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

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

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

Cthulhu, Can you please delineate exactly what the "straw man" in my argument is. If there is one, I will revise my argument.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

victims like the nurse that was shot on temple grounds was most likely an accidental shooting, and not targeted

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.
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.

Originally Posted by Gerbil

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

Yes - very obvious, and bad one at that. Multi-nick, too.

Originally Posted by Gerbil

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.

Bingo. Ditto for ENT.

Originally Posted by tomta

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

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.

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.

Originally Posted by hazz

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tomta

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

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

Cthulhu, Can you please delineate exactly what the "straw man" in my argument is. If there is one, I will revise my argument.

I've already explained this in the post you are replying to.

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

Originally Posted by Bobcock

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?

There it is Yj.

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.

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.

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.

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.