior ministry where he had imposed a state of emergency minutes earlier.

"I am safe, not hurt, but one of my officials was detained. I want them to release him so that he can receive treatment as he is injured," Abhisit told one reporter by telephone.

The latest escalation in the country's long-running political turmoil came shortly after police arrested the leader of activists loyal to ousted former premier Thaksin Shinawatra who had targeted Saturday's summit.

Abhisit earlier said on national television that the government had "tried all along to avoid violence, but the protest has developed and they have used actions incompatible with the constitution".

"Now the government is unable to avoid this state of emergency," he added.

As tanks and soldiers fanned out, television showed red-shirted protesters armed with sticks and paving slabs smashing a car they mistakenly thought was carrying the prime minister and a separate vehicle carrying his deputy, Suthep Thaungsuban.

An army spokesman said troops had been deployed across the capital. An AFP reporter saw a tank and troops standing by on a road in central Bangkok close to government buildings.

"A combined force of army, navy, and air force has been deployed to secure public buildings, intersections and public transportation at 50 spots in Bangkok and its surroundings," Colonel Sunsern Kaewkumnerd told AFP.

"They are armed and we have also deployed armoured cars because protesters have used taxis to block the road," he said.

Protesters took to the streets two weeks ago to push Abhisit to quit but he has refused. They say he came to power illegitimately through a parliamentary vote in December after a court forced Thaksin's allies from government.

The chaos in Bangkok is a virtual replay of crises last year that ended up forcing out two prime ministers loyal to Thaksin - who was himself ousted in a military coup in 2006 - but on those occasions the army refused to act.

The army has traditionally shied away from confronting protesters since action against riots in 1992 left dozens dead, while police moves against anti-Thaksin protesters in October last year left two dead.

The emergency order allows police to clear protesters who regrouped in their thousands Sunday outside Abhisit's office, the interior ministry, and a courtroom where a hearing on the protest leader's detention was due.

It is the third time in eight months that authorities have declared a state of emergency in Bangkok but on previous occasions under governments allied to Thaksin, the army refused to step in.

The emergency measure bans public gatherings of more than five people and empowers police and military to detain suspects for up to 30 days without charge.

Authorities can also enforce strict controls on the media.

Police earlier said they had arrested protest leader Arisman Pongreungrong, a former pop singer, at his Bangkok home "on the charge of inciting protesters to kidnap the prime minister and cause unrest in the country".

Leaders of the so-called "Red Shirts" quickly retorted by saying they would call nationwide rallies if Arisman was not freed.

Abhisit has come under pressure to curb the unrest after the humiliating cancellation of Saturday's Asian summit, after which authorities were forced to evacuate foreign leaders, some of them by helicopter from the hotel roof.

The weekend summit was supposed to discuss the global financial crisis and North Korea's rocket launch and included the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea plus 10 Southeast Asian nations.

Thaksin remains in exile to avoid a two-year jail term for corruption, but has rallied supporters - and incensed the government - with almost nightly video and telephone speeches from an unidentified foreign hideout. - AFP/ms

[ray245]

Those protesters in Thailand is freaking annoying, with people from both end of the political spectrum trying to screw their nation upside down with all the useless protest.

I think you are sorely mistaken. Both sides, regardless which corner of the spectrum, view this as a zero sum game and don't give a fuck already. The gloves are off. The military, the royalty, the oligarchy, etc. etc. are all involved.

Even then, these protest does not bear any benefits for Thailand as a whole. Especially when Thailand has a rather sizable dependency on tourism.

In what way is the constant protest to force the current government to step down again and again by shutting the nation's airport down beneficial to Thailand at all?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Even then, these protest does not bear any benefits for Thailand as a whole. Especially when Thailand has a rather sizable dependency on tourism.

In what way is the constant protest to force the current government to step down again and again by shutting the nation's airport down beneficial to Thailand at all?

Of course it doesn't. But do you think they care now? After what the PAD did? What the PAD did, withe the shutting down of the two major airports is far worse than this incident. That resulted in a net economic loss that hasn't been recovered yet. None of them give a fuck. They only want to win because they know if they don't, they are dead.

[ray245]

Even then, these protest does not bear any benefits for Thailand as a whole. Especially when Thailand has a rather sizable dependency on tourism.

In what way is the constant protest to force the current government to step down again and again by shutting the nation's airport down beneficial to Thailand at all?

Of course it doesn't. But do you think they care now? After what the PAD did? What the PAD did, withe the shutting down of the two major airports is far worse than this incident. That resulted in a net economic loss that hasn't been recovered yet. None of them give a fuck. They only want to win because they know if they don't, they are dead.

So in what way am I mistaken about me saying that the protesters are annoying, and the fact that they are screwing the nation upside down?

Bear in mind that I never said that they care about what happened, so I fail to see why are you saying I am mistaken?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So in what way am I mistaken about me saying that the protesters are annoying, and the fact that they are screwing the nation upside down?

Bear in mind that I never said that they care about what happened, so I fail to see why are you saying I am mistaken?

Oh God... the fact you fail to distinguish between the tool and the method and the puppet strings makes me wonder whether you are even thinking about this.

Obviously the protesters are annoying, but they are merely a fucking tool to bring the fucking government down. Has that gotten into your head? Have you realised that this is rapidly entering either an end game or a continuous cycle of violence?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

One thing Ray, since it eludes you completely because obviously the concept of legitimacy is completely alien to you in a country that has never had to deal with illegitimate governments, aside from the Japanese and possibly the British, which is debatable.

They obviously know that it is causing economic damage to the country, but to them, the current government has no right to rule them. There's also an under current of resentment against the Elite and Thaksin has drummed up his support largely through populist measures, some of which were anathema to many of the Elite and upper middle class. Thaksin's supporters believe they are fighting against the status quo and will do anything to fight for it. The same way the PAD fights to protect what they believe is status quo and nothing else. Behind all this are the puppet string holders who will use their power to protect their sources of power and will fight for it in anyway possible. Welcome to the Asian idea of the French Revolution, minus the guillotine for the moment.

[ray245]

So in what way am I mistaken about me saying that the protesters are annoying, and the fact that they are screwing the nation upside down?

Bear in mind that I never said that they care about what happened, so I fail to see why are you saying I am mistaken?

Oh God... the fact you fail to distinguish between the tool and the method and the puppet strings makes me wonder whether you are even thinking about this.

Obviously the protesters are annoying, but they are merely a fucking tool to bring the fucking government down. Has that gotten into your head? Have you realised that this is rapidly entering either an end game or a continuous cycle of violence?

Just because I am pissing on the protesters does not mean that I am ignoring the fact that they are played around by the politicians like puppets. I sure as hell didn't put the blame solely on the protesters alone in my earlier post.

Just because they become a tool to be used by someone else does not mean they can't be blamed for what has happened, and the fact that they are also responsible for what happened to Thailand in the status quo.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Just because I am pissing on the protesters does not mean that I am ignoring the fact that they are played around by the politicians like puppets. I sure as hell didn't put the blame solely on the protesters alone in my earlier post.

Just because they become a tool to be used by someone else does not mean they can't be blamed for what has happened, and the fact that they are also responsible for what happened to Thailand in the status quo.

Ah, so you are having that natural Singapore knee jerk reaction to protests. Well done. And you are the one to tell me that idealism matters in politics.

And so what if they can be blamed? Ironically, some of those protesting are protesting because of the shut down of the airports that cost them their jobs. In this economic climate when a loss of a job means no job for a few years, do you think they have anything to lose if they protest? I don't blame them for protesting. The current government came through power through contrived means and the current PM is a bloody rich man's son.

The really big issue here is that both sides refuse to come to any form of compromise. That is the real problem. While that happens, there will be no peace.

[ray245]

Just because I am pissing on the protesters does not mean that I am ignoring the fact that they are played around by the politicians like puppets. I sure as hell didn't put the blame solely on the protesters alone in my earlier post.

Just because they become a tool to be used by someone else does not mean they can't be blamed for what has happened, and the fact that they are also responsible for what happened to Thailand in the status quo.

Ah, so you are having that natural Singapore knee jerk reaction to protests. Well done. And you are the one to tell me that idealism matters in politics.

There is a difference between a reaction to a under control protest and a out of control protest. There is a fine line in regards to political activism. There is nothing wrong with being annoyed with people who crossed the line.

And so what if they can be blamed? Ironically, some of those protesting are protesting because of the shut down of the airports that cost them their jobs. In this economic climate when a loss of a job means no job for a few years, do you think they have anything to lose if they protest?

What about the fact that constant protest would not be beneficial for Thailand's tourism industry? Scaring off more investors for some period of time? I fail to see any reason why can't I blame those protesters together with all the politicians and the King that resulted in such a mess.

The really big issue here is that both sides refuse to come to any form of compromise. That is the real problem. While that happens, there will be no peace.

Duh. The protest are simply part of a bigger problem in Thailand. If you think that I will be stupid enough to say that the protesters are the only reason why there are so many problem in Thailand, you are very mistaken about that.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

There is a difference between a reaction to a under control protest and a out of control protest. There is a fine line in regards to political activism. There is nothing wrong with being annoyed with people who crossed the line.

I'm sorry, but most things in this world aren't done nicely. If protesting doesn't get the job done, then violence does. It happened in America over racial rights, it happened also with a fair bit of violent protests. Care to point to me where major change does not come without any violence? Funny thing that many of the poeple involved in the protests or leading them were involved in protests against the military in the name of democracy many years ago, which many of the other side are demanding that democracy should be modified in their bloody favour.

What about the fact that constant protest would not be beneficial for Thailand's tourism industry? Scaring off more investors for some period of time? I fail to see any reason why can't I blame those protesters together with all the politicians and the King that resulted in such a mess.

This is akin to saying the people suffering should be blamed for the conditions that forced them into suffering. The tourism industry suffered because the PAD, backed and funded by politicians, which led to their loss of jobs. The closure of the airports hurt the Thai tourism industry more than anything Thaksin's supporters have done thus far.

Duh. The protest are simply part of a bigger problem in Thailand. If you think that I will be stupid enough to say that the protesters are the only reason why there are so many problem in Thailand, you are very mistaken about that.

The protests are the symptom and the tool. That is what you are mistaken about. You are again in that stupid damn knee jerk Singaporean view of protests because you believe money is more important that values.

Ray, fucking grow up and realise this world isn't what it is from where you are sitting, where you don't meet homeless people often etc.

[ray245]

I'm sorry, but most things in this world aren't done nicely. If protesting doesn't get the job done, then violence does. It happened in America over racial rights, it happened also with a fair bit of violent protests. Care to point to me where major change does not come without any violence?

Woman Suffrage? Homosexual marriages in Netherlands? How those policy changes require the same level of violent protest we see in Thailand today?

Sure, there are some violence occurring, but it does not require a high level of violence like what we see in Thailand in order to push for a major change.

This is akin to saying the people suffering should be blamed for the conditions that forced them into suffering. The tourism industry suffered because the PAD, backed and funded by politicians, which led to their loss of jobs. The closure of the airports hurt the Thai tourism industry more than anything Thaksin's supporters have done thus far.

So they can't be blamed for making the problem worst? Any pro-Thaksin government would only result in yet another round of violent protest. In what way can this round of violent protest benefit Thailand in any way if everyone knows that the other side refused to compromise?

The protests are the symptom and the tool. That is what you are mistaken about. You are again in that stupid damn knee jerk Singaporean view of protests because you believe money is more important that values.

Where did I deny that the protests are NOT the symptom and a tool? Even then, why can't these symptoms result in more political troubles in Thailand?

Yup, attacking me on a point which I agreed with you is so damn wise.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Woman Suffrage? Homosexual marriages in Netherlands? How those policy changes require the same level of violent protest we see in Thailand today?

You must be forgetting the roots of all of it, where Europe decided to secularise after the Thirty Year War and all the religious upheaval before that during the Protestant Reformation etc. How's that for violence?

Sure, there are some violence occurring, but it does not require a high level of violence like what we see in Thailand in order to push for a major change.

I'm sorry, you obviously don't appreciate the gravitas of the situation, again. In fact, this violence is a pittance compared to other protests I have read of. If people feel ordinary protests do not get their concerns heard, then being violent about it is a natural progression. A government who chooses to ignore the anger of many is threading very thin ground.

And by the way, you are talking about a hard core Buddhist country. FOr people to go really violent reveals the huge pent up anger at the way the current government and its allies have successfully alienated a good segment of the populace.

Tell me Ray, has it occurred to you that the government could 1. ignore peaceful protests. 2. Suppress the news of the protests? Has it occurred to you that without some violence, the protesters' concerns could be blissfully ignored? As our own fucking government does with regards to online ranting?

So they can't be blamed for making the problem worst? Any pro-Thaksin government would only result in yet another round of violent protest.

God............. this is talking to a wall. Tell me, when a murderer kills someone, do you blame the blunt instrument he used, or the person who wields it?

In what way can this round of violent protest benefit Thailand in any way if everyone knows that the other side refused to compromise?

This is not even a matter of "if" whether any one will compromise. The king or whatever is left of the Royal family has to come out and take a stand calling for reconciliation.

Where did I deny that the protests are NOT the symptom and a tool? Even then, why can't these symptoms result in more political troubles in Thailand?

Symptom is not the same as "No, they should not protest regardless because the very act of protesting is wrong!" Because you choose not to characterise the protests as a human expression, but rather that they have no fucking right to protest whatsoever which you stated from the fucking start of the thread for which I am contending with. This is like saying humans have no fucking right to express their anger but keep it pent up. Which part of "Come off your stupid Singaporean knee jerk reaction to protests" do you fucking not understand?

Yup, attacking me on a point which I agreed with you is so damn wise.

I'm attacking you because you miss the point that not only do the protestors have valid reasons to protest, and they have every right to use whatever method they choose to use to get their concernss heard if the other side refuses to hear them. Also, your damn naivety grates me everytime I see it.

[ray245]

You must be forgetting the roots of all of it, where Europe decided to secularise after the Thirty Year War and all the religious upheaval before that during the Protestant Reformation etc. How's that for violence?

Yup, the root of everything argument, so we might as well trace it further back in time where Christianity takes root in Europe. If you trace the roots far enough, you definitely will have a scenario where violence was used. What I talked about this a major chance does not have to result in violence all the time, something you keep ignored.

I'm sorry, you obviously don't appreciate the gravitas of the situation, again. In fact, this violence is a pittance compared to other protests I have read of. If people feel ordinary protests do not get their concerns heard, then being violent about it is a natural progression. A government who chooses to ignore the anger of many is threading very thin ground.

And by the way, you are talking about a hard core Buddhist country. FOr people to go really violent reveals the huge pent up anger at the way the current government and its allies have successfully alienated a good segment of the populace.

Given the fact that a the same protest methods was being used by the anti-Thaksin coalition, resulting in the fall of the pro-Thaksin party due to them giving in to the demand of the protesters, allowing these protest to continue is wise indeed.

So what would you tell me when the anti-Thaksin coalition (the PAD) is conducting protest of their own? That the pro-Thaksin government should step down due to all the protest saying that many people is annoyed with the pro-Thaksin party?

Tell me Ray, has it occurred to you that the government could 1. ignore peaceful protests. 2. Suppress the news of the protests? Has it occurred to you that without some violence, the protesters' concerns could be blissfully ignored? As our own fucking government does with regards to online ranting?

I would assume you are talking about protest as a whole and not the current protest in Thailand.

An act of protest and the concerns of the protesters may or may not help the nation in the long run. Listening to protest and their grievances without any proper analysis would harder resolve the issue. Thinking that any protest should be listened and policies being made to appease them is stupid.

Should we listen to the people who protest against homosexual rights then?

Did you seriously think that the act of protest cannot be abused?

God............. this is talking to a wall. Tell me, when a murderer kills someone, do you blame the blunt instrument he used, or the person who wields it?

Except in this case, the tool is a living person as opposed to a non-living thing. A person who can think. If the average American is stupid enough to listen to idiots like Rush Limbaugh and tried to obstruct the implementation of Obama's policies, resulting in some good policies failing to pass, would you not blame them?

Hell, would you not blame the prop 8 supporters and protesters for resulting in the ban of Homosexual marriages in California? Hell, would you not blame the protesters in Moscow that resulted in the dissolution of the USSR?

This is not even a matter of "if" whether any one will compromise. The king or whatever is left of the Royal family has to come out and take a stand calling for reconciliation.

So you are saying that this current round of violent protest can somehow make the politicians in Thailand to make a wiser decision?

Where did I deny that the protests are NOT the symptom and a tool? Even then, why can't these symptoms result in more political troubles in Thailand?

Symptom is not the same as "No, they should not protest regardless because the very act of protesting is wrong!" Because you choose not to characterise the protests as a human expression, but rather that they have no fucking right to protest whatsoever which you stated from the fucking start of the thread for which I am contending with. This is like saying humans have no fucking right to express their anger but keep it pent up. Which part of "Come off your stupid Singaporean knee jerk reaction to protests" do you fucking not understand?

Screw you. I never said the very act of protest is wrong. I said the recent protests is stupid and pointless if the violence caused bring no noticeable benefit to Thailand. Hell, even then I never fucking said that I am only pissed with the current pro-thaksin protesters. The protesters on both sides refusing to give in to each other did nothing but harm to Thailand since the military coup occurred.

Find me the line which I said I am annoyed with the idea of protest itself?

I'm attacking you because you miss the point that not only do the protestors have valid reasons to protest, and they have every right to use whatever method they choose to use to get their concerns heard if the other side refuses to hear them. Also, your damn naivety grates me everytime I see it.

Except in this case, it is more likely that it will bring another more violent round of protest by the PAD as opposed to being beneficial to the anti-PAD crowd.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I seriously have fucking better things to do than to reply to a young idiot who hasn't even served NS. And this is my last response to the matter.

Yup, the root of everything argument, so we might as well trace it further back in time where Christianity takes root in Europe. If you trace the roots far enough, you definitely will have a scenario where violence was used. What I talked about this a major chance does not have to result in violence all the time, something you keep ignored.

I'm of course ignoring it because it is stupid and you obviously do not understand human nature and you are a naive fool who continues to think otherwise. Moreover this flies in the face of history. Even the fucking Dalai Lama has realised talk can only go so far. By your fucking logic, no one should fight the Germans in World War II on "oft chance that peace could be achieved without violence." That policy sure worked fine for Neville Chamberlain.

Given the fact that a the same protest methods was being used by the anti-Thaksin coalition, resulting in the fall of the pro-Thaksin party due to them giving in to the demand of the protesters, allowing these protest to continue is wise indeed.

So what would you tell me when the anti-Thaksin coalition (the PAD) is conducting protest of their own? That the pro-Thaksin government should step down due to all the protest saying that many people is annoyed with the pro-Thaksin party?

Let them fucking fight out on their own until somewhere somehow they exhaust themselves, or maybe the King would finally get out of his hospital bed to do something about it. Or maybe he should just die since there's plenty of news reports suggesting he's near death. Things then get even more interesting and I will be watching with popcorn and I can worry less about a Kra canal.

I would assume you are talking about protest as a whole and not the current protest in Thailand.

An act of protest and the concerns of the protesters may or may not help the nation in the long run. Listening to protest and their grievances without any proper analysis would harder resolve the issue. Thinking that any protest should be listened and policies being made to appease them is stupid.

Should we listen to the people who protest against homosexual rights then?

Did you seriously think that the act of protest cannot be abused?

So your logic is "if it can be abused, it should be banned." Typical damnable Singaporean logic of absolutes and overgeneralisation. If these fuckers wish to make themselves heard, then let it be heard. Anything can be abused, but it doesn't imply that it should not be fucking banned outright or deemed absolutely wrong.

And oh by the way, someone already delivered a fucking fire and brimstone protest in the Singapore parliament and it was widely supported by the MPs there. Great job not protesting that yourself.

Except in this case, the tool is a living person as opposed to a non-living thing. A person who can think. If the average American is stupid enough to listen to idiots like Rush Limbaugh and tried to obstruct the implementation of Obama's policies, resulting in some good policies failing to pass, would you not blame them?

And a person can be manipulated with lies, falsehoods etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There's nothing new about it, nor is there anything new about your arguments droned out that is found in the Straits Times from time to time.

Hell, would you not blame the prop 8 supporters and protesters for resulting in the ban of Homosexual marriages in California? Hell, would you not blame the protesters in Moscow that resulted in the dissolution of the USSR?

What protesters in Moscow that resulted in the dissolution of the USSR? Where the fuck are you getting that idea from? It was Yeltsin that led to the dissolution of the USSR. Fuck, he ordered the Russian army to fire upon protesters, and kill or arrest the parliamentarians in the Supreme Soviet. The protesters were fighting to save the country against the one who sought to break it up for his own gains. Get your facts right!

So you are saying that this current round of violent protest can somehow make the politicians in Thailand to make a wiser decision?

What politicians? The King has to do something. Only the King can do anything meaningful at this point, what with everyone at their throats.

Screw you. I never said the very act of protest is wrong. I said the recent protests is stupid and pointless if the violence caused bring no noticeable benefit to Thailand. Hell, even then I never fucking said that I am only pissed with the current pro-thaksin protesters. The protesters on both sides refusing to give in to each other did nothing but harm to Thailand since the military coup occurred.

Find me the line which I said I am annoyed with the idea of protest itself?

Why, you forgot your first line in the thread?

Those protesters in Thailand is freaking annoying, with people from both end of the political spectrum trying to screw their nation upside down with all the useless protest.

And "freaking annoying" does not suggest they are wrong?

Except in this case, it is more likely that it will bring another more violent round of protest by the PAD as opposed to being beneficial to the anti-PAD crowd.

*shrug* Each side have their concerns, by all means let them come out and fight for attention. Why should you give a shit?

[ray245]

Why, you forgot your first line in the thread?

Yeah, continue trying to twist my words in order to suit your mentality that every other Singaporean is against the idea of protest by itself.

A protest has both pro and cons. Why can't I be pissed at a protest when I see more cons than pros?

I'm of course ignoring it because it is stupid and you obviously do not understand human nature and you are a naive fool who continues to think otherwise. Moreover this flies in the face of history. Even the fucking Dalai Lama has realised talk can only go so far. By your fucking logic, no one should fight the Germans in World War II on "oft chance that peace could be achieved without violence." That policy sure worked fine for Neville Chamberlain.

Great, just because I am pissed with violent protest, that means I am a person who opposed all wars?
Are you trying to say everything has to be solved by violence? That is what I am getting from you.

So your logic is "if it can be abused, it should be banned." Typical damnable Singaporean logic of absolutes and overgeneralisation. If these fuckers wish to make themselves heard, then let it be heard. Anything can be abused, but it doesn't imply that it should not be fucking banned outright or deemed absolutely wrong.

And oh by the way, someone already delivered a fucking fire and brimstone protest in the Singapore parliament and it was widely supported by the MPs there. Great job not protesting that yourself.

Try reading my argument sometimes, instead of trying to twist what I've said into 'he is an idiot'. I am only reminding you the fact that protest like everything has its pros and cons. I never said we should ban it, but the fact that not every protest will benefit the nation.

In this case of Thailand, I see no benefits out of this recent rounds of protest. So why can't I be pissed with a protest that has no tangible benefit?

You are the one overgeneralising my argument, and ignoring that I've said an act of protest may or may not help the nation.

And a person can be manipulated with lies, falsehoods etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There's nothing new about it, nor is there anything new about your arguments droned out that is found in the Straits Times from time to time.

Yeah, anyone that is from Singapore and disagree with you must have read Straits Times only. Like I said before, just because he was manipulated does not mean he has no responsibility in regards to his actions.

Yeah, let's stop blaming Republican voters for being stupid enough to continue voice their support for stupid policies made by the Republicans.

And "freaking annoying" does not suggest they are wrong?

There is a key difference between saying these protesters(both Red and Yellow) in Thailand are wrong and a key difference between saying an act of protest by itself is wrong.

How hard is it to understand that?

*shrug* Each side have their concerns, by all means let them come out and fight for attention. Why should you give a shit?

Except in this case, I find that it is annoying to see them doing something that produced no tangible benefit to Thailand.
Also , if you don't give a shit, why the hell are you discussing about Thailand down here?

[Ghost Rider]

Next time you want to bitch and whine Ray, it will be a fuckload worse then a warning. Do not use the the warning button because you are unable to refute the poster's argument over your ability or inability to debate.