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

In this thread you have a clear demonstration of the MO from Amart/PADites when discussions of R'song arise.

They immediately jump in to divert the discussion away from how their compatriots killed over 90 taxpayers who stood up to their coup.

This thread is an interesting example of that:

First - they immediately start talking about the "Armed elements, men-in-black"

Secondly, they launch into discussions about Seh Daeng

Thirdly, if the above two don't work, then divert to Thaksin and the drug war. this last one is particularly effective, as it introduces both the red herring of Thaksin, and drug war stuff.

You can see the pattern above, as this thread develops. They work as a team. You will notice one Post diverted into the 'armed elements' thing, someone else quickly jumped in with the Seh Daeng thing, and then for good measure, segue'd into the Thaksin war on drugs.

In the meantime, what happened to discussions about how 90 Red Shirts were killed.......well, it was quickly deep-sixed.

This is the same method as at the GTMW. One PADite will start it off in a certain direction, and his buddies pile in to advance the discussion in that direction. A direction that promotes their agenda.

So if any of you are inclined to Post in this thread, where ya gonna go.............follow the PADites into their diversions away from how they killed 90 Red shirts at R'song, or stay on the path analysing how all the deaths occurred.

They have been very effective btw. Have discussions about this event ever progressed to a detrailed analysis about how the coupists managed to kill over 90 Red Shirts, beyond vague references to snipers?

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

No, not thousands, abisit and his sponsors murdered 91 minimum , innocent protestors, assassinated with sniper headshots, at Rajaprasong.

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.

I am taking note of your obvious avoidance of acknowledging the square-faced gorilla in the room. Where is your outrage and your clamoring for ICC investigations of Thaksin's *deliberate* atrocities?

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

with the full weight of Amsterdam's collated ...

Amsterdam's a hired clown, and the international legal community seems him so as well....

Originally Posted by LooseBowels

Abisit has been invited to speak, in his capacaty as a British Citizen.

No more, no less.

You can't argue with that

And it is that British citizenry that is his vulnerability at the ICC.

This was established first by the ICC, and then they were willing to discuss the investigation further when his clear British link was established.

As an aside, I understand that Thida's ICC presentation yesterday, followed a basic outline of showing video/photo record of what precipiated the forming of the Red Shirts after the coup, their morphing into the UDD, and their battle against coupists after that, obviously including the R'song massacre.

Calgary, answer me this: Who are the "coupists"?

What do you think of 9/11?

Originally Posted by Calgary

As an aside, I understand that Thida's ICC presentation yesterday, followed a basic outline of showing video/photo record of what precipiated the forming of the Red Shirts after the coup, their morphing into the UDD, and their battle against coupists after that, obviously including the R'song massacre.

Maybe you could bring it upon yourself to FINISH THE SENTENCE?

It's a very simple question - you accuse "coupists" of being behind the extra-judicial killings.

I ask you if you know who these "coupists" are? Who are they?

What is diversionary about this? I am willing to hear you out.

... or are you simply not willing to answer... because you have no answer?

At the end of the day, I have no particular problem with whom an individual supports in their vote. It is their right to vote I uphold, not who they vote for. I do believe that Mark damaged his credibility and democratic credentials by accepting the job of titular PM under such circumstances, and I think the results that followed were largely writ by these circumstances. Similarly with the red shirts- it is them standing up for their Right of Suffrage I support, not their political preference. Had circumstances changed, and it were Mark thrown out of office by military Coup with a record democratic majority, my stance would be no different.

So this endless, inane Thaksin stuff is nonsense. If Mark represents the 'future of democracy', go and sell that to the Voters. It is they who appoint and dismiss governments in a democracy.

Originally Posted by Calgary

or stay on the path analysing how all the deaths occurred

You know I can't do that, because I don't know.

Could you help with this? A list of each death by name, location and how they were killed.

I'm sure you have the information, but me being an outsider do not have your contacts.

I'm just subjected to being a mushroom by the Amart, whereas you are enlightened.

Originally Posted by sabang

I do believe that Mark damaged his credibility and democratic credentials by accepting the job of titular PM under such circumstances

Sabang nails the "Teak Door Understatement of the Year Award" in June. Good Effort.

Originally Posted by sabang

So this endless, inane Thaksin stuff is nonsense. If Mark represents the 'future of democracy', go and sell that to the Voters. It is they who appoint and dismiss governments in a democracy.

that's the problem, they don't want Democracy, they are only concerned about choosing their own dictator, no matter how brutal he is, and this is how exactly you think apparently, which is less than "politically enlightened". In your own logic, you would support any voluntary dictatorship, no matter how brutal. That's called Fascism. At least now you are admitting your true colors, that is being a Fascism supporter.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

they don't want Democracy, they are only concerned about choosing their own dictator,

Surely the right to choose their own dictator is democracy?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

At least now you are admitting your true colors, that is being a Fascism supporter.

No, it is called the Right of Suffrage. Choose any democratic system you like, and you will find similar polemic being thrown around by embittered democratic losers.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Originally Posted by Calgary

or stay on the path analysing how all the deaths occurred

Could you help with this? A list of each death by name, location and how they were killed.

Yes, please, Calgary - could you, please?

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I'm just subjected to being a mushroom by the Amart, whereas you are enlightened.

Indeed - Calgary's knowledge would be much appreciated in our path to enlightenment...

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Indeed - Calgary's knowledge would be much appreciated in our path to enlightenment...

It would be if he ever chose to pass on that knowledge.....but he seems to think that educating people is repeating something over and over and over again. He teaches us nothing.....

Why? Because he either doesn't want to or can't.

Which one is it?

Originally Posted by Calgary

How were over 90 Red Shirts killed?

... with bullets.

Now, back to the questions you were asked, but which you refuse to answer.

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Nor can you answer the question of who really benefited from provoking the Army in to doing so.

True. He can't. That's because answering that question could very possibly result in a hefty prison sentence.

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

there are times when talking about a certain family can get you a hefty sentence, but given that the dems, the army command and the the special people had very very closely aligned interests in apr/may 2010; invoking the fear of lm as a reason not to comment how the dems and army gained from the killings in 2010 is not a reason... simply avoiding the question with a pitiful excuse.

Originally Posted by hazz

...not to comment how the dems and army gained from the killings in 2010 is not a reason... simply avoiding the question with a pitiful excuse.

The government had every thing to lose (as has happend) with people getting killed. The people behind the 2010 protest had everything to gain (as has happened).
TH

From the HRW report:

Security arrangements surrounding the UDD movement were complex and organized, aimed at preventing a repeat of 2009, when the military force dispersed the UDD Songkran protests with relatively little force and minimal casualties.

Much though you may resent the UDD & associated groups standing up for their right of suffrage, TH & others, in a situation where an unconstitutional military coup was followed by a judicial coup, judicial witch hunt & blatant government & military purge, it became pretty clear that the 'separation of power' that exists in a normal democracy does not exist in Thailand- on the contrary, the organs of state were acting in concert to defy the democratic will of the Thai people.

These circumstances are ripe for an outcome potentially much worse than the actual UDD demonstrations and subsequent 'crackdown', not that I am trying to make light of that. The days of a demi-feudal Thailand complete with a politically disempowered population were left behind at this point, an important ground shift that the self styled Bangkok 'elite' would be foolish to forget. Democracy has rules, and they are contained in the national Constitution. Get used to following them.

Originally Posted by Thaihome

The government had every thing to lose (as has happend) with people getting killed. The people behind the 2010 protest had everything to gain (as has happened).

Well said - exactly.

The 90 victims were an easy price to pay for leaders that never came under fire, and Seh Daeng (aerobic expert) was a convenient elimination, as he was getting uncomfortably insane, and for the most part, had served his purpose - and thus was called upon for a grand final performance.

Right, as the government had all to lose, and has demonstrated in 2009 to be able to solve demonstrations with no bloodshed, it became obvious that bigger provocations were necessary. I would not be surprised if a good number of the 90 victims were actually shot by the Red gunmen...

^^^If anything the difference between 2010 and 2009 demonstrate why, unless your intention is to create martyrs or seed civil war, allowing weapons into your protest is akin to bringing child porn to a kindergarden.

And certainly a few people have made very effective use the martyrs 2010 created.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I would not be surprised if a good number of the 90 victims were actually shot by the Red gunmen...

Of course you wouldn't. Were you also not surprised that the last election, that voted Yingluck into power, was accompanied by Thailand's second only absolute majority?

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

I would not be surprised if a good number of the 90 victims were actually shot by the Red gunmen...

Of course you wouldn't. Were you also not surprised that the last election, that voted Yingluck into power, was accompanied by Thailand's second only absolute majority?

Your point of juxtaposing these two completely unrelated points?

Originally Posted by Thaihome

The government had every thing to lose

Actually TH, they had nothing to lose.

They had nothing.

They had no credibility, no validity, no certification roots such as an election, no justification for being, no legitimacy.

They were just a bunch of coupists pretending to be a Government, with a pretensious leader by virtue of no personal achievements.

What pray tell, was there for them to lose?

Originally Posted by Thaihome

The people behind the 2010 protest had everything to gain

That is true.....what was rightfully theirs.

It wasn't gaining actually. It was recovering what had been stolen from them....That is not exactly a 'gain'.