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

Originally Posted by hazz

What you and nobody else seems to be able to do, is explain the logic of this obvious truth. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to do so.

How was it in the interests of the army to murder people in 1973, 1976 and 1992.

It really doesn't matter all that much what the army was thinking. the fact is that the army killed people in 2010. Why not? They've done it lots of times and gotten clean away everytime.

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by hazz

What you and nobody else seems to be able to do, is explain the logic of this obvious truth. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to do so.

How was it in the interests of the army to murder people in 1973, 1976 and 1992.

It really doesn't matter all that much what the army was thinking. the fact is that the army killed people in 2010. Why not? They've done it lots of times and gotten clean away everytime.

That a reasonable question. but to follow the logic of it,why did they decide not to go on a killing rampage in 2009?

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Nobody asked how the dems and the army benefited

People have repeated asked how the army, the dems, et. al. benefited from sending the army out to kill unarmed protesters; in numerous threads and this one

... indeed, and oddly it's one of the repeat questions that DrBob (or Calgary, or Sabang) adamantly refuse to answer...

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by hazz

What you and nobody else seems to be able to do, is explain the logic of this obvious truth. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to do so.

It really doesn't matter all that much what the army was thinking. the fact is that the army killed people in 2010. Why not? They've done it lots of times and gotten clean away everytime.

That a reasonable question. but to follow the logic of it,why did they decide not to go on a killing rampage in 2009?

Again, a valid question - I suspect extended silence will be forthcoming from tomta...

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.

possibly thats what one particular member could well be about, he seems to want posters to go that way.

Originally Posted by Yasojack

possibly thats what one particular member could well be about, he seems to want posters to go that way.

There are many different ways a question can be answered without getting into trouble, such as with metaphor or simile...

... unless, of course, there's a medical condition that causes the person to have trouble with metaphor or simile.

surprising that the member i was thinking about, just happens to post.

So if you happen to know, why do you go down that road.?

I find it a worthwhile discussion, if people were able to discuss such matters in a rational manner - which does not appear to be possible for some.

As I said "There are many different ways a question can be answered without getting into trouble, such as with metaphor or simile..."

Originally Posted by Bobcock

He knows he may hear things he doesn't want to face and he may start questioning the shite he gets fed by the red shirt voices in his head.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much a credible summary.

Good thing he has me on ignore. I might as well do the same.

Why does Thailand, and particularly do Thailand fora, attract so many bona fide nut cases?

This doesn't seem to be the case on more aggressively moderated fora, like ThaiVisa or Pattaya-Addicts, for example, where there simply aren't any such nutcases, and discussion is invariably civil and informative.

Read my signature.

Damn, I sound like Calgary, I hope I don't start twitching any time soon.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Read my signature.

TEAK DOOR FORUM - 'Giving whackjobs a voice'

Indeed!

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Again, a valid question - I suspect extended silence will be forthcoming from tomta...

The suggestion seems to be that
1. The Democrats and Army had nothing to gain from shooting protesters

2. Because the Dems and Army did not shoot protesters in 2009, they did not shoot protesters in 2010

3. Because the Dems and Army had nothing to gain from shooting protesters the protesters must have been shot by the "men in Black" at Thaksin's behest.

I think this is nonsense and wishful thinking. The overwhelming evidence is that the army shot lots of people in 2010. The Army had snipers in place to shoot people and they did. Why? I don't know. So i an only speculate. perhaps they enjoy it. They've done it many times before. And perhaps it was because they could see that the opposition to the corrupt and undemocratic rule of the Democrats which was dented in 2009 had recovered to become strong enough to threaten the rule of injustice and non-democracy in 2010. And seeing this, perhaps they decided this really needed to be crushed by all means necessary.

The Army conspicuously shot lots of people. They continuously lied about what they did. They have never as far as I have seen admitted to causing a single injury let alone death. The army has been run for years by murderers and liars.

That's what happened in 2010.

Originally Posted by tomta

That's what happened in 2010.

uh, that's not quite how things work in the real world - particularly since that concluding statement of your's was preceded entirely by a collection of "I don't know's" and one gant straw man you built up and then tore down, based on something you claimed, yet which no one here actually said.

No one (except you) claims that the army didn't shoot anyone and that all killings were done by mysterious men in black - it's well known that many shootings were committed by the army, notably because THEY WERE BEING SHOT AT (a detail you appear to want to suppress) - specifically because it was in someone's best interest to provoke the armed forces to start shooting.

It was certainly not in the government's or the army's best interests, specifically since they gave shown admirable restraint, in 2009 fashion, for the longest time. It was also very obvious that protesters (certain elements within the protesters) escalated provocations up until they got what they wanted, IMO.

Originally Posted by Calgary

It wasn't, but it was in the interests of non-military operatives who ordered them to.

It is my view that when discussing this, to get an accurate picture, one ought to remove the military. Relegate them to the role 'of enablers' and focus on who they were enabling for.

And who would that be? Santa Claus?

Cthulhu you remind me of a guy on forums not so long ago that would provoke persons on the forums then report them to the Thai authorities, some of your so called discussions have gone a little near the knuckle.

Back on topic - sort of - You ever wonder if Abhisit would ever be "invited to give a speech" to the ICC in leg-irons? Or at all? Nope - he should - but of course he won't as the ICC is a tool of CIA-hegemony

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

No one (except you) claims that the army didn't shoot anyone

The army claims they didn't shoot anyone. They have not admitted responsibility for any particular death or injury. All they have said is that they fired bullets. Remember Suthep's claim that the demonstrators ran into these bullets.

Yes some things I don't know. When I don't know I admit that I don't know. This is called intellectual honesty.

For your benefit Cthulu, i will repost a post I wrote in 2010. I don't see that the situatiion of zero admission of responsibility by the army has changed in the slightest

Mr Lick

The government and army has not come out with one single statement covering the events of April and May that denies responsibility for every death. That would be so patently ridiculous that their case would be revealed as absolutely laughable.

What they do is simply to deny responsibility for every particular death or even wound that the troops are accused of causing. Have you seen one instance of the government or army accepting responsibility for a death or injury? Have the complete results of one autopsy been published six months after the events ?

This shouldn't be too hard. The government could say "Soldier X shot and wounded protestor Y with such and such a gun and ammunition while Protestor Y was looting/shooting/burning." Such an admission would be a propaganda victory for the government in that it would tend to justify their argument that they were using legitimate force. They've had six months to come up with just one such story and haven't done so.

Mid has provided you with a link to a denial of responsibility for the the shootings at Phan Fa in April. It should be remembered that at first they denied using live bullets. They only admitted to using live bullets when the evidence was so overwhelming that it was pointless to continue their denials.

You must have seen their denials of prominent cases like the shooting of Seh Daeng. Here is Anupong's denial of responsibility for the shootings at Wat Panatharum Bangkok Post : Anupong: Troops didn't kill at temple

You will notice in this article that Anupong claims to have evidence that they didn't shoot anyone but he chooses not to reveal it.

These denials are part of a pattern . Has the army admitted to the killings in 1973, 1976, 1992, No. Tak bai, Kru Sae? Sort of but it was all an accident. Has any army disciplinary committee reccommended that particular persons be charged for these events? Has anyone been charged?

The army and the government has a culture of denial and lying. Look at this typical statement from Sonthi, made during the planning stages of the coup: "The army will not get involved in the political conflict. Political troubles should be resolved by politicians. Military coups are a thing of the past.", 6 March 2006, (Wikipedia).

The denial is perpetrated by many means: lying, active denial of particular events, asserting that the "men in black " shot those on their own side, asserting that the army would never harm the Thai people,refusing to respond to or counter particular allegations with credible evidence, waiting till everyone despairs of getting the truth and gives up asking questions, saying the accusations are all from ill-intentioned people who want to destroy the state and overthrow the monarchy, and setting up"independent" commissions (whose reports are due in three years) with an emphasis on "reconciliation" not on "truth".

The denial is not a single event; it is a process. And it is serving its purposes as the same process has done before in Thailand.

https://teakdoor.com/thailand-and-asi...ml#post1603178 (Investigators fail to identify killers of foreign journalists)

You keep throwing out straw man - that is certainly not "intellectually honest", in fact, it's dishonest.

Originally Posted by Yasojack

Cthulhu you remind me of a guy on forums not so long ago that would provoke persons on the forums then report them to the Thai authorities, some of your so called discussions have gone a little near the knuckle.

Uh, how would such so-called "reporting" go, exactly?

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.

When confronted with the fact that no one in this discussion will disagree that people were shot, you resort to the strawman that "the army didn't admit anyone was shot" - no one is talking about that. You claimed initially that members of this thread denied it, which I corrected - faced with that rather difficult to deny factoid,myth shifted gears, and are now saying its the army.

Be that as it may (as you'll build strawmen, regardless of anything I say, I'm afraid), I *personally* feel that out of the victims of 2010", some were certainly shot intentionally (those wielding weapons and remaining hostile, which you'll deny), and some were innocent bystanders that were shot unintentionally (as there certainly will always be cases of friendly fire, unintentional targets, ricochets, and accidents when there are shootings) - to be fair, the majority of those shots were certainly intentional targets, though victims like the nurse that was shot on temple grounds was most likely an accidental shooting, and not targeted (in comparison, aerobics instructor Seh Daeng was most certainly intentional - though I can only speculate which side shot him, as each side had good reasons).

Suthep, I believe was trying to explain the difference between intentional and accidental shootings. He didn't claim all 90 victims of shootings just "walked" into random bullets that were whizzing about.

Let me know when you intend to stick to the actual subject.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Calgary should be together with Loose Bowels and recognise as trolls, good trolls, but trolls none the less.

Loose Bowels is a troll & a bad one at that.

Calgary.... no he is insane. The one thing that a troll does *not* do is put people on ignore. Trolls crave attention and derive a perverse satisfaction from reading the outraged responses they provoke.