The ground troops might have fitted that description, especially at Khok Wua, but I don't believe it fits the snipers.Quote:
Originally Posted by longway
The ground troops might have fitted that description, especially at Khok Wua, but I don't believe it fits the snipers.Quote:
Originally Posted by longway
^^On both sides Vera, seems to have been the only one who saw what was coming AND do what was necessary to prevent the bloodshed; not that it did him any good
For the most part they were poorly trained teenagers with high powered weapons, whether you call them snipers or not. read some of the accounts by the journalists who were there. eg Nick Nolitz said the army were shooting everywhere and the black shirts were shooting at the army.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
It was a game of brinksmanship wasnt it? They had taken his money and now he wanted to play hardball.Quote:
On both sides Vera, seems to have been the only one who saw what was coming AND do what was necessary to prevent the bloodshed; not that it did him any good
Do you remember Thaksin was photoed shopping for handbags in Paris a few days before looking like he did not have a care in the world. At the time he must have thought he could not lose, they either have to give in and dissolve parliament, and give way to a chaotic political vacuum or they have to kill protestors, either way he would get what he wanted.
Its back fired on him though, the army were able to use propoganda about there being hundreds of these militia, and because of his tactics, people bought it, and he is still in a bind.
It will take years before the democrats will forgive him for putting them in that position.
Go ahead. Tell us. Clearly you have a person on your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
100% agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by longway
There was no reason except spite to not accept the compromise offer, and it was very obvious, at that point, that bloodshed and rioting would be unavoidable.
Accepting an offer by government would have been win-win, as the Reds would have won if the govt had lied about the offer.
Considering that Abhisit, despite "winning" in disbanding the protesters, still offered early elections, I have no reason to believe that his offer wasn't genuine. Calgary, of course, will disagree, but considering who signs his paycheck, that comes as no surprise.
If Calgary does get a paycheck, it's only in Monopoly money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Thaksin's shopping habits are irrlevant to the fact that there were well placed and photographed Thai army snipers present at the events we are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by longway
The democrats are fully responsible for the position they put themselves in. They could have chosen to be a proper political party that works hard on policy formation and gaining votes. But they were offered power the easy and poisonous way and they took it.Quote:
Originally Posted by longway
Odd that, as did Thaksin, and you laud him for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
As did Samak, and Somchai...
I don't always agree with Calgary but on this occasion I do. There were reasons not to accept the offer. Suthep was treating it as a joke by surrendering himself to the DSI not the police. Bloodshed was always avoidable until the army moved in. The Reds had been given no basis for trust and every justification for continued protest because the PAD had set exactly this precedent and were never prosecuted with any seriousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Actually, your obvious bias does not allow you to see that the Democrat ascension was hard-won through negotiation and devising of a strategy that worked in booting out Thaksin's party - if anything it was the collaboration between Suthep and Newin that resulted in this win. No invisible hand necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
A mid-air talk inspired Suthep the PM-Maker - Nationmultimedia.com
Your speculation (and that's all it is) reminds me of the same kind of people that are convinced that Aliens gave humans the magic of Velcro, because they can't fathom or allow that some people are smart.
Not quite sure what you mean here. Thaksin, despite his many faults and the fact that he was a murderous, corrupt bastard (not sure where you get the idea that I support him) did in fact get the vote of people on the basis of policies.) The Democrats should try that tactic - probably the great tragedy of Thai politics is that a potential Mr Clean like Abhisit was prepared to throw that potential overboard for a cheap victory. In the process, he became a murderous bastard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
You have no obvious bias? I admitted mine in a spirit of honesty and furthering the discussion. Surely, you have certain fixed positions too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
My major bias is this. In a democracy, the minority must accept the majority's right top govern as long as the minority's basic right's to life and liberty are protected. Even if it's a little bit hard for them. In the last six or seven years in Thailand, the minority continually overthrows the majority on account of their presumed stupidity and cupidity.
You only lose credibility by agreeing with Calgary. No news there, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
The major reason the offer was repeatedly rejected was one man - Seh Daeng. He repeatedly ostracized the moderate elements that were considering the offer, branding them "traitors" and finally kicking tem out, assuring only the most extreme elements remained. Fortunately, he paid the price for that foolishness.
Suthep had every reason to treat things as a joke - at that point the Red demands were a joke. The government represenatives went along with requests, until the Reds' requests became ridiculous - I almost expected them, next, to demand Abhisit dress up in a punk bunny suit and hop on one leg. Suthep turning himself in to the DSI was, if anything, an amusingly brilliant counter-strategy.
You've quoted a Nation newspaper article that largely talks fawningly about Suthep's and Newin's cleverness in putting together a government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
What this article conspicuously fails to mention is that the PAD had occupied Government House for serveral months, the army had abandoned all pretence of neutrality by calling on Somchai's legally constituted government to resign, the PAD had occupied several airports in the south, the PAD then occupied Bangkok Airport (and the law enforcement authorities including the army refused to evict them and in fact let them in), and in the nick of time the court dissolved the PPP using a handy law provided by that nice military 2007 constitution. Then a coalition government was put together in a military barracks. It was clever but it had nothing to do with democracy.
The hands are only invisible if you are completely blind.
What gives you this inside information? How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Yes, I know you've said before that you approve of assassination as a political tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
One has to bear in mind "the illegal junta coup, and military suppression of dissenters concept" and the history of thailand.
20 odd of them in some 60 ish years.
Now, in each of these cases there will be the authorising executive order, followed by one or more operational orders down the line.
Over the period the operational order(s) has been given by many differing junta associated voices, but the common denominator for the executive order.....
Both executive, and operational order elements are 1st degree murderers.
Thanks to the PAD yellow nutters on here for the usual helping of mirth, :)
You can't argue with that
Quote:
Originally Posted by longway
You are mistaking 'people' for PADites.
They are not the same:)
But the UDD/Red Shirts accepted that mafia offer..accepted it with modifications, which should have led to an agreement somewhere along the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
PADites keep trying to characterize this offer as an agreement.
Offers aren't worth shit.....only agreements are.
But because this was a mafia offer, there was no inclination to pursue it to agreement.
So, when Calgary applauds violence and death towards those he merely disagrees with, that's fine and being approvingly ignored? When Reds call for the burning of Bangkok to the ground, the spilling of real blood, that's being approvingly ignored?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
Just checking?
For what it's worth - I do approve of assassination as a political tactic - if, and this is the critical part of my answer (which I am certain you will fitter out), it is performed with surgical precision, and individually against specifically targeted individuals. Thus, Seh Daeng's execution applies, as do many of Israel's surgical terminations of Hamas "leaders" in the past.
I am specifying these criteria to prevent you from painting my statement as agreement with the incident in the temple, or any larger scale massacre aimed at groups - though you might try so regardless.
By the way, why do those decrying the "90+ people died at the hands of the evil Abhisit" number always include the number of killed "evil soldiers" in that number? Shouldn't they be excluded, or is it so important to have large numbers?
For some it is very much a numbers game.....
... and any numbers are good enough, it seems, even those of coupists and PADites.
(Funny, my keyboard wants to correct it as "compost" instead of "coupists")
Wanna have a discussion about this, preferably without the clowns? I have some personal views, theories, as well as questions, and you seem to be easonable, informed and able to discuss rationally. might make for some lively banter back-and-forth.
What do you think?
Sure, you have my email address don't you?
Nope, I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcock