Post #190 is truly hideous. Mr Lick very often seems such a reasonable individual, so why the blatant nonsense in this post??? Anyone reading it could have picked up on so many ludicrous comments, I've cut a few 'highlights' out:

Originally Posted by
Mr Lick
lets just say that it's not a Thai trait.
Detached from the argument to say the least, but when you have zero defence then such catch all phrases may seem 'smart'; of course, they are anything but... You are attempting to use an oppressive discourse trick, just like the army do; forcing a one-sided language upon the nation as the only frame of discourse is an evil intentioned action; one that has been playing for 70 years now...

Originally Posted by
Mr Lick
In my view the use of snipers was a good idea, given that the government had made the decision to clear the area and that advancement would most probably would be met with violence.
This says a lot about your extreme viewpoint. You believe that it is a good idea for army snipers to kill political protestors... 'Clear the area' is a 'nice' way, in this case, of saying 'kill people who have a different political opinion to you'; nice - I'm very tempted to bring out my 'shameful' comment again (seems as you enjoyed it so much last time).

Originally Posted by
Mr Lick
if the security services shot the people at the temple, they probably did so mistakingly believing they were at risk and tensions were high.
Even in the most extreme of extreme cases (army strategically positioned upon a BTS track and firing into a Wat that had been agreed as a safe haven for protestors trying to avoid the 'live firing zones', then firing into that safe haven; don't forget the way they sectioned off the area and sent in the cleanup crew afterwards!) you are looking to excuse the mass murderers with phrases like 'mistakingly', 'believing they were at risk', 'tensions were high'; maybe you should ask Murdock for a job... Shameful!

Originally Posted by
Mr Lick
We hear of many incidents during other conflicts such as the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars where allies are killed by 'friendly fire'.

Originally Posted by
Mr Lick
I am afraid Thailand is not alone in denials when it comes to armed conflict.
You heap shame upon your shame here... Ignoring the fact that you are using murderous American propaganda as your tool ('friendly fire; doesn't seem very friendly to me or the dead people killed by it), you are citing the deliberate invasion of a country by an external force and changing into a war zone, as a parallel, an analogy, for political protestors in their own capital city.
Your 'other conflicts' is an attempt to qualify the Bangkok political rally as an armed struggle between armies; i.e. a war. In which case it's normal for soldiers to kill people; basically, you are shamefully attempting to justify the mass murder of political protestors in Bangkok by their own army. Unbelieveable...
Mr Lick, look over your arguments in the cold light of day; perhaps in the heat of the squabble, you just spat out these remarks, but if you stand by them now, I would ssay there is little hope for a reasonable discussion with you.