Cthulhu, Can you please delineate exactly what the "straw man" in my argument is. If there is one, I will revise my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Cthulhu, Can you please delineate exactly what the "straw man" in my argument is. If there is one, I will revise my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
I find that impossible to believe. Apart from the fact the poor nurse was in a clearly marked medical tent, she was also shot more than once, and other people were also injured by gunshot fire inside the same tent. So how could this possibly be 'accidental shooting', from Army snipers? That just beggars belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
What I also find difficult to account for is why is the high command of the Army actually covering for the perpetrator's, or are we to believe that this atrocity was considered within that units terms of engagement? The Wat had been designated as a safe zone by the government, a place of sanctuary- so surely not. Why then is the Army covering for an apparently rogue unit? It beats me.
I don't believe I said that people on this forum have denied it although some might have. Please point to where I said it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
I am talking about the army's denial. I am someone. Someone is talking about it. Whether or not you consider that to be important is up to you. I believe it to be of critical importance what the army says on this matter. It is much more important than what you or I or other members of the forum are saying. This is not a "strawman" . It is a crucial fact about what happened and the interpretation of what happened. I am glad, however, that you, unlike the Army, do concede that the Army killed people. That could provide the basis for an intelligent discussion
If you can point out my "strawmen" convincingly and explicitly, I will revise my argument accordingly. Yelling "strawman" is not convincing or explicit.
Quite possibly, although I'd rather see the evidence than base a case on your "personal' feelingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
It's funny how you have complete access to what I will or won't say, what I'll deny or won't deny. Telepathy? You can read my mind and future actions? You have the advantage over me. I can't read yours. I'm certain some people were shot intentionally. I have not seen conclusive evidence that any person who was shot was wielding weapons other than slingshots and fireworks. I may well be wrong. But the army denies shooting anyone intentionally or unintentionally. I can't understand why if you have an interest in this matter that this does not interest you.
Can you supply an argument and evidence for that proposition? Or is that just a personal feeling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Yes, that is what you believe. But why? I have never spoke to Suthep to learn about the contents of his mind. I don't have any gifts in the area of telepathy. Perhaps you do. All I had to go by were the reports in the newspapers and blogs that saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
“For this no-confidence debate, don’t blink! I will shift the blame. We will battle it out on the truth, but you will need to be patient. We didn’t intend to kill protesters. We never used the resources/force of the police or soldiers to disperse the protesters, but they died as they ran into [bullets],” said Suthep
Thai Deputy PM: Protesters died as they ran into bullets | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
Bangkok Pundit links to the original Thai statements and other reports which confirm that this is what Suthep said. Are you saying that these reports are false? Was Suthep misreported? Please enlighten us.
"We never used the resources/force of the police or soldiers to disperse the protesters," Suthep said. What the hell were they there for then?
This blog thread was about Abhisit's credibility in giving a speech on good governance. One of the elements of good governance is ensuring transparency and accountability, proper control over organs of the state such as the army, proper handling of civil disorders and other such matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
In what way exactly are my contributions not pertinent to this topic? In what way are your comments more pertinent?
Yes - very obvious, and bad one at that. Multi-nick, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerbil
Bingo. Ditto for ENT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerbil
I would have agree with you there, and that feeling of nonsense that you perceive about it, is the remains of your brains analytical skills telling you that you are barking up the wrong tree again.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
You see the question thats being asked is whilst historically thai military and civilian governments have delt with internal crisis as in 1973, 1976, 1993 and 2003 with murder. 2009 was different and probably domestically and internationally successful assertion of the power of vested interests in modern thai history. Key to that success was the very low body count in dispersing the protest.
It is a very valid question to ask why they chose not to repeat this success again in 2010; what was different? Somehow I think the answers a little bit more complicated that they deployed soldiers that liked to kill in 2010 and they didn't in 2009.
Thailand's election: Thaksin's way | The Economist
Possibly they should of read this before asking Apeshit, Thaksin was the better choice.
I think its a lot more easier than that a copy/paste into a email, sent to the right dept, starts the ball rolling ask any Admin of any website in Thailand how careful they have to be.
You may or not be aware, of the consequences for both the poster and owner of the website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuUh, how would such so-called "reporting" go, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yasojack
X: "Hello khun Somchai, there's a guy called Yasojack, and some guy called Tom Sawyer who talk badly about an important person"
Thai: "Chai, please give us address and full name, khrap"
X: "uh, well, I don't exactly have an address, and that's not really their real names, but they use as alias on an internet forum"
Thai: "chai, chai, khrap. The full name and address please"
X: "... Like I said, I don't have those, but I can speculate..."
Thai: "No have, khrap?"
X: "That's right, but I would like to report them!"
Thai: "Can not. Have nice day, khrap. Good bye, khrap"
That's about it - idiots proclaiming they are "reporting you to the Thai authorities" are about as honest (or efficacious) in their statements, as those building strawman, if they can't counter an existing argument.
Thai general election, 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thaksin wanted 400 seats he got 374, now that is what good goverance is all about, apeshit has not accomplished anything at all in Thailand except dividing a country, that could well lead to civil war, the dems are and always will be about the elite few, that does not give a fek about anything except themselves.
Of course, you never considered the possibility that, just maybe, the Army didn't do that particular shooting, but a group that had far more to gain from making it seem like the Army shot civilians in a safe zone. Hmmmm...?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
It might be a combination of incompetence and someone else having a stronger reason to *want* civilian deaths - certainly not the govt or military. The fact that the majority of the 2010 protests played out like 2009, with restraint from the govt, illustrate your hypothesis that Abhisit's govt was attempting to follow the same course of action.Quote:
Originally Posted by hazz
Only when that appeared to lead to failure for the Reds, again, did engagement on the Red side escalate to violence and were weapons introduced on the Red side. Why do Tomtam, Sabang, et al keep pretending the Reds had no weapons?
This thread is skirting dangerously close to the 9/11 thread.
I've already explained this in the post you are replying to.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomta
Participants in the thread are acknowledging that shootings happened, after you claim "no one is acknowledging shootins" (paraphrase) - when I disagree, you shift it to "The Army doesn't admit it"
Whatever.
Mr. Abhisit, don't forget to mention another thing about governance: if you come to power from a coup and the deposed leader wants to leave the Country with a silly excuse like seeing the Olympics, don't let him go.
FRANCE 24 journalist seriously injured in Bangkok clashes - THAILAND - FRANCE 24
heres stories from journalists, with no political bias.
Can anyone shed light on AB and his good governance? its pathetic that certain members constantly have to resort to 2010 and the conflicts,its known throughout Thailand whether there Thai or farang that no one will in the near future will become accountable for what happened, if the present govt do not play the game there term will be short lived, thats a fact any TRT PT or whatever becomes to much for the amart to handle, then there time ends and the cycle begins again,
Though now the people of Thailand are becoming more aware of the abuses, and repression inflicted on them through govts related to the dems, PT may not be perfect though there more in touch with the people of Thailand and has been proven through elections, in the past years
Careful Yasojack, because there were two French journalists at the FCCT who told of spending several days with a very well armed militia within the red shirt camp who were well armed, well trained and intent on making sure the army were engaged.
They had no political bias, or will you ignore that when it suits you?
Yasojack, learn the difference between there, their and they're, otherwise you look silly
BOB link please, and if thats the best you can do, please try again
There it is Yj.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcock
I knew it would come.
The diversion I have been telling you about.
The PADites were getting a tad uncomfortable with the exposure of the R'song killers with whom they sympathise, so time to divert the discussion.
I for one won't follow that deviousness.
I'll dig out the notes I made that night, but the journalists from a very broad spectrum spoke at length about what they saw and showed photographs including a 12 yo boy who was paid to set fire to stuff.
Of course whether you believe me or not doesn't matter, I'll give you the journalists names, you feel free to research these 'independent sources' that will clearly not be taken on board by you, if and when it doesn't suit you.
Your spelling and grammar is so poor you lack credibility anyway son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yasojack
That is why I asked who this guy was, before deciding to "ignore' him from this forumn.
When I saw him reiterating that most egregious and most cynical of all PADitisms, that Red Shirts shot each other at R'song, is when I took notice of this guy.
The disrespect this shows for both the dead and the good people struggling against elitist tyranny is beyond the pale.
Accordingly, I have put him on ignore, as such extremist Amart villification of my friends, the Red Shirts, is something no amount of discourse can ameliorate.
Your suspicion of motives indicated in your quote above, dovetails with what caused me to eliminate him from my participation on this forumn.
I notice he went overboard attacking me after that, although the 'ignore' feature prevented me from reading any of it.
I also noticed Bobcock sympathising with him, and joining him. This reminded me of the MO over on another Board whereby internal operatives will pile on anyone who exposes their agenda, in an effort to paint that individual not only as having aberational thinking but also personal characteristics.
Anyway, I find my enjoyment on this discussion Board enhanced when I exercise some selectivity.
The independent (as decided by these two idiots) journalists I saw speak were:
Marc Westoff
Nirmal Ghosh
Brad Cox
Masaru Goto
Olivier Sarbil
Todd Ruiz
I cannot confirm the spellings.
The BBC's Alistair Liethead also spoke, and there was also a film shown by Florien ? Who was a film student who had filmed the days events starting at Din Daeng.
I'm on an iPad so I shall save this post intermittently.
Actually I'll just add posts, it's easier.
Florien's film showed a group at Din Daeng who were well armed (hand guns only) indiscriminately burning shops and Government building though it looked like some sort of outhouse only. He was stopped from filming eventually. This was at Din Daeng at 5am.
Later he films at 07:20 at Rama 4. They were chased away, though he was clear that the people chasing them away were not red shirt demonstrators but a gang of thugs who were piggybacking the demonstration for their own gain.
My notes then say "90 minutes to get through - disagrees with BBC" not sure what that means, remember I took these notes close to 2 years ago.
The last part of the film is burningat ZEN and groups of youths leaving with a lot of shopping bags, Adidas being a prominent brand. My impression at the time was these youths were neither demonstrators nor army. Flip flops and several orange vests in view.
^
Follow the attempted diversion by this PADite away from how 90 Red Shirts were murdered if you wish, I won't be one of them.
Their own kind will do so however, and couch it in Posts that seemingly give serious discussion to relevant issues....but are in fact pure diversionary.
They have been very succesful with this tactic before I finally cottoned onto what they were doing.
I have identified this guy in my Post #145 above, for what he is.
Next journal was Brad Cox.
He said he was caught at one point in crossfire, that there was definitely two way traffic in the fighting, though he clearly declined to offer any opinion as to who was doing what.
He showed film of people on the demonstrators side of the fence throwing grenades and had film of the Italian journalist that was killed being treated / transferred out, including him being dropped at one point. He had been next to him at the time. He also had film of several explosions around Central Chidlom.
He had film of the main stage as well, the quote from him I have written down was that (the authorities were) "way off base with the rules of engagement"
I then have the name Terry Barksdale, who is not on the first list so I cannot remember his contribution but he had several photos taken in the temple showing the wounded and dead.
^^Calgary, shut the fuck up for once, you are like a fucking child, quit whining and read the independent account given by people who were there. The stench of fear that something may contradict your bullshit one eyed stance is invading my space here.