Americans were terrorists during the Revolutionary War too

[PH1234]

I just found this quote on the internet. It's from the book "1776" by David McCullough.

When Lord Sandwich of the House of Lords was asked about the chances of Britain winning a war in America, he replied "Suppose the colonies do abound in men, what does that signify? They are raw, undisciplined, cowardly men."

Looks just like what most people are saying about the Red Shirts in BKK. Except this time it's the redcoats..errr...red shirts who are breaking away. The early Americans BROKE English law while fighting (shame on them), threatened to break away from English law, shot at soldiers, they didn't peacefully fight for their independence, they didn't even fight in a straight line like they were supposed to, etc. They had the audacity to camouflage themselves. What cowards. They should have shown themselves.

[trtrz]

I just found this quote on the internet. It's from the book "1776" by David McCullough.

When Lord Sandwich of the House of Lords was asked about the chances of Britain winning a war in America, he replied "Suppose the colonies do abound in men, what does that signify? They are raw, undisciplined, cowardly men."

Looks just like what most people are saying about the Red Shirts in BKK. Except this time it's the redcoats..errr...red shirts who are breaking away. The early Americans BROKE English law while fighting (shame on them), threatened to break away from English law, shot at soldiers, they didn't peacefully fight for their independence, they didn't even fight in a straight line like they were supposed to, etc. They had the audacity to camouflage themselves. What cowards. They should have shown themselves.

For whatever cause, violence and war is never good.

Such thinking are the reasons why we never have proper peace in the history of mankind.

[Jefferson]

I just found this quote on the internet. It's from the book "1776" by David McCullough.

When Lord Sandwich of the House of Lords was asked about the chances of Britain winning a war in America, he replied "Suppose the colonies do abound in men, what does that signify? They are raw, undisciplined, cowardly men."

Looks just like what most people are saying about the Red Shirts in BKK. Except this time it's the redcoats..errr...red shirts who are breaking away. The early Americans BROKE English law while fighting (shame on them), threatened to break away from English law, shot at soldiers, they didn't peacefully fight for their independence, they didn't even fight in a straight line like they were supposed to, etc. They had the audacity to camouflage themselves. What cowards. They should have shown themselves.

So the people who fired grenades at civilians peacefully awaiting the SkyTrain are freedom fighters then. Gosh, thanks for correcting me, as I certainly thought them to be terrorists.

[trtrz]

I think people need to be able to distinguish that chaos =/= freedom.

[PH1234]

First of all, I'm not saying killing people from any group is justifiable. People just fear groups more when they are eager to fight. It's a high school way of thinking, I'll agree with that. So far violence seems the most effective for them though. If the UDD back in March decided to only protest in a park somewhere, nobody would have had a problem with them. They could have stayed all year probably. They also would have had no effect whatsoever. They wanted quick results so they decided to make people notice them and fight back when force was applied instead of using a more Ghandi approach.

Can anyone think of some peaceful ways they could have QUICKLY gotten a new election? I'm not trying to cause an argument. I'm seriously thinking of some Ghandi type ways the UDD could get people to view a bunch of poor farmers as equal citizens while getting a quick election. Please list them. Most likely they would have just been laughed at. I think the farmers have had enough of people pushing them around and flipped a cork. They're already poor. They have nothing to loose. They'd rather be looked at as bass-ass low lives than low lives with no spines in the eyes of the rich.

I teach at a rich government school. I've seen the way people up north get looked upon. I even see the way rich people look at 7-11 cashiers. If I were a poor farmer, in the same situation, I don't know what I would do. Maybe the same.

[Jefferson]

If there is no non-violent way to obtain an election at this time then maybe an election now is an inappropriate goal.

I do, however, totally agree with you about how irritating it is to see the elite act like...elite. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everyone else, but they do not seem to know it. Maybe "elite" is the wrong term. Wouldn't "spoiled" be better?

[Na Fianna]

Firstly, to label all opposition(in this case Red Shirts) terrorists means you've been listening to George Dubya too long.
People who have killed/thrown(or launched) grenades/injured are criminals.
The Gov't do their share of terrorising too.
Im Irish and i've seen this kind of thing many times before.(although i admit that no 2 situations are identical, lessons learned from one can be useful for another)
My opinion is that a figure massivley respected on both sides should chair meetings to decide on a time frame for elections that will not hinder financial issues i.e. the budget as Abhisit has alluded to.
Perhaps a special envoy empowered by \\ /////.
Mark my words however, a violent army break up of the red shirts will only swell their ranks exponentially and create larger problems in the future (a la Bloody Sunday, Derry 1972)

[PH1234]

True. Spoiled is a better choice of words.

[trtrz]

First of all, I'm not saying killing people from any group is justifiable. People just fear groups more when they are eager to fight. It's a high school way of thinking, I'll agree with that. So far violence seems the most effective for them though. If the UDD back in March decided to only protest in a park somewhere, nobody would have had a problem with them. They could have stayed all year probably. They also would have had no effect whatsoever. They wanted quick results so they decided to make people notice them and fight back when force was applied instead of using a more Ghandi approach.

Can anyone think of some peaceful ways they could have QUICKLY gotten a new election? I'm not trying to cause an argument. I'm seriously thinking of some Ghandi type ways the UDD could get people to view a bunch of poor farmers as equal citizens while getting a quick election. Please list them. Most likely they would have just been laughed at. I think the farmers have had enough of people pushing them around and flipped a cork. They're already poor. They have nothing to loose. They'd rather be looked at as bass-ass low lives than low lives with no spines in the eyes of the rich.

I teach at a rich government school. I've seen the way people up north get looked upon. I even see the way rich people look at 7-11 cashiers. If I were a poor farmer, in the same situation, I don't know what I would do. Maybe the same.

The tragic part is there are four groups of elites, the first is those who ignore the farmers, the second is those who look down on the farmers and the third is those who use the farmers, and the fourth is those who tried to help but do not have the support of the people.

I believe that the first three groups contribute to the social inequality in Thailand, more so the second and third group and especially third group because it handicaps the fourth group from gaining proper support from the mass.

I believe the UDD leaders belong to the third group and Abhisit and Korn belongs to the fourth group. There is a huge irony when the farmers and working classes are trying to remove the first govt that try to implement land reform to redistribute income properly through taxation system not some short-term populist policies.

[Hard_done_by]

First of all, I'm not saying killing people from any group is justifiable. People just fear groups more when they are eager to fight. It's a high school way of thinking, I'll agree with that. So far violence seems the most effective for them though. If the UDD back in March decided to only protest in a park somewhere, nobody would have had a problem with them. They could have stayed all year probably. They also would have had no effect whatsoever. They wanted quick results so they decided to make people notice them and fight back when force was applied instead of using a more Ghandi approach.

Can anyone think of some peaceful ways they could have QUICKLY gotten a new election? I'm not trying to cause an argument. I'm seriously thinking of some Ghandi type ways the UDD could get people to view a bunch of poor farmers as equal citizens while getting a quick election. Please list them. Most likely they would have just been laughed at. I think the farmers have had enough of people pushing them around and flipped a cork. They're already poor. They have nothing to loose. They'd rather be looked at as bass-ass low lives than low lives with no spines in the eyes of the rich.

I teach at a rich government school. I've seen the way people up north get looked upon. I even see the way rich people look at 7-11 cashiers. If I were a poor farmer, in the same situation, I don't know what I would do. Maybe the same.

"... They have nothing to lose. ...", interesting statement, but you should have qualified it to the extent that they have no material things to lose, but they do have their lives to lose, and perhaps they haven't realise that soon enough some, or many, of them might be making that ultimate sacrifice.

The truth is, that the UDD have been treated like children - and they have been allowed to carry on like children for far too long. Because the government hasn't acted, then the UDD has done as it pleased, but the time will come when the government has to act, and I'm sure the UDD will cry many tears over the losses which they could clearly see were coming but did nothing to avert.

You say the UDD wanted 'results', well, you can bet they're going to get them - but they might not be the results they really wanted.