Thread: Abhisit Vejjajiva has been invited to deliver a speech on good governance

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Oh come on Hazz. Someone lobbed or "DROPPED" a grenade in the middle of Khun hi-so officer that killed him and injured others. But you are way off the mark on the Skytrain shootings. As mentioned before, the army CONTROLLED the entire area around the temple including the elevated walkways and Skytrain tracks. To suggest some other group might have been firing from there is yellow-chink-make-believe stupidity. Not worthy of your better posts if I may say say so.

Tom, I am rather glad that you think the comments you believe I have made about the army shooting up the temple on the 23rd of may as being unworthy of me... because they are and as far as I am aware I have not discussed this event on this thread and certainly not in the terms you suggest. Please feel free to point out where I have.

What I have done is discuss events on april 10th and what the armed groups fighting and killing on behalf of those backing abisit and thaksin got up to, what were the consequences of their acts and the need for them to deliver explanations and take responsibility for those actions.

message cut

Hazz, I disagree with you on fundamental premises. You have ideas about the logic of what may or may not have happened. Fine. I think those ideas are purely speculative. You have no particular insight into what the army or the govrbnement was thinking at the time. I'm quite happy to entertain those ideas and talk aboy them and make other speculations . If I have somehow cut and pasted a phrase of yours and misrepresented you, then I'm quite happy for you to post the full quote. I still disagree with your basic premises and I think I have made this quite clear in previous posts.

Originally Posted by nostromo

Very droll, or not. Now there is antonov leaving for moscow in the early hours and you can still make it. Scramble!

... it should be : "there is AN Antonov leaving ..." - Antonov would be capitalized. Don't your handlers teach you anything?

So to you, anyone disagreeing is a Soviet operative? What an as asstard you are.

Originally Posted by tomta

Hazz, I disagree with you on fundamental premises. You have ideas about the logic of what may or may not have happened. Fine. I think those ideas are purely speculative. You have no particular insight into what the army or the govrbnement was thinking at the time. I'm quite happy to entertain those ideas and talk aboy them and make other speculations . If I have somehow cut and pasted a phrase of yours and misrepresented you, then I'm quite happy for you to post the full quote. I still disagree with your basic premises and I think I have made this quite clear in previous posts.

As are your ideas purely speculative.

I'd like to hear abisits account to rationalise how murdering innocent protestors, with army junta sniper headshots, is "good governance"

You can't argue with that

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

I'd like to hear abisits account to rationalise how murdering innocent protestors, with army junta sniper headshots, is "good governance"

You can't argue with that

He would never do that LB.

His strategy, same as PADites here, is to do a quick shuffle away from that and get the media talking about "men in black' or whatever he can think of, to talk about resistance to the State assault and massacre, not the actual assualt and massacre.

The media being in his hip pocket, as well as PADites here, gleefully follow that train-of-thought.

Gets all of them away from discussing the 'State assault and massacre".

Farangs on the GTMW do it wholesale over there.

Here, Posters other than the agenized PADites, are more discerning and knowledgable.

Calgary / LB

Do you think Abhisit gave the order for the killings?

I mean we all know that as a leader he is ultimately responsible for what happens on his watch, but do you think he was a puppet who had no control over the Army, or was he in full control and gave the oder?

Interested to know what you actually think.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Calgary / LB

Do you think Abhisit gave the order for the killings?

I mean we all know that as a leader he is ultimately responsible for what happens on his watch, but do you think he was a puppet who had no control over the Army, or was he in full control and gave the oder?

Interested to know what you actually think.

The answer to those questions is absolutely clear in my mind.

The order for the R'song killers went through him, but he was just the "enabler' for those doing the "enabling".

He was no different in that regard than the military.

For that reason I have often said, one needs to downplay their role in it, to nothing more than "enablers for others".

The Post-WWII Nuremberg trials have a lot to say about what degree of culpability these 'enablers' are subject to.

I would love to have a no-holds barred discussion about who the unelected people forcing this thing are, (be it singular or plural). But as you know that is not possible. Even a partial discussion about that would be misleading, so no point in having any discussion at all.

That R'song thing can be extended to today as well.

The PTP/UDD/Red Shirt majority political sector of Thailand is convinced the same 'enabling powers' are using the Constitution Court and other judicial elements in the same manner, hence there absolutist position that we are in the middle of an unfolding Judicial Coup, designed to put electoral forces in their place.

Rank and file are being mobilized accordingly.

The outcome of this will go a long way to exposing the degree of Electoral Democracy that is rooted in Thailand, if any.

Originally Posted by tomta

Hazz, I disagree with you on fundamental premises. You have ideas about the logic of what may or may not have happened. Fine. I think those ideas are purely speculative. You have no particular insight into what the army or the govrbnement was thinking at the time. I'm quite happy to entertain those ideas and talk aboy them and make other speculations .

The problem is that if you go to those who should have some genuine insight into the events of april/may 2010, generally you get the two big fat lies, "It was a peaceful protest", "the army didn't shoot anyone".

So all we are left with is common sense, logic, reason, new reporting and eye witnesses. That is what I have based my reasoning behind the events of april 10th, to label this as highly speculative is to label everything that everyone has ever say about the events of 2010 as highly speculative and of little merit. You might think that, I certainly don't.

Personally I think you have fallen into the trap of judging the quality of evidence based upon how closely it fits to your preconceived ideas rather than on any object measure of reality. Its a natural human trait and its at trap that to varying degrees people fall into all the time.

.....and the 'protest site' or 'killing fields' were over a large area, one person's reality of having seen no weapons is as true as one reporters reality that there were an armed militia.

That's what makes me laugh with people who spout that things did or didn't happen as gospal truth because they talked to someone who was there.

I was there, you've all seen my photographs as proof, and to me it was a peaceful protest very much geared to returning one man to power. I'm well aware that that's not necessarily the full truth, but it's what I saw and heard.

Oh and Tom asked me about the kicking that was being administered.

If the man was a sniper then I can understand the feelings that would make people tie his hands behind his back, strip him to his underpants and kick him repeatedly to the face. It was pretty sickening to watch as were all the photographs and videos of people hurt that day.

They obviously feel that they have a right to be judge, jury and executioner. I'm not sure I could bring myself as a peaceful protestor to take that course of action, and we only have their word that he indeed was a sniper. There was evidence presented.

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Calgary / LB

Do you think Abhisit gave the order for the killings?

I mean we all know that as a leader he is ultimately responsible for what happens on his watch, but do you think he was a puppet who had no control over the Army, or was he in full control and gave the oder?

Interested to know what you actually think.

The answer to those questions is absolutely clear in my mind.

The order for the R'song killers went through him, but he was just the "enabler' for those doing the "enabling".

He was no different in that regard than the military.

For that reason I have often said, one needs to downplay their role in it, to nothing more than "enablers for others".

The Post-WWII Nuremberg trials have a lot to say about what degree of culpability these 'enablers' are subject to.

I would love to have a no-holds barred discussion about who the unelected people forcing this thing are, (be it singular or plural). But as you know that is not possible. Even a partial discussion about that would be misleading, so no point in having any discussion at all.

That R'song thing can be extended to today as well.

The PTP/UDD/Red Shirt majority political sector of Thailand is convinced the same 'enabling powers' are using the Constitution Court and other judicial elements in the same manner, hence there absolutist position that we are in the middle of an unfolding Judicial Coup, designed to put electoral forces in their place.

Rank and file are being mobilized accordingly.

The outcome of this will go a long way to exposing the degree of Electoral Democracy that is rooted in Thailand, if any.

That's a lot of words used to not actually answer bobcock's straight-forward question.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I was there, you've all seen my photographs as proof, and to me it was a peaceful protest very much geared to returning one man to power.

Yeah... how'd that ultimately work out for the red-shirted tools?

Originally Posted by hazz

Personally I think you have fallen into the trap of judging the quality of evidence based upon how closely it fits to your preconceived ideas rather than on any object measure of reality. Its a natural human trait and its at trap that to varying degrees people fall into all the time.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I was there, you've all seen my photographs as proof, and to me it was a peaceful protest very much geared to returning one man to power.

Yeah... how'd that ultimately work out for the red-shirted tools?

Well, he's not back yet is he? but I don't believe it's all about him for many of them.

He'd like it to be and there are many of them who believe he is the answer, but anyone who is truly campaigmimg for the rights they have never had realise that they never had those rights during his long tenure either.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Yeah... how'd that ultimately work out for the red-shirted tools?

Well, he's not back yet is he? but I don't believe it's all about him for many of them.

He'd like it to be and there are many of them who believe he is the answer, but anyone who is truly campaigmimg for the rights they have never had realise that they never had those rights during his long tenure either.

I bet Calgary or the other fanatics don't realize that...

Originally Posted by Bobcock

it was a peaceful protest very much geared to returning one man to power

And that is the Amart line.

To start with, he should never have been out of power considering his electoral validity.

Regardless of above, a coup was ridiculous, and done for purely self-serving reasons.

We can all speculate who was being 'self-served'.

But up to you. You want to follow the coupist line, so be it. You are justifying a coup doing so, but perhaps that is OK for you.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Oh and Tom asked me about the kicking that was being administered.

If the man was a sniper then I can understand the feelings that would make people tie his hands behind his back, strip him to his underpants and kick him repeatedly to the face. It was pretty sickening to watch as were all the photographs and videos of people hurt that day.

They obviously feel that they have a right to be judge, jury and executioner. I'm not sure I could bring myself as a peaceful protestor to take that course of action, and we only have their word that he indeed was a sniper. There was evidence presented.

Ho hum.

Same old, same old.

Talk about anti-coup resisters, instead of killers of 90 taxpayers.

Follow the Amart diversions if you want.

Up to you. Doing so justify's them, but that is obviously OK with you.

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by Bobcock

it was a peaceful protest very much geared to returning one man to power

And that is the Amart line.

To start with, he should never have been out of power considering his electoral validity.

Regardless of above, a coup was ridiculous, and done for purely self-serving reasons.

We can all speculate who was being 'self-served'.

But up to you. You want to follow the coupist line, so be it. You are justifying a coup doing so, but perhaps that is OK for you.

The fact that you took one part of my quote and attacked me shows you up for the wanker you are.

Or maybe just jealous cos you were never there.

^^ and ^^^

Good Lord Buddha, would someone take this nutcase out back and put him down?

And if the diversions toward the coup resisters doesn't work, divert to Thaksin.

The tried and true MO for the GTMW, but is wearing thin over here, for the more politically discerning amongst us.

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Oh and Tom asked me about the kicking that was being administered.

If the man was a sniper then I can understand the feelings that would make people tie his hands behind his back, strip him to his underpants and kick him repeatedly to the face. It was pretty sickening to watch as were all the photographs and videos of people hurt that day.

They obviously feel that they have a right to be judge, jury and executioner. I'm not sure I could bring myself as a peaceful protestor to take that course of action, and we only have their word that he indeed was a sniper. There was evidence presented.

Ho hum.

Same old, same old.

Talk about anti-coup resisters, instead of killers of 90 taxpayers.

Follow the Amart diversions if you want.

Up to you. Doing so justify's them, but that is obviously OK with you.

I answered a specific question asked of me, something you are totally incapable of because your paymaster doesn't allow it.

The 90 dead were not in the question, why should I have addressed them?