The problem here facing the typical clueless farang is their chronic inability to reconcile reality with their political allegiance.
One leader acted out of a belief the maintenance of law and order was a prerequisite in any democracy, the other is a self serving demagogue whose conduct involved the deaths of thousands and the accumulation of immense personal wealth through the abuse of power, corruption and cronyism.
Can you tell which one is which?
Or he could use the excuse of self defense as it is a proven fact that there was an armed element within the UDD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
I hasten to add, that there is likely several cases where the Army personnel on the ground, in a combat situation, exceeded the Rules of Engagement that were legally issued and well publicized.
What nobody that posts such stuff as you just did has been able to explain is what benefit it was to the government at that time to shoot unarmed protestors in the manner you attempt to portray it. Nor can you answer the question of who really benefited from provoking the Army in to doing so.
TH
^ nor does TS want to acknowledge that there was a hostile, armed element on the ground, with the explicit goal to burn down Bangkok.
I did enjoy, though, how Seh Daeng, the Army's Special Aerobics instructor, met his end. There was something very entertaining to timing the kill-shot with his claiming "They will never dare touch me, never.." *bang!*.
Again, I am convinced that the shooting wasn't government sanctioned, but I am likewise convinced that this might have been payback from the other general that Seh Daeng tossed a grenade at, previously (and did anyone notice how the random grenade attacks stopped after hs death?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
The most logical theory is that it was Thaksin that ordered it and it was carried out by the military unit that was within the UDD and killing him off at some point was always part of the plan made in Dubai in January 2010. Of course Pallop and Thaksin did not share that part of the plan with Seh Daeng. :)
As the HRW report shows, Seh Daeng was not in charge of the military unit, but instead had his own followers mostly made up of the young urban thugs that had taken over the Lumpini Park area of the protest site and after Seh Daeng was killed manned the barricades on Rama IV and Ding Daeng.
The news that whole week of May 5 to when Seh Deang was shot was dominated by statements that Seh Deang was making. Statements that the UDD apologist today conveniently forget about.
Can you imagine what Seh Deang would have been saying over the past 2 years if he was still alive? It would have been very difficult to conduct the PR campign about the Army shooting innocent, peacefull, unarmed protestors with him running his mouth about what really happened and with his ego how he did it all.
TH
Quote:
"...............he can always use the excuse in his defence that he was only following orders by someone above him.. What do you think? Should he do that?
Which in this case is the reality.
Doesn't cleanse the blood from his hands, but certainly is ultimate culpability without any question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
Wow, it didn't take the PADites long to change the conversation - or at least try.
Changing the conversation from attackers to atackees.
Quote:
Army personnel on the ground, in a combat situation, exceeded the Rules of Engagement that were legally issued and well publicized.
Army personnel were not involved.
Only coupists engaged in combat with anti-coupists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
There was no Government at that time.
There was a gang of coupists pretending they were the Government.
To kill anti-coupists was therefore extremely advantageous
Again you confuse provokers with provokees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
There was great benefit to coupists from provoking anti-coupists. This is self-explanatory actually.
After the coupists provoked those who stood against them, the spin began.
The fightback to these provocations were characterized as anarchic and a riot.
If the fightback was anarchic and riotous, how should we characterize the murderous massacre?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
The re-direction worked.
The next Post was about the feeble fightback to coupist provocations.
Amart/PADites keep doing it, with some success as in this case....Their MO..."Lets not talk about our very own murderers, lets change the conversation to the victims and the little resistance they were able to generate"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Correct, because there was no Government at the time.
Coupists sanctioned the shooting of anti-coupists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
And if all else fails, lets just circle this thing back to Thaksin. The Thaksin haters will all jump in, and voila, we are away from our very own murderers.
And after above quote, the entire Post fixates on Seh Daeng.
Nice try TH.
Isn't it a bugger when this MO is being exposed.
Some may follow this re-direction, but those of us who are more discerning, know the games you guys play.
It's true, the man at the top is ultimately responsible, which make Abhisit the man who should face charges related to the 90+ killings on his watch.
You can't argue with that.
I can argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcock
That begs the question, "Who was at the top?'
You don't for one minute think that Abhi. independently made that decision, same as one cannot argue military operatives made the decision about a coup.
Those who authorized the coup also authorized the R'song massacre.
There will be some self-evident difficulty distinguishing between perpetrators and enablers.
Not difficult for me, but maybe for others.
plenty have and will continue to do so :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcock
So, Calgary is also into "exposing" the 9/11 conspiracy, the pharmaceutical industry's vaccine conspiracies, fluoride poisoning and whatever else - because he sure reads *exactly* like these other nutcases. I'd assume he's autistic/Aspergers positive and OCD as well, right?
True. He can't. That's because answering that question could very possibly result in a hefty prison sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrB0b
Actually, bob, I tend to agree with yoou about previous incidents, but I think 2010 was a cynical plan to take advantage of the legacy of those incidents. The difference between the 2009 protests and what happened in 2010 are very telling.
If it benefited who you claim, why did they not do so in 2009 under exact same circumstances? Is not the only difference between 2009 and 2010 the presence of the armed element within the UDD?
Why did Veera, the person who called off the 2009 protest in which nobody was killed, leave the 2010 protest before the outbreak of the major violence from May 14th to the 19th?
TH
^ Shhh .... Don't confront DrBob with unpleasant facts that he doesn't want to face.
What the hell is that all about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
PADites intellectualizing into a state of gobbledegook, trying to denigrate the UDD/Red Shirts about whom they know very little about, but still trying to please their ASTV crowd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
What the hell is this about characterizing fightback by anti-coupists to the coupist attacks as an "armed element"
It is just denigrating garbage by Amart/PADites trying to justify their massacre.
What did you expect the anti-coupists to do....Lay down and tell the coupists to F.... us again.
Instead of talking about "armed elements', lets discuss 90 dead Red Shirts and how that happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaihome
Why Veera left is not the coupist business. The internal dynamics of UDD/Red Shirt leadership is not something the coupists can use to denigrate those people they attacked and massacred.
They ought to worry about their own internal dynamics, such as who authorized the coup and R'song murders.
There was no outbreak of major violence.
There was an attack by coupists TH.
What is it about that which you don't understand?
Trying to visit the violence perpetrated by coupists, upon those they attacked is pure spin.
Violence was one way TH, met with some feeble fightback.
Was over 90 deaths not enough evidence for you............Or were those deaths just unimportant people for you.
Got it!
With apologies to Wilde, Calgary is the incomprehensible in pursuit of the unedifying.
Stupid man simply doesn't get it.
Minor collateral damage in a well executed manouever to suppress a motley rabble hired by a degenerate to foment insurrection and dissent most other civilised countries would have squashed without a moment's thought, a lot sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary
Excellent post, if I may so myself.
90 deaths was a demonstration how little Thaksin and his fanatical Red Shirt leaders care about lives, even of their followers - a trend that was well established during his tenure, and which was evident in Red leadership's fiery rhetoric and inciting their own people to ever increasing violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by thegentMinor collateral damage in a well executed manouever to suppress a motley rabble hired by a degenerate to foment insurrection and dissent most other civilised countries would have squashed without a moment's thought, a lot sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary
The results : thousand of people killed under Thaksin, *not* as a result of self-defense against armed thugs, but directly and intentionally killed.
In 2003 alone:
Where is Calgary's outrage over these deaths! Where does Calgary demand Thaksin be arrested and put on trial?Quote:
107 civilians Shot dead when police and soldiers fired into the Kue se Mosque in Pattani. 5 men in uniform died. 28 April.
2,596 civilians Killed during 3 months of Thaksin’s ‘War on drugs’. According to the Royal Thai Police Bureau’s own report 1,432 were innocent.
84 civilians Killed by police, 6 from bullet wounds and 78 from suffocation during transportation from police station to army camp. This Southern Conflict incident sparked when several hundred Muslim people were protesting at the Tak Bai Police Station in Narathiwat Province, demanding the release of 6 people that had been arrested.
As pointed out - there is a significant difference between Army and Police shooting *back* because armed elements start shooting at them (as at Radjaprasong), and intentional turkey shoots into unarmed civilians (Kue Se Mosque massacre, Pattani), deliberate suffocation of unarmed, arrested civilians (Tak Bai killings), and of course execution style killings of 2,500 alleged drug dealers.
That said, violence and killings are part of Thailand's history and culture, and thus (if anything) Abhisit has shown extreme restraint in the events of Radjaprasong, which were regrettable)
Abisit has been invited to speak, in his capacaty as a British Citizen.:)
No more, no less.
You can't argue with that
What was that again about "Live Fire Zones":)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
You can't argue with that
What was that again about thousands of execution style killings?Quote:
Originally Posted by LooseBowels
What's that? Silence?Quote:
107 civilians Shot dead when police and soldiers fired into the Kue se Mosque in Pattani. 5 men in uniform died. 28 April.
2,596 civilians Killed during 3 months of Thaksin’s ‘War on drugs’. According to the Royal Thai Police Bureau’s own report 1,432 were innocent.
84 civilians Killed by police, 6 from bullet wounds and 78 from suffocation during transportation from police station to army camp. This Southern Conflict incident sparked when several hundred Muslim people were protesting at the Tak Bai Police Station in Narathiwat Province, demanding the release of 6 people that had been arrested.
No, not thousands, abisit and his sponsors murdered 91 minimum , innocent protestors, assassinated with sniper headshots, at Rajaprasong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Thats why the ICC are on his case, with the full weight of Amsterdam's collated , recorded, evidence, of their crimes during their "Live Fire Zone" turkey shoot.:)
Indeed, "Silencing of the Lambs"Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
With british citizan abisit vejaviva as Hanibal Lector:)
You can't argue with that
Glad to see youv'e sobered up somewhat there Bob, and are on the right lines.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcock
abist ain't the man at the top, but the man at the top will see that its british citizan abisit who will face the charges.
You can't argue with that