I was going to email you to get an up to date report for today’s show but now I don’t have to as I just read it.

polo – I’ve known Nick for a number of years and he’s the consummate professional and never gets too emotional but he does have deep feelings and that is to be expected because of the situation he often finds himself in.

Later, my friend.

“Both groups have to understand that nobody can win this conflict by violence. It will in the end only alienate the average citizen, and the country will descend into a circle of violence that might bring it to the brink of civil war. Especially in a country like Thailand, where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition, leaders of such protests groups have to make sure that they find ways to discourage these elements within their own ranks.”

“If PAD guards cannot be disarmed completely, and that means also that demonstrations are not anymore led by hooded men holding sticks and iron bars, then these people have to be expelled from the PAD. The PAD has to clearly distance itself from these groups. And, ideally, PAD should redefine itself, leave Government House, and return to a constitutional form of protest.”

In fact the language of PAD leaders has been to stoke violent feelings, warning of clashes and threatening clashes. I would go so far as to say hoping for violence that they hope would lead to a (1) coup or (2) conflagration. And (3): they have a jihad-martyr complex which requires provoking a violent end to themselves — and that is clear throughout Sondhi’s and Chamlong’s speeches.

Nick is exhorting them to break from the viiolent side but in fact they are dependent on the threat of a violent outbreak. This is brinkmanship as the busienss of the protest, not non-violence.

“These people have to be expelled from PAD” — what does that mean, that they aren’t part of it. They absolutely are. PAD has never been a movement away from these goons. (An I am not a Thaksin backer, BTW). They are just a part of it as much as the committed no-violent elements — and the DO NOT include Sondhi, and in my view not even Chamlong.

Furthermore, what does this phrase mean: “where violence in political and social conflict has a long tradition,”

What “tradition” of violence? On whose side? (If I recall, the police/military attacked protestors in Oct 1973, Oct 1976, and May 2001.) In fact, Nick himself denies this — he warns of a breakdown toward civil war. That is a break from the recent past, only “traditional” if you refer to 1933 and the 1975-78 national split.

I hope Nick will go back to his detailed descriptions of what is happening in the streets and back off the emotional interpretation and calls for PAD to do this or that.

thanks again for your excellent diligence in being there and in reporting clearly and fairly!

just a couple of requests for information….

“gathering at Wat Suan Gaeow was attended by about 23,000 people, many families, mostly from Bangkok and surrounding provinces.”

where did the estimate of 23,000 come from…
I was there and this is a plausible number, the people were spread through the bush so real hard to count… except at the (2?) entries

and

“in at least two of the recent explosions at Government House there is clear evidence that they were caused by conflicts between the guards.”

do you have sources for the clear evidence, were you there doing your on the spot checking?

and I think I have to repost my statement about illegal protests…

After the Nov 7 tragedy at Parliament House, the Police have been
subject to an unfair campaign by the media and the NHRC to claim that the powers of the Police to disperse armed and violent protests must be limited to non-violent methods.

The Administrative Court made five judgements after that event, 3 of
them declaring that:
the PAD protest was illegal, armed and not peaceful and
the police were authorised to disperse them.

Also, in the last 2 judgements, the court did not say that violence
could not be used, it said: ;
police actions must be proportionate.

To my knowledge the media (and the NHRC) have not published anything of the first 3 judgements which directly contradict claims repeatedly made by the PAD.

Regarding the last 2 judgements, the media, the PAD and even the NHRC have variously stated that the Police cannot use force against the PAD.

All these judgements are important, because in International practise
the actions of police for dispersing peaceful and unarmed protests are
limited.

But where protestors are armed, police actions must be extended to
whatever is necessary to achieve the dispersal.

Protesters must expect that lethal weapons will be available to the
police and will be used by the police if any of the protesters use
lethal weapons… glass balls from sling shots and machetes are lethal
in the right circumstances and, as we know sadly, a sharpened stick can also be lethal to kill a policeman.

I notice that Khun Chamlong has announced he has ordered his guards not to be armed while protesting today. So he is obviously sensitive to the legal and physical risks.

But, we have already seen video that show guards carrying weapons, so either the guards are ignoring his orders or there are secret instructions.

I believe the police were shocked at the effects of the “weapons grade”
tear gas last time, but armed protesters must expect tear gas to be used.
Was this “faulty tear gas supplied and used by the Border Patrol Police, which are under command of the military and have an infamous history?

Protesters must expect water cannon to be used.
The BMA permitted the PAD to use fire trucks for training so they should now be available to the Police?

Protesters must be fully aware that even just sitting where they are,
because they are associated with an armed insurrection, what they are doing is illegal.

As I am writing now at 6:20 pm local time, we can see on tv how PAD is trying to block the new airport while poor foreign tourists have to get off their vehicles and walk to catch their flights. Is this the kind of democracy that Sonthi wants ? Anyway, we need lots of support from democratic people outside Thailand in case another coup takes place within a few days’ time.

Obviously this support for PAD is slowly dwindling as we can see from various sources and articles. While considering the future of PAD and Thai politics is important, it is also crucial for us to look into the causes of the dwindling support. Is it because of ideological divides between the PAD? Or is it because of the toil of the economic situation? Whatever the case, it may jolly well point to the fact that at the end of the day, the PAD is just a selfish organization seeking power while ignoring “morals” (which they claim they are fighting for) and the plights of its own “supporters”.

It is perhaps also more useful to treat Thai politics from a different perspective. It is not simply a “lose-lose” situation for the government and the PAD but rather, a “i lose and therefore you cannot win” situation.