Thread: Five injured as Thai Red Shirts, Yellow Shirts clash

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

He was responsible for killing 100's of innocent protestors campaigning against the illegal unelected junta, coup-issued law proxy.

Nothing innocent about a rampaging mob which overrun the capital, built a barricade and then went on a barbaric path of death, destruction and looting - more like the Mongol hordes than a sunday school day out!

No, Abhisit didn't "call" an election nor resign.

He offered an election several months down the line.

To "call" an election, according to the Thai Constitution, he has to dissolve parliament at the same time and resign.

He didn't do that.

It's very hard to discuss an issue properly with people who are claiming the earth is still flat.

I think there is only one group in Thailand that for decades has staged coups, slaughtered unarmed Thai civilians, behaved outside the rule of law and used force and the threat of force to repress the will of ordinary Thais and stymie Thai democracy.

It's the one single consistent historical factor in the entire destruction and corruption of Thai democracy and civil society.

The Thai Army.

Until they are bought under proper civilian control rule of law and democracy will never be properly established in Thailand.

Those who can't see the wider historical context are like weather forecasters trying to discern next week's weather by only looking at the sky directly over their heads.

My answer is based on the historical facts rather than something I imagined that happened.

Abhisit offered an election four months down the line.

That's very different from actually calling one which requires the dissolving of parliament, which, obviously, self-evidently and empirically, did not happen until May 2011.

Or maybe someone has been hearing Abhisit's voice in their head this entire time?

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

why then did he call an election and relinquish his position.

SD you should be able to give us a link to substantiate this statement ?

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

My answer is based on the historical facts rather than something I imagined that happened.

Abhisit offered an election four months down the line.

That's very different from actually calling one which requires the dissolving of parliament, which, obviously, self-evidently and empirically, did not happen until May 2011.

Or maybe someone has been hearing Abhisit's voice in their head this entire time?

Nope, you still haven't addressed the point. Try to read again....and again....maybe you'll get it in the end. Maybe....

Yes Abhisit did dissolve Parliament on May 9th and did call an election for July 3rd.

In 2011.

It seems as though someone has mixed up 2010 and 2011.

Oh dear.

Or they don't understand what the word "proposal" means.

Of course no-one is contending that a "proposal" was made for an election in November 2010.

But it was just that - "a proposal".

No election was called in 2010, parliament wasn't dissolved and no amount of anonymous trolling on an obscure English language Thai internet forum is ever going to change that.

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

why then did he call an election and relinquish his position.

SD you should be able to give us a link to substantiate this statement ?

I included a link here.

Spooner seems intent on suggesting the reason for May 2010 was that Abhisit "was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position"

Such a statement is rather illogical, when in fact he did call an election a year later. So what happened during that year? Did he change from someone who "was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position" to Mr Nice? Nah, of course not....but that is what is being suggested.

It's called motive Mid.

The suggestion that Abhsit was some sort of power-crazed megalomaniac etc etc. However, such types don't give up their power, as Abhisit did.....which was to call an election. He followed a democratic process. He didn't hold on to power. Actually he called an election months before his tenure was due to expire, according to the constitutional rules. Odd, right?

A man Spooner says "was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position", who eventually lost spectacularly in an election......

Spooner then goes on to wildly speculate..........

"If he was prepared to do that in May he'd certainly have been prepared to do that in November."

But the reality is he didn't do any such thing again. In fact in May 2011....

On 9 May, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva announced that he would dissolve the lower house of parliament to hold an election on 3 July.

Nothing happened. An election was called. Abhisit and the Democrat's lost massively.

Got it yet??

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

No, Abhisit didn't "call" an election nor resign.

He offered an election several months down the line.

To "call" an election, according to the Thai Constitution, he has to dissolve parliament at the same time and resign.

He didn't do that.

It's very hard to discuss an issue properly with people who are claiming the earth is still flat.

What? Your original post and my reply.

Still waiting for an answer

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

But I digress.

Yes, Abhisit offered elections and at the time I thought the UDD should've taken them.

But I can also see why they said no. The unelected and unelectable Abhisit is as crooked as they come and was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position. If he was prepared to do that in May he'd certainly have been prepared to do that in November.

If he was "ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position", why then did he call an election and relinquish his position....and earlier than was required by law (you know, the whole tenure thing...)?

Just curious...

Just so you can stick to the point...you can do that, right, Andrew? You can demonstrate an ability to stick to a point, right?

Thai general election, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Election date

Previously a proposal had made to hold the election on 14 November 2010, however, this was pushed back following a failure to come to agreement during the crisis.

On 9 May, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva announced that he would dissolve the lower house of parliament to hold an election on 3 July. This motion followed a court ruling the same day that the recently approved electoral laws (to 2007 Constitution §§93–98 involving method of electing members of parliament[19]) are constitutional. Had parliament been dissolved without the ruling, there would have been a possibility of challenging the election date.[20]

Andrew, the same people that cynically provoked fights with their neighbours, will call you a Nazi. Deaths resulted, several- and for nothing. But you are the Nazi- and you must get used to it.

Andrew, the same people that presided over the most corrupt regime since 'Mr 5%', will call you corrupt. Because you are corrupt.

Andrew, the same people that can attempt to rationalise tha apppalling perescution of tertiary school students who leant the' wrong' way, will accuse you of being a cheerleader for a thug movement. It must be real- we read it in the Notion.

Andrew, the same people that champion the few over the many, the same people who just wish the world would accept the bangkok 'press' as some kind of reality- they naturally hate you. But you knew that from the beginning.





Keep it up, Pal. lets keep this honest.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I included a link here.

Indeed you did ,

BUT ,

not A link to substantiate your claim which you know is false .

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

Yes Abhisit did dissolve Parliament on May 9th and did call an election for July 3rd.

In 2011.

It seems as though someone has mixed up 2010 and 2011.

Oh dear.

Or they don't understand what the word "proposal" means.

Of course no-one is contending that a "proposal" was made for an election in November 2010.

But it was just that - "a proposal".

No election was called in 2010, parliament wasn't dissolved and no amount of anonymous trolling on an obscure English language Thai internet forum is ever going to change that.

Ummmm, no, you still don't get it do you.

So Abhisit changed in one year from a man................

"was more than ready to kill 100s of people to secure his unmandated position"

To one who called an election a year later. Quite a change Andrew. What happened to him I wonder? One year a monster...the next he passively went away.

Sorry, logic fail.

Originally Posted by Mid

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

I included a link here.

Indeed you did ,

BUT ,

not A link to substantiate your claim which you know is false .

I think you failed to grasp the point Mid.

I've made it fairly easy to understand. It really isn't difficult.

Remember, the current move is to make Suthep and Abhisit solely accountable for April/May 2010 (and they should be made to take responsibility) and let off the army and police (who actually did the killing). The army and police remain untouched. Getting it yet? Penny dropping?

Do try to keep abreast of things. It helps....

Consider who I am addressing in my replies Mid.

I grasp the point perfectly

Abhisit neither resigned nor called an election .

Originally Posted by goostewart

^Andrew, you are still ducking the question...

Also, I do have a respect for you, you do shoot from the hip, for that I commend you. You also have a lot of knowledge of the political affairs of Thailand, however, where I, and I suspect a great many people, diverge from you is that you do not come at the issues in an objective way. Your 'journalism' is no such thing, it is propaganda. Call it 'righteous' if you must, but it does boil down to propaganda. Yes, I know the other side is at it, but you crossed the line between journalism and activism - it isn't even opinion journalism you do, it is full on activism. That is the problem I have with your writings. I suspect that a great many people agree with me - people who I you will call PAD sympathizers, but who are, in the main, a bunch of folks just trying to see things through an objective view.

Great post...spot on.

Originally Posted by Mid

I grasp the point perfectly

Abhisit neither resigned nor called an election .

He did in 2011

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

He did in 2011

Which is not the time frame you are referring to .

Mid

I think we're never going to get a proper, rational debate based even on a simple concept such as basic continuity.

In 2010 Abhisit preferred to shoot nurses and children than call an election.

That is self-evident.

The guns doing the killing were under his government's control and could have been withdrawn at any time.

They weren't and Abhisit went for slaughter rather than democracy.

What happened a full year later is moot - the corpses had already piled up and Abhisit's calling of an election in 2011, something he was constitutionally bound to do, has no bearing or relevance to the decisions he made in 2010 to send snipers against unarmed civilians.

True that ,

best we can hope for is to disrupt the complete whitewash attempt .

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

I state my opinions something which I am perfectly entitled to do.

Absolutely, and I wouldn't dare suggest otherwise, however, you miss my point - you are dressing your writing up as journalism. Oped is not activism, it is still journalism, albeit opinion based. What you do is activism because you are actively misrepresenting issues (usually by omission), you are constantly using inflammatory language and you seem to not want to acknowledge any other truth other than your own.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

It's also in the great tradition of UK journalism.

There is a great tradition of political bias in the English media - something however you have gone beyond.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

I think you're confusing news-reporting with oped writing.

No confusion in my mind, I want to read all opinions, but I don't want to read propaganda, I want opinions using facts, not manipulating them.

Originally Posted by Andrew Spooner

As an "activist" I'd have to be engaged with actual political activism.

You are - maybe you ain't on the streets with your clapper, but you are part of the propaganda machine that is the UDD, and yes, the other side are equally at it (and btw I find the other side much more indsideous in their thoughts and deeds - at least some of the reds are doing it for the best of intentions).

As I said, I do respect you and most of you writing is well informed, however, I do take issue with the position in which you view yourself, your perception of your role. You are, whether you like it or not, a cog in the UDD propaganda machine. That is not journalism, it is even op-ed, it is pure propaganda.

But even propaganda has a value (and can be extremely well written).

^it isn't worth arguing over, you have your views, I have mine, but I would say one last thing, you are being extremely economical with the truth when you say that propaganda implies some position of power. It doesn't. This is taken from the great wiki:-

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument"

That fits what you do perfectly. Now, I ain't saying you are a bad writer, I ain't even saying that you don't have some valid points, but you should take stock and just reflect on what you do. I do think that your writings are being decoded in some way that you don't see or intend them to be.