Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is civil resistant a treason?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 9:42:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As the topic implies, is it?

Civil resistant is a direct violation of law and government rule and in some case even aim at overthrowing such a governments themselves, if doing so is a treason against the state doing so unarmed shouldn't make a different.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:30:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Civil resistance is not necessarily treason.

Only when civil resistance advocates the overthrow of a government through non-military means would it be treason.

In America, the civil rights movement would be an example of non-treasonous civil resistance. If instead, had MLK advocated for regime change in order to achieve his goals, that would have been treasonous.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:39:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:30:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Civil resistance is not necessarily treason.

Only when civil resistance advocates the overthrow of a government through non-military means would it be treason.

In America, the civil rights movement would be an example of non-treasonous civil resistance. If instead, had MLK advocated for regime change in order to achieve his goals, that would have been treasonous.

Lets also make the distinction that one must be trying to oust the government, not just members in the government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:42:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:39:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:30:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Civil resistance is not necessarily treason.

Only when civil resistance advocates the overthrow of a government through non-military means would it be treason.

In America, the civil rights movement would be an example of non-treasonous civil resistance. If instead, had MLK advocated for regime change in order to achieve his goals, that would have been treasonous.

Lets also make the distinction that one must be trying to oust the government, not just members in the government.

No, I don't think that distinction is necessary. Had the military attempted to oust George Bush and his administration while keeping the Constitution valid as a governing document, they would have been deemed treasonous.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 2:38:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 9:42:27 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
As the topic implies, is it?

Civil resistant is a direct violation of law and government rule and in some case even aim at overthrowing such a governments themselves, if doing so is a treason against the state doing so unarmed shouldn't make a different.

In the cases where the act is for the purpose of overthrowing a government, it would be treason.
However, most defiant acts against a particular law is not treason. If it were, than ANY crime would be treason, up to and including, me not buckling my seatbelt.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 4:12:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:42:00 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:39:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:30:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Civil resistance is not necessarily treason.

Only when civil resistance advocates the overthrow of a government through non-military means would it be treason.

In America, the civil rights movement would be an example of non-treasonous civil resistance. If instead, had MLK advocated for regime change in order to achieve his goals, that would have been treasonous.

Lets also make the distinction that one must be trying to oust the government, not just members in the government.

No, I don't think that distinction is necessary. Had the military attempted to oust George Bush and his administration while keeping the Constitution valid as a governing document, they would have been deemed treasonous.

Then voting against incumbents is treason. Perhaps a better distiction would be to remove someone in a manner outside the guidelines of the law.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 4:14:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 4:12:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:42:00 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Lets also make the distinction that one must be trying to oust the government, not just members in the government.

No, I don't think that distinction is necessary. Had the military attempted to oust George Bush and his administration while keeping the Constitution valid as a governing document, they would have been deemed treasonous.

Then voting against incumbents is treason. Perhaps a better distiction would be to remove someone in a manner outside the guidelines of the law.

Right, I thought that was implied by the OP:

"Civil resistant is a direct violation of law..."

=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 5:38:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A better question would be, why is treason usually considered a bad thing?
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 7:47:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have an express right to revolution, most don't. Many might have a common law right to revolution.

As for the subject of Treason, the constitution defines Treason against the United States as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If you levy war against your state you are only guilty of treason if your state does not have a right to revolution. If your state does you can still be guilty of treason by levying war against the Federation, i.e. not only your state but it's neighbors. The militia (now reorganized into the national guard) is responsible for putting down rebellions, and it would be the militia of the state and possibly it's neighbors who respond to instances of rebellion.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:03:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 7:47:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have an express right to revolution, most don't. Many might have a common law right to revolution.

You're supposed to have a right to overthrow your entire government. That's what guys like Jefferson intended anyway. Of course our government wouldn't want that to happen, so they outlaw that.

As for the subject of Treason, the constitution defines Treason against the United States as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If you levy war against your state you are only guilty of treason if your state does not have a right to revolution. If your state does you can still be guilty of treason by levying war against the Federation, i.e. not only your state but it's neighbors. The militia (now reorganized into the national guard) is responsible for putting down rebellions, and it would be the militia of the state and possibly it's neighbors who respond to instances of rebellion.

Pretty much. If Americans decided they want a new government, and tried to act on that, the US military would put a stop to it immediately.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
alvisd
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:22:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:03:27 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:47:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have an express right to revolution, most don't. Many might have a common law right to revolution.

You're supposed to have a right to overthrow your entire government. That's what guys like Jefferson intended anyway. Of course our government wouldn't want that to happen, so they outlaw that.

As for the subject of Treason, the constitution defines Treason against the United States as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If you levy war against your state you are only guilty of treason if your state does not have a right to revolution. If your state does you can still be guilty of treason by levying war against the Federation, i.e. not only your state but it's neighbors. The militia (now reorganized into the national guard) is responsible for putting down rebellions, and it would be the militia of the state and possibly it's neighbors who respond to instances of rebellion.

Pretty much. If Americans decided they want a new government, and tried to act on that, the US military would put a stop to it immediately.

weird how the whiskey rebellion happened right afterwards.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 11:40:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The general rule for overthrowing any government is that you can only do it if you win - this is due to practical reasons and there are very few ways around this. You can't expect a government to simply ignore your failed attempt to overthrow the government, but if you are successful, then there is nobody left to complain, is there? In addition, if you are founding a new nation, the government can declare war on you, so you'd be better off prepared to defend your new nation. As long as you can defend it, you can keep your independence.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:56:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:30:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Civil resistance is not necessarily treason.

Only when civil resistance advocates the overthrow of a government through non-military means would it be treason.

In America, the civil rights movement would be an example of non-treasonous civil resistance. If instead, had MLK advocated for regime change in order to achieve his goals, that would have been treasonous.

On the second, I think I have not been clear enough. A civil resistant I am referring to is a political action that is a direct violation of the law (including the one not aiming at the overthrown of the government) i.e. unlawful strike, occupation of government or private property, disruption of public operation.

A protest that aim, even at overthrowing of the government, without unlawful resisting action (aka. just stand there and say "I disagree") is not civil resistant but a political demonstration, which is excluded from my above question.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 6:38:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:56:30 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:30:32 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Civil resistance is not necessarily treason.

Only when civil resistance advocates the overthrow of a government through non-military means would it be treason.

In America, the civil rights movement would be an example of non-treasonous civil resistance. If instead, had MLK advocated for regime change in order to achieve his goals, that would have been treasonous.

On the second, I think I have not been clear enough. A civil resistant I am referring to is a political action that is a direct violation of the law (including the one not aiming at the overthrown of the government) i.e. unlawful strike, occupation of government or private property, disruption of public operation.

MLK and Gandhi were arrested on numerous occasions. Much of what they did was not legal. Gandhi, to the extent that he did advocate for the overthrow of British rule, could probably be seen as treasonous.

A protest that aim, even at overthrowing of the government, without unlawful resisting action (aka. just stand there and say "I disagree") is not civil resistant but a political demonstration, which is excluded from my above question.

Agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 6:50:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm going to preempt what I suspect will be your next question:

Why wasn't Gandhi arrested for treason? My opinion:

1) Gandhi claimed the moral high ground. Regardless of the illegality of his acts, charging him with treason specifically may have been perceived as a kind of moral treason (same word, different meaning).

2) Gandhi was a relatively benign and ineffectual influence. IMHO his advocacy and platform did not result in material change in British India. Only the end of WWII and the destruction of British primacy resulted in India gaining independence. Furthermore, he was unable to halt the separation of India into India-Pakistan.

3) IMHO pacifism is wholly untenable as a core belief structure, I have debated as such:
http://www.debate.org...

---

Basically, from a practical perspective, it actually helped the British to keep Gandhi in the spotlight, as what would have followed Gandhi in the independence movement had Gandhi died before independence would have been far more violent and uncontrollable, and thus much more the fault of inept British rule.

Regardless, it's surmisable (not likely, but possible) that had the British been able to continue to project power after WWII, that they would have been able to broker an amicable colonial arrangement with someone like Gandhi, thereby silencing the independence movement.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 11:16:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 6:50:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I'm going to preempt what I suspect will be your next question:

Your suspicious is wrong :D
I never have the case of India in mind until you brought it up but I suppose it is relevant enough to stimulate this discussion.

The real object of this question is principal in nature, the first and foremost duty of every government in the world is to reign - maintain the uniformity of authority and the use of force under the hand of one, single regime, the government. Failing to do so will result in a state of anarchy where anyone and everyone can liberally use force to further their private gain and chaos erupted.

Thus if there is anybody who attempt, at armed or not, to extort power from the state, I think it is a duty for any government to response with all means possible including the use of force. Thus, violence response against revolutionary protest is justifiable if the situation required.

The background I have in particular is actually my own country. For this few years I've seen countless revolution to the government from both sides of the street. The most popular tactic of these political group is to raise a large force of peaceful demonstrators. Once they started to gather large enough people, peaceful demonstration escalate in to civil resistant which often escalate to violence, and through that violence they either provoke the army to initiate a coup or independently disrupt government day-to-day operation and forced them to submission.

In my opinion, this new generation of vicious cycle in to anarchy need to be dealt with swiftly, with violence if necessary to maintain political stability. I base this argument on the Thatcher government's response to the miner protest in 1984. By broken the power of her opposition completely, she finally be able to maintain political stability as well as economic recovery in her time.

I knew that it is effective, but I want to know if it is legitimate and how to implement it without causing international outcry.

Why wasn't Gandhi arrested for treason? My opinion:

1) Gandhi claimed the moral high ground. Regardless of the illegality of his acts, charging him with treason specifically may have been perceived as a kind of moral treason (same word, different meaning).

2) Gandhi was a relatively benign and ineffectual influence. IMHO his advocacy and platform did not result in material change in British India. Only the end of WWII and the destruction of British primacy resulted in India gaining independence. Furthermore, he was unable to halt the separation of India into India-Pakistan.

3) IMHO pacifism is wholly untenable as a core belief structure, I have debated as such:
http://www.debate.org...

---

Basically, from a practical perspective, it actually helped the British to keep Gandhi in the spotlight, as what would have followed Gandhi in the independence movement had Gandhi died before independence would have been far more violent and uncontrollable, and thus much more the fault of inept British rule.

Regardless, it's surmisable (not likely, but possible) that had the British been able to continue to project power after WWII, that they would have been able to broker an amicable colonial arrangement with someone like Gandhi, thereby silencing the independence movement.

Can you explained this a bit more, how can the British Empire kept Ghandi's influence in check and effectively respond to Ghandi civil resistant tactic.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 11:19:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Through legal and democratic action.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 2:08:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 11:03:27 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:47:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have an express right to revolution, most don't. Many might have a common law right to revolution.

You're supposed to have a right to overthrow your entire government. That's what guys like Jefferson intended anyway. Of course our government wouldn't want that to happen, so they outlaw that.

The state of Hawaii is not my government.
As for the subject of Treason, the constitution defines Treason against the United States as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If you levy war against your state you are only guilty of treason if your state does not have a right to revolution. If your state does you can still be guilty of treason by levying war against the Federation, i.e. not only your state but it's neighbors. The militia (now reorganized into the national guard) is responsible for putting down rebellions, and it would be the militia of the state and possibly it's neighbors who respond to instances of rebellion.

Pretty much. If Americans decided they want a new government, and tried to act on that, the US military would put a stop to it immediately.
If a majority of Americans were rebelling against the US government, I can assure you the US military would be rendered ineffective against the revolt.
Furthermore, if a minority of US citizens were rebelling, the use of military force against those citizens would be so frowned upon by the rebelling populace that the politicians in support of military force would have a short lived career.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 2:52:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 11:16:33 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 12/2/2013 6:50:22 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I'm going to preempt what I suspect will be your next question:

Your suspicious is wrong :D
I never have the case of India in mind until you brought it up but I suppose it is relevant enough to stimulate this discussion.

The real object of this question is principal in nature, the first and foremost duty of every government in the world is to reign - maintain the uniformity of authority and the use of force under the hand of one, single regime, the government. Failing to do so will result in a state of anarchy where anyone and everyone can liberally use force to further their private gain and chaos erupted.

Thus if there is anybody who attempt, at armed or not, to extort power from the state, I think it is a duty for any government to response with all means possible including the use of force. Thus, violence response against revolutionary protest is justifiable if the situation required.

The background I have in particular is actually my own country. For this few years I've seen countless revolution to the government from both sides of the street. The most popular tactic of these political group is to raise a large force of peaceful demonstrators. Once they started to gather large enough people, peaceful demonstration escalate in to civil resistant which often escalate to violence, and through that violence they either provoke the army to initiate a coup or independently disrupt government day-to-day operation and forced them to submission.

In my opinion, this new generation of vicious cycle in to anarchy need to be dealt with swiftly, with violence if necessary to maintain political stability. I base this argument on the Thatcher government's response to the miner protest in 1984. By broken the power of her opposition completely, she finally be able to maintain political stability as well as economic recovery in her time.

I found everything above to be quite reasonable, and I suspected this had something to do with Thailand (although I'm not intimately aware of the resistance movement there).

I knew that it is effective, but I want to know if it is legitimate and how to implement it without causing international outcry.

LOL, I laughed pretty hard when I read this line. I'll use an example to illustrate why.

In China, the northeast corner of that country is a region called "Xinjiang". This region is extremely sparsely inhabited primarily by the Uighurs, who are ethnically Turkish and don't speak Chinese. There are maybe 10-15 million Uighurs in Xinjiang, which is about three times the size of Texas, which by comparison has over 25 million people (Texas is considered to be sparsely populated in America).

China has had a paramilitary organization called the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corporation (XPCC) that has been "developing" this region for decades. Following 9/11, the Chinese intensified these efforts under the guise of eliminating terrorism. This organization consists of over 2 million people, and almost all of them are Han Chinese.

As you can see, this organization is gigantic - it is larger than the US military...they've built entire cities in their attempts to develop the area. They also evict the Uighurs from their lands, which of course causes riots and etc. The Uighurs have justifiable complaints regarding genocide, especially when it comes to forcible disenfranchisement.

The West however does nothing. Most people don't even know this area exists. Some reasons:

1) Xinjiang borders both China AND Russia. This makes it an extremely sensitive region for both countries, much more so than Tibet.

2) The Uighurs are Muslim. I participated in a course on this region for 2 weeks, after which I concluded that I knew all I wanted to know about the political situation in the region...our professor showed us a video of a Uighur leader attempting to rally Westerners to his cause...he almost had to apologize for the fact that the Uighurs are Muslim.

3) China will wage a war over Xinjiang, indeed you can say they've been waging a war for over 50 years in the region. It's China's most important source of coal, China's primary source of energy.

As you can see, my reasons for lack of Western action have nothing to do with human rights abuses or any sort of moral argument. That's because, IMHO, such arguments alone simply do not hold any real weight, otherwise Xinjiang would be as strong if not a much stronger case than Tibet for Western indignation. Besides the political reality of that situation, the fact is, America is extremely Islamophobic and will not support a pro-Muslim movement of any sort.

Why wasn't Gandhi arrested for treason? My opinion:

1) Gandhi claimed the moral high ground. Regardless of the illegality of his acts, charging him with treason specifically may have been perceived as a kind of moral treason (same word, different meaning).

2) Gandhi was a relatively benign and ineffectual influence. IMHO his advocacy and platform did not result in material change in British India. Only the end of WWII and the destruction of British primacy resulted in India gaining independence. Furthermore, he was unable to halt the separation of India into India-Pakistan.

3) IMHO pacifism is wholly untenable as a core belief structure, I have debated as such:
http://www.debate.org...

---

Basically, from a practical perspective, it actually helped the British to keep Gandhi in the spotlight, as what would have followed Gandhi in the independence movement had Gandhi died before independence would have been far more violent and uncontrollable, and thus much more the fault of inept British rule.

Regardless, it's surmisable (not likely, but possible) that had the British been able to continue to project power after WWII, that they would have been able to broker an amicable colonial arrangement with someone like Gandhi, thereby silencing the independence movement.

Can you explained this a bit more, how can the British Empire kept Ghandi's influence in check and effectively respond to Ghandi civil resistant tactic.

I don't know enough about the particulars to give you a good answer, sorry. What I do know is that Gandhi was a leading figure around 25 years before Indian Independence, the Salt March which Gandhi is famous for happened 17 years before Indian Independence, and that WWII ended only 2 years before independence. This would strongly suggest that the main reason behind how the Indians earned their independence is because the British were no longer capable of projecting power in the region, i.e. it had little to nothing to do with Gandhi.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 3:00:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 2:08:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:03:27 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:47:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have an express right to revolution, most don't. Many might have a common law right to revolution.

You're supposed to have a right to overthrow your entire government. That's what guys like Jefferson intended anyway. Of course our government wouldn't want that to happen, so they outlaw that.

The state of Hawaii is not my government.
As for the subject of Treason, the constitution defines Treason against the United States as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If you levy war against your state you are only guilty of treason if your state does not have a right to revolution. If your state does you can still be guilty of treason by levying war against the Federation, i.e. not only your state but it's neighbors. The militia (now reorganized into the national guard) is responsible for putting down rebellions, and it would be the militia of the state and possibly it's neighbors who respond to instances of rebellion.

Pretty much. If Americans decided they want a new government, and tried to act on that, the US military would put a stop to it immediately.
If a majority of Americans were rebelling against the US government, I can assure you the US military would be rendered ineffective against the revolt.

Just to put this in perspective, what you're saying is that if over 150 million Americans decided to form an armed rebellion against the government, then the US military would be rendered ineffective.

The only reason for this would be because more than likely a large swath of the military would desert and take sides with the rebels...otherwise, if it was a pitched fight, the military would easily win.

Furthermore, if a minority of US citizens were rebelling, the use of military force against those citizens would be so frowned upon by the rebelling populace that the politicians in support of military force would have a short lived career.

I was not aware that Abraham Lincoln was "frowned upon" in regards to America's history with minority rebellions.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 3:58:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 3:00:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/2/2013 2:08:06 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 11:03:27 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 12/1/2013 7:47:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/1/2013 10:18:27 AM, ironmaiden wrote:
If you're American, you have the right to overthrow the government.

Depends on what state you live in. Some states have an express right to revolution, most don't. Many might have a common law right to revolution.

You're supposed to have a right to overthrow your entire government. That's what guys like Jefferson intended anyway. Of course our government wouldn't want that to happen, so they outlaw that.

The state of Hawaii is not my government.
As for the subject of Treason, the constitution defines Treason against the United States as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If you levy war against your state you are only guilty of treason if your state does not have a right to revolution. If your state does you can still be guilty of treason by levying war against the Federation, i.e. not only your state but it's neighbors. The militia (now reorganized into the national guard) is responsible for putting down rebellions, and it would be the militia of the state and possibly it's neighbors who respond to instances of rebellion.

Pretty much. If Americans decided they want a new government, and tried to act on that, the US military would put a stop to it immediately.
If a majority of Americans were rebelling against the US government, I can assure you the US military would be rendered ineffective against the revolt.

Just to put this in perspective, what you're saying is that if over 150 million Americans decided to form an armed rebellion against the government, then the US military would be rendered ineffective.

They don't have to participate, they just have to support the rebellion. A military cannot surpress a rebellion without winning the hearts and minds of the people.
The only reason for this would be because more than likely a large swath of the military would desert and take sides with the rebels...otherwise, if it was a pitched fight, the military would easily win.

It would be unconventional warfare, where any civilian can be a rebel. The Nam and the war on terror are examples of this.

However, a civil war or revolt may create the added hazard of military officers and their subordinates deserting or even sabotaging the Us military from within. Such was the case during the civil war.

Furthermore, if a minority of US citizens were rebelling, the use of military force against those citizens would be so frowned upon by the rebelling populace that the politicians in support of military force would have a short lived career.

I was not aware that Abraham Lincoln was "frowned upon" in regards to America's history with minority rebellions.

In his day he excersized exteme censorship, going so far as to arrest editors and place their press under military control. New York rioted during the civil war due to the War Time policies.

Furthermore, it was north vs south. The south, which was the ones rebelling, despised Lincoln.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 4:01:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 3:58:28 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/2/2013 3:00:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think we can both agree that rebellion is an undesirable outcome, and leave it at that.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We're currently have a kind of this "unarmed revolution" by a group of ultraroyalist factions. It is actually nothing new, two years ago similar attempt had been made by a group of populist which eventually turned violence and ravaged many part of Bangkok. This time, even though the "revolution" still remain peaceful, there are over a millions people on the street (two in fact). Honestly I've never seen a such a large mass of people before here and anywhere else. They are almost 4 times the size of our armed forces combined. To me it looks very dangerous both to the protester and the government, a single bullet could lead to a massacre, or a new capital for Thailand.

My thought is that the government shouldn't let the protest to escalate this mush, if they're not going to resign as the mobs demand they should disperse the mods quickly with every means necessary. Let's it result in bloodshed rather than bloodbath.

If you want to know what it would be like if all of your 150 million American people are revolting on the street, this is your good example. It may not be as mush as 150 million but 2 percent of the domestic population revolting is large enough to paralyze the army response.

I knew that it is effective, but I want to know if it is legitimate and how to implement it without causing international outcry.

LOL, I laughed pretty hard when I read this line. I'll use an example to illustrate why.

In China, the northeast corner of that country is a region called "Xinjiang". This region is extremely sparsely inhabited primarily by the Uighurs, who are ethnically Turkish and don't speak Chinese. There are maybe 10-15 million Uighurs in Xinjiang, which is about three times the size of Texas, which by comparison has over 25 million people (Texas is considered to be sparsely populated in America).

I am quite aware of this case. Chinese Muslim and Chinese-Turkic people are quite well represent among those who are from the Chinese school and they are quite a lot of them here.

China has had a paramilitary organization called the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corporation (XPCC) that has been "developing" this region for decades. Following 9/11, the Chinese intensified these efforts under the guise of eliminating terrorism. This organization consists of over 2 million people, and almost all of them are Han Chinese.

Sound very mush like the BEIC.

As you can see, this organization is gigantic - it is larger than the US military...they've built entire cities in their attempts to develop the area. They also evict the Uighurs from their lands, which of course causes riots and etc. The Uighurs have justifiable complaints regarding genocide, especially when it comes to forcible disenfranchisement.

The West however does nothing. Most people don't even know this area exists. Some reasons:

1) Xinjiang borders both China AND Russia. This makes it an extremely sensitive region for both countries, much more so than Tibet.

2) The Uighurs are Muslim. I participated in a course on this region for 2 weeks, after which I concluded that I knew all I wanted to know about the political situation in the region...our professor showed us a video of a Uighur leader attempting to rally Westerners to his cause...he almost had to apologize for the fact that the Uighurs are Muslim.

3) China will wage a war over Xinjiang, indeed you can say they've been waging a war for over 50 years in the region. It's China's most important source of coal, China's primary source of energy.

As you can see, my reasons for lack of Western action have nothing to do with human rights abuses or any sort of moral argument. That's because, IMHO, such arguments alone simply do not hold any real weight, otherwise Xinjiang would be as strong if not a much stronger case than Tibet for Western indignation. Besides the political reality of that situation, the fact is, America is extremely Islamophobic and will not support a pro-Muslim movement of any sort.

I think China case is unique, they have been accused of everything from human right violation to intellectual property. A few more bloodbath in the west wouldn't be a big spot on their blood-soaking record. I prefer my to be clean though.

I don't know enough about the particulars to give you a good answer, sorry. What I do know is that Gandhi was a leading figure around 25 years before Indian Independence, the Salt March which Gandhi is famous for happened 17 years before Indian Independence, and that WWII ended only 2 years before independence. This would strongly suggest that the main reason behind how the Indians earned their independence is because the British were no longer capable of projecting power in the region, i.e. it had little to nothing to do with Gandhi.

All right.

You know, I realize one thing that in these past few days that we have discussed political issue and international crisis from the globe. I found that it is mush more emotional when that issue is actually happen on your own soil...

It is kind of sad, we manage to pull our self out of the European imperialism and develop our wealth all the way from the second world war and the Vietnamese onslaught. And now all of that is about to vanish by our very own hands.

They proudly call it a Thai-version of the "French Revolution", guest they don't know how mush the Revolution had costed France.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 6:42:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 9:10:54 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
We're currently have a kind of this "unarmed revolution" by a group of ultraroyalist factions. It is actually nothing new, two years ago similar attempt had been made by a group of populist which eventually turned violence and ravaged many part of Bangkok. This time, even though the "revolution" still remain peaceful, there are over a millions people on the street (two in fact). Honestly I've never seen a such a large mass of people before here and anywhere else. They are almost 4 times the size of our armed forces combined. To me it looks very dangerous both to the protester and the government, a single bullet could lead to a massacre, or a new capital for Thailand.

My thought is that the government shouldn't let the protest to escalate this mush, if they're not going to resign as the mobs demand they should disperse the mods quickly with every means necessary. Let's it result in bloodshed rather than bloodbath.

My understanding is that despite democratic elections, the military is still the underlying power in Thailand. Is this a fair assessment?

This article from CNN clearly portrays the prime minister as being somewhat clueless as to exactly what the intentions of the military are ("The military -- which removed Thaksin amid protests in 2006 -- has remained on the sidelines of the current crisis. Yingluck said Monday that she believes the military is taking a neutral stance."):
http://www.cnn.com...

If you want to know what it would be like if all of your 150 million American people are revolting on the street, this is your good example. It may not be as mush as 150 million but 2 percent of the domestic population revolting is large enough to paralyze the army response.

Not really, the army simply chooses not to respond. That's different from being unable to respond. This situation seems to closely resemble Mubarak and the Arab Spring, where Mubarak was faced with large protests...except that when Mubarak called upon the military, the military chose not to obey. It seems the PM is fully aware of the similarities and is even open to resignation to appease the crowd as opposed to calling on military action. My guess would be this is because she does not fully control the military, same as Mubarak.

As you can see, my reasons for lack of Western action have nothing to do with human rights abuses or any sort of moral argument. That's because, IMHO, such arguments alone simply do not hold any real weight, otherwise Xinjiang would be as strong if not a much stronger case than Tibet for Western indignation. Besides the political reality of that situation, the fact is, America is extremely Islamophobic and will not support a pro-Muslim movement of any sort.

I think China case is unique, they have been accused of everything from human right violation to intellectual property. A few more bloodbath in the west wouldn't be a big spot on their blood-soaking record. I prefer my to be clean though.

There is also the political reality that both China and Russia are quite difficult for the US to confront, whereas Thailand being a much smaller country does not have this hurdle.

You know, I realize one thing that in these past few days that we have discussed political issue and international crisis from the globe. I found that it is mush more emotional when that issue is actually happen on your own soil...

It is kind of sad, we manage to pull our self out of the European imperialism and develop our wealth all the way from the second world war and the Vietnamese onslaught. And now all of that is about to vanish by our very own hands.

They proudly call it a Thai-version of the "French Revolution", guest they don't know how mush the Revolution had costed France.

I really do not understand the dynamics there. I remember the 2006 coup, which I believe was a royalist plot against Thaksin, apparently the 2010 riots were pro-Thaksin, and now that his sister has been elected by a landslide, rebels from the opposite faction are now demonstrating. It seems no one is happy...

I would note though that as bad as Tiananmen was for international perception, it was almost wholly bloodless when compared to other internal disturbances in China's communist history. Also, countries like Taiwan and South Korea faced decades of martial law before a democratic movement even began there.

I think having this movement take control of key government buildings was either due to respect for the king's upcoming birthday, or was an extreme tactical blunder by the PM, who may indeed be powerless without full army support. Symbolically, the PM has literally been "unseated", so I would think her control over the country, perceived and actual, has been shattered.

What do Thailand's neighbors think about this situation?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 1:12:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My understanding is that despite democratic elections, the military is still the underlying power in Thailand. Is this a fair assessment?

Yes and no. Only when civilian government authority had been seriously undermined so the military could project their influence in to the public affair.

The military influence had been seriously undermined ever since the 1970 onward, when they had proven themselves to be the source of political instability. Military leaders from various branches and factions cyclically usurp the power of other military or military-backed government and continuously replace them with another dictator regime. After a while people fed up.

After several bloody protest, and perhaps with the withdrawal of the financial support from the US , they had simply unable to maintain public order anymore. Their political influence had collapsed altogether with the public confidence in their ability to keep order. Thus their present in politic had been closely watched ever since.

Apparently, the army is not uniformed some support the royalist cause while some take command from the populist factions. So their power is kind of limited in the present scenario.

I think the 2006 coup is the army latest experiment to see whether they can expand their influence in to civilian politic or not after a decades of long silent. The result is an utmost political failure. They neither gain the support from the royalist nor tolerance from the populist factions. Thus it is very unlikely that they will ever lay their hand in politic again without civilian support.

This article from CNN clearly portrays the prime minister as being somewhat clueless as to exactly what the intentions of the military are ("The military -- which removed Thaksin amid protests in 2006 -- has remained on the sidelines of the current crisis. Yingluck said Monday that she believes the military is taking a neutral stance."):
http://www.cnn.com...

Not only the CNN, her image that most popular portrayed by the media would be that of the "brainless blond", beauty but inept.

If you want to know what it would be like if all of your 150 million American people are revolting on the street, this is your good example. It may not be as mush as 150 million but 2 percent of the domestic population revolting is large enough to paralyze the army response.

Not really, the army simply chooses not to respond. That's different from being unable to respond. This situation seems to closely resemble Mubarak and the Arab Spring, where Mubarak was faced with large protests...except that when Mubarak called upon the military, the military chose not to obey. It seems the PM is fully aware of the similarities and is even open to resignation to appease the crowd as opposed to calling on military action. My guess would be this is because she does not fully control the military, same as Mubarak.

In the deeper political context, no they had not been able to respond. The Yingluck's government is apparently able to order at least a portion of the military to take action against the protesters, although the order is also explicit that they will not be armed.

I believe having the protest around would also be quite beneficial to this populist government. They can discredit the royalist opposition party (who had not took part in this protest) who many people convinced that they are the mastermind behind this "revolution". I support the royalist cause but even so I believe that this statement is quite true.

The damage to overall economic and violence clash between the royalist and the populist demonstrator, as well as the royalist and the government police also caused them the support of metropolitan Bangkokian. Many especially from the younger generation started to change their opinion of the mod from supportive or neutral to irritated and hated. Although the older population still strongly support the mob, many even providing financial assistant to ensure that protest continue.

All in all I think this made the royalist mob weaken overtime, perhaps they would even be collapsed by themselves.


I think China case is unique, they have been accused of everything from human right violation to intellectual property. A few more bloodbath in the west wouldn't be a big spot on their blood-soaking record. I prefer my to be clean though.

There is also the political reality that both China and Russia are quite difficult for the US to confront, whereas Thailand being a much smaller country does not have this hurdle.

Agree. But for whatever happened we will remain a friend :D

You know, I realize one thing that in these past few days that we have discussed political issue and international crisis from the globe. I found that it is mush more emotional when that issue is actually happen on your own soil...
is happy...

I would note though that as bad as Tiananmen was for international perception, it was almost wholly bloodless when compared to other internal disturbances in China's communist history. Also, countries like Taiwan and South Korea faced decades of martial law before a democratic movement even began there.

I think having this movement take control of key government buildings was either due to respect for the king's upcoming birthday, or was an extreme tactical blunder by the PM, who may indeed be powerless without full army support. Symbolically, the PM has literally been "unseated", so I would think her control over the country, perceived and actual, has been shattered.

What do Thailand's neighbors think about this situation?

I couldn't have enough information to answer you that question. Although I knew that in the past Singapore had always been a strong supporter of the populist Taksintian factions. I see no reason that they would have a change of hearth right now.

I am pretty sure that the protest wouldn't be as bloody as Tiananmen. However, I fear that the long term consequence would be far severe.

Imagine what would happened if the Thatcher government had lost to the NUM in the 1984? This will send a strong massage to the entire nation that anyone could usurp the power of the government through unlawful assembly, threat of violence, and spreading of unstability. This will be anarchy.

How many more people coups would have to take place, for us to realize that is the new cycle of chaos and disorder, how long for my economy to be paralyzed before this dreadful cycle would come to an end?

I may be a Tory and loyal supporter of the king and his family but I will never, ever, accept a government who rise through power through public disorder and unlawful, illegitimate, action, royalist or not!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 2:03:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 1:12:59 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
My understanding is that despite democratic elections, the military is still the underlying power in Thailand. Is this a fair assessment?

Yes and no. Only when civilian government authority had been seriously undermined so the military could project their influence in to the public affair.

The military influence had been seriously undermined ever since the 1970 onward, when they had proven themselves to be the source of political instability. Military leaders from various branches and factions cyclically usurp the power of other military or military-backed government and continuously replace them with another dictator regime. After a while people fed up.

After several bloody protest, and perhaps with the withdrawal of the financial support from the US , they had simply unable to maintain public order anymore. Their political influence had collapsed altogether with the public confidence in their ability to keep order. Thus their present in politic had been closely watched ever since.

Apparently, the army is not uniformed some support the royalist cause while some take command from the populist factions. So their power is kind of limited in the present scenario.

I think the 2006 coup is the army latest experiment to see whether they can expand their influence in to civilian politic or not after a decades of long silent. The result is an utmost political failure. They neither gain the support from the royalist nor tolerance from the populist factions. Thus it is very unlikely that they will ever lay their hand in politic again without civilian support.


This article from CNN clearly portrays the prime minister as being somewhat clueless as to exactly what the intentions of the military are ("The military -- which removed Thaksin amid protests in 2006 -- has remained on the sidelines of the current crisis. Yingluck said Monday that she believes the military is taking a neutral stance."):
http://www.cnn.com...

Not only the CNN, her image that most popular portrayed by the media would be that of the "brainless blond", beauty but inept.

She is gorgeous, that was most unexpected, lol. =)


If you want to know what it would be like if all of your 150 million American people are revolting on the street, this is your good example. It may not be as mush as 150 million but 2 percent of the domestic population revolting is large enough to paralyze the army response.

Not really, the army simply chooses not to respond. That's different from being unable to respond. This situation seems to closely resemble Mubarak and the Arab Spring, where Mubarak was faced with large protests...except that when Mubarak called upon the military, the military chose not to obey. It seems the PM is fully aware of the similarities and is even open to resignation to appease the crowd as opposed to calling on military action. My guess would be this is because she does not fully control the military, same as Mubarak.

In the deeper political context, no they had not been able to respond. The Yingluck's government is apparently able to order at least a portion of the military to take action against the protesters, although the order is also explicit that they will not be armed.

I believe having the protest around would also be quite beneficial to this populist government. They can discredit the royalist opposition party (who had not took part in this protest) who many people convinced that they are the mastermind behind this "revolution". I support the royalist cause but even so I believe that this statement is quite true.

I would agree with this had this movement not been so successful. My understanding is that the seat of government has been taken over by the protesters...like the White House being taken over by Occupy Wall Street. Regardless of the relational aspects you mention (and I agree with), this loss of face is far more embarrassing.

All in all I think this made the royalist mob weaken overtime, perhaps they would even be collapsed by themselves.

IMHO the more successful the mob is, the stronger this movement will become, and the mob has thus far been extremely successful, yes?

What do Thailand's neighbors think about this situation?

I couldn't have enough information to answer you that question. Although I knew that in the past Singapore had always been a strong supporter of the populist Taksintian factions. I see no reason that they would have a change of hearth right now.

I am pretty sure that the protest wouldn't be as bloody as Tiananmen. However, I fear that the long term consequence would be far severe.

Tiananmen was not that bloody. The highest estimates peg deaths at 1,000, and this given a multi-million, country-wide protest movement. That's quite an accomplishment when you think about it, and China has come out of it in far better shape. Had Tiananmen led to further protests of that size, China more than likely would be a basket-case economy today.

Imagine what would happened if the Thatcher government had lost to the NUM in the 1984? This will send a strong massage to the entire nation that anyone could usurp the power of the government through unlawful assembly, threat of violence, and spreading of unstability. This will be anarchy.

How many more people coups would have to take place, for us to realize that is the new cycle of chaos and disorder, how long for my economy to be paralyzed before this dreadful cycle would come to an end?

I may be a Tory and loyal supporter of the king and his family but I will never, ever, accept a government who rise through power through public disorder and unlawful, illegitimate, action, royalist or not!

I think our perspectives are a bit different, and part of it may simply be that I don't know enough about this situation. I think any military governance will be generally unpopular, so your reaction to military rule is not surprising to me. Still, a government without enforcement capabilities is almost wholly impotent, and there seems to be signs that the PM is not in control of the military, meaning that she is not in control of the country. That makes me wonder about exactly who is in control of the country...

I'm not too familiar with Thatcher and the NUM, but a cursory glance told me that tens of thousands of arrests were made during that protest movement. Yingluck does not seem to be able to marshal enough control over her security apparatus to do something similar, and IMHO that will only cause the mob to become more aggressive and more demanding. The opposition leader seems to be getting more and more confident with each passing day.

I will also note that Thatcher's response to NUM and Tiananmen have one key aspect in common - the lack of shyness by the governing power to enforce the rule of law. Perhaps Deng Xiaoping could have relied on less fatal means of enforcement...regardless, enforcement is what prevailed and set both nations on a better course.

Finally, I would note that Mubarak was toppled by such a movement precisely because he did not have control over his military. My impression is that most populist movements quickly dissipate after key arrests are made. Considering the opposition leader is now making treasonous statements, it's possible Yingluck is setting the stage for just such a series of arrests with concomitant lengthy prison terms.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 6:04:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, before I forget, thanks for sharing, lol.

It's rare to get discussions like this about other countries and I feel a bit more informed after this exchange. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:56:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
She is gorgeous, that was most unexpected, lol. =)
One of my relative has personally made her acquaintance (she is an sort of social policy executive in one of the gigantic housing company) . She said she is nice and seem to be very mush pressure on the political situation from both side of the conflict.

Poor lady, I think she would think to herself that, never ever again I will listen to my brother if he asking me to be a PM again :D

In the deeper political context, no they had not been able to respond. The Yingluck's government is apparently able to order at least a portion of the military to take action against the protesters, although the order is also explicit that they will not be armed.

I believe having the protest around would also be quite beneficial to this populist government. They can discredit the royalist opposition party (who had not took part in this protest) who many people convinced that they are the mastermind behind this "revolution". I support the royalist cause but even so I believe that this statement is quite true.

I would agree with this had this movement not been so successful. My understanding is that the seat of government has been taken over by the protesters...like the White House being taken over by Occupy Wall Street. Regardless of the relational aspects you mention (and I agree with), this loss of face is far more embarrassing.

All in all I think this made the royalist mob weaken overtime, perhaps they would even be collapsed by themselves.

IMHO the more successful the mob is, the stronger this movement will become, and the mob has thus far been extremely successful, yes?

That is hard to say really, especially from my position. My family has always been one of the strongest royalist supporter and generally everyone who call us friend often have similar idea.

They said the royalists are definitely going to win, however if you ask the populist they will mostly said the same thing. But one thing I noticed is that the opinion of a younger city-boys and salary men who generally are generally neutral with a slight tendency toward the royalist seem to change dramatically. Many of them are now found the royalist mob to be very annoying, many even consider them outright stupid or acting against the interest of the nation.

I listen to this with a grain of truth. However I believe this is the sign that the opinion of the majority neutral voters are now shifted away.

What I fear the most is what if the royalist mob managed to actually form a new revolutionary government? And what if the populist government refused to back down and let's say they form a government-in-exile in Changmai?

It could even result in the division of a nation which spiral in to political anarchy which would take years to settle, assume that there is no foreign nation who have a funny idea of spreading conflict even further.

To me it looks very, very dangerous.

What do Thailand's neighbors think about this situation?

I couldn't have enough information to answer you that question. Although I knew that in the past Singapore had always been a strong supporter of the populist Taksintian factions. I see no reason that they would have a change of hearth right now.

I am pretty sure that the protest wouldn't be as bloody as Tiananmen. However, I fear that the long term consequence would be far severe.

Tiananmen was not that bloody. The highest estimates peg deaths at 1,000, and this given a multi-million, country-wide protest movement. That's quite an accomplishment when you think about it, and China has come out of it in far better shape. Had Tiananmen led to further protests of that size, China more than likely would be a basket-case economy today.

I think our perspectives are a bit different, and part of it may simply be that I don't know enough about this situation. I think any military governance will be generally unpopular, so your reaction to military rule is not surprising to me. Still, a government without enforcement capabilities is almost wholly impotent, and there seems to be signs that the PM is not in control of the military, meaning that she is not in control of the country. That makes me wonder about exactly who is in control of the country...

I'm not too familiar with Thatcher and the NUM, but a cursory glance told me that tens of thousands of arrests were made during that protest movement. Yingluck does not seem to be able to marshal enough control over her security apparatus to do something similar, and IMHO that will only cause the mob to become more aggressive and more demanding. The opposition leader seems to be getting more and more confident with each passing day.

As far as I am know, the arrest under Thatcher confrontation with the NUM are minimum. Many protesters are simply driven in to poverty with a year of living without wages, many are in dept and the NUM coffin run dried, completely destroyed what ever left of the confidence that miners had in their union.

I will also note that Thatcher's response to NUM and Tiananmen have one key aspect in common - the lack of shyness by the governing power to enforce the rule of law. Perhaps Deng Xiaoping could have relied on less fatal means of enforcement...regardless, enforcement is what prevailed and set both nations on a better course.

In deed. It is a necessary characteristic of the government to carry its nation through a time of extreme political anarchy. Sadly we're left without one, and the conservatives, who are suppose to bring order to where there is chaos, are now spreading the chaos themselves.

What a sad thing indeed.

Finally, I would note that Mubarak was toppled by such a movement precisely because he did not have control over his military. My impression is that most populist movements quickly dissipate after key arrests are made. Considering the opposition leader is now making treasonous statements, it's possible Yingluck is setting the stage for just such a series of arrests with concomitant lengthy prison terms.

True. It is a fight to death for both sides. I only hope that some of them would actually broken, otherwise their fight might torn this country apart.

And that's why the king never smile..
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:38:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 1:56:56 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
She is gorgeous, that was most unexpected, lol. =)
One of my relative has personally made her acquaintance (she is an sort of social policy executive in one of the gigantic housing company) . She said she is nice and seem to be very mush pressure on the political situation from both side of the conflict.

Poor lady, I think she would think to herself that, never ever again I will listen to my brother if he asking me to be a PM again :D

It's interesting, have you heard of a Japanese manga called "Ghost in the Shell?" It's one of my favorites.

Well, I haven't actually read the manga, lol, but I've seen all the movies and watched the television series. The plot of the second TV season was about Japan's first female prime minister that took over after internal turmoil, and how she faced crisis after crisis, did not seem to be in control of he cabinet, and was a bit of a pacifist. That series was also about escalating violence, although the source of violence was different, it was international refugees instead of straight up political dissension.

If you have about 15 hours free, I'd highly recommend, lol.

In the deeper political context, no they had not been able to respond. The Yingluck's government is apparently able to order at least a portion of the military to take action against the protesters, although the order is also explicit that they will not be armed.

I just want to reiterate here that Yingluck may be unable to get the military to respond, but it's more than likely the military could respond if it wanted to.

I believe having the protest around would also be quite beneficial to this populist government. They can discredit the royalist opposition party (who had not took part in this protest) who many people convinced that they are the mastermind behind this "revolution". I support the royalist cause but even so I believe that this statement is quite true.

I would agree with this had this movement not been so successful. My understanding is that the seat of government has been taken over by the protesters...like the White House being taken over by Occupy Wall Street. Regardless of the relational aspects you mention (and I agree with), this loss of face is far more embarrassing.

All in all I think this made the royalist mob weaken overtime, perhaps they would even be collapsed by themselves.

IMHO the more successful the mob is, the stronger this movement will become, and the mob has thus far been extremely successful, yes?

That is hard to say really, especially from my position. My family has always been one of the strongest royalist supporter and generally everyone who call us friend often have similar idea.

They said the royalists are definitely going to win, however if you ask the populist they will mostly said the same thing. But one thing I noticed is that the opinion of a younger city-boys and salary men who generally are generally neutral with a slight tendency toward the royalist seem to change dramatically. Many of them are now found the royalist mob to be very annoying, many even consider them outright stupid or acting against the interest of the nation.

I listen to this with a grain of truth. However I believe this is the sign that the opinion of the majority neutral voters are now shifted away.

What I fear the most is what if the royalist mob managed to actually form a new revolutionary government? And what if the populist government refused to back down and let's say they form a government-in-exile in Changmai?

It could even result in the division of a nation which spiral in to political anarchy which would take years to settle, assume that there is no foreign nation who have a funny idea of spreading conflict even further.

To me it looks very, very dangerous.

Agree. I think you're doing the right not talking about it too much. O_o

I'm not too familiar with Thatcher and the NUM, but a cursory glance told me that tens of thousands of arrests were made during that protest movement. Yingluck does not seem to be able to marshal enough control over her security apparatus to do something similar, and IMHO that will only cause the mob to become more aggressive and more demanding. The opposition leader seems to be getting more and more confident with each passing day.

As far as I am know, the arrest under Thatcher confrontation with the NUM are minimum. Many protesters are simply driven in to poverty with a year of living without wages, many are in dept and the NUM coffin run dried, completely destroyed what ever left of the confidence that miners had in their union.

I found this info on wikipedia, and after doing a quick search on google, this book corroborates that there were 11,291 arrests made in conjunction with NUM:

http://books.google.com...

That's several times the official number arrested for Tiananmen, although given that martial law followed Tiananmen, it's probably impossible to ever know for certain.

I will also note that Thatcher's response to NUM and Tiananmen have one key aspect in common - the lack of shyness by the governing power to enforce the rule of law. Perhaps Deng Xiaoping could have relied on less fatal means of enforcement...regardless, enforcement is what prevailed and set both nations on a better course.

In deed. It is a necessary characteristic of the government to carry its nation through a time of extreme political anarchy. Sadly we're left without one, and the conservatives, who are suppose to bring order to where there is chaos, are now spreading the chaos themselves.

What a sad thing indeed.

Finally, I would note that Mubarak was toppled by such a movement precisely because he did not have control over his military. My impression is that most populist movements quickly dissipate after key arrests are made. Considering the opposition leader is now making treasonous statements, it's possible Yingluck is setting the stage for just such a series of arrests with concomitant lengthy prison terms.

True. It is a fight to death for both sides. I only hope that some of them would actually broken, otherwise their fight might torn this country apart.

And that's why the king never smile..

Yeah, politics is a full contact sport. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?