Ferangled

And Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Red shirts, Yellow shirts are they "born this way" or because they have chosen to join these groups do the alleged actions of certain members of these groups automatically define the entire group?

No twisting here, you could simply spin your question back to yourself and substitute red for yellow but given your political fervour I thought more obvious examples showing how ridiculous this broad generalisation is might appeal to even your sensibilities... evidently not.

No twisting? Chubby Checker couldn't have done a better job.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ, you can't stop someone being an American, you can't stop someone being black, you can't stop someone being a human.. you can stop a member of a political group being affiliated with that group. How? You kick them out. It's not difficult. It's what any responsible group would do to members that act in a manner the group disapproves of and a manner that the group does not want reflected on them.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ but you can stop someone believing in their chosen political party... if you say so!

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that these alleged members of the red shirts should be "kicked out" for alleged offences and that because they haven't it's fair game to tar all red shirts as violent thugs... how does that logic work with the charges levied against Abhisit and the Democrats?

He is alleged to be responsible for murder, surely by your own logic that makes the entire Democrat party a gang of violent murderous thugs? It must be fair to label them all as such because they haven't distanced themselves from the alleged murderer... no matter that there's been no conviction, he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself from these allegations, the allegations have been made so it's quite right to assume that he is in fact a murderer and by proxy all Dems are murderous thugs.

I'm sorry but I just don't subscribe to your kangaroo court style reasoning.

Can you really make and apples to apples comparison of the red shirts / abhisit & democrats?

How many times did the paymaster incite them to violence, also jatuporn, nattawut, arisman and more : bring gasoline, we'll burn Bangkok down, etc. Pull Abhsist driver out of his car and severly beat him up and the poor man still in rehabiliation, and never a word from any of their leaders to behave / to discuss. And more.

On the other hand, how many times has abhisit tried to encourage the dems to be violent? None.

Apples to Apples? I think not!

Of course I can, you seem to completely miss the point...

The premise is taking an allegation as truth, I could equally have used this as an example; I allege the TV member Scorecard plays tiddlywinks with under age girls and strokes badgers. I and you know that these allegations hold no water and they should not be taken as a gospel truth. That is the point. Anyone can allege anything and when the allegations are made in such an obviously biased fashion by such an obviously biased media outlet, should we not engage our brains and question the motivation before swallowing the allegations as fact?

I agree that in the case of this story, it needs to be established whether they were red shirt members or not, and whether they have done what they are being accused of. If it is established that they were and that they did, well then they should be kicked out of the group. If upon being kicked out they wish to still go on believing in that group, fine, up to them, but at least their future actions won't in any way reflect on the group because everyone will know that the group has already kicked them out and wants nothing to do with them.

Sadly though, in the case of all the other past stories involving red shirt members doing something stupid/illgeal/violent, i can't recall one single occasion in which a member has been kicked out. It seems that you can't either...

To be fair though do you recall any yellows being kicked out over their violent behaviour?

I think this is the nub of your problem. You can't offer any argument against what i have said about the principle of members of groups who act violently or illegally, being kicked out of their group and condemned, particularly if they are found to have been committing those acts whilst in some way under the banner of that group - which does appear to be the case here - and you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group. What actually bothers you is that it is somehow not fair to mention any of this without in the same breath mentioning the yellows and how they are equally as guilty. Why didn't you just say that from the start, rather than giving us all this desperate defending of groups who don't expel violent members, and giving us all these excuses as to why they don't/can't, and all the silly twisted analogies, such as the one about blacks who, would you believe, don't expel other black people from continuing to be black when they do bad things?

The yellows are as bad as the reds. There, said it. Can you now agree that if these men are indeed found to be red shirts who used the name of that group whilst doing some illegal violent thoroughly unpleasant stuff, that the red movement should both condemn them and publicly renounce their involvement. Can you also now agree that going on past history, the chances of that actually happening is almost zero? Can you also now agree that not condemning and renouncing such people, does reflect on the whole group, whether that be a fair reflection or not?

Shame you snipped my reply down to the first line because you'll find most of the answers to these questions within my original reply. Amusing the way you are twisting what I have said earlier in the thread and applying your own logic to my thinking but you still seem to miss one crucial point.

Why do you expect anyone to condemn anything that has not actually been proved? No one has been charged yet let alone convicted of anything! Desperate defending of groups that don't expel violent members????!!!! What are you banging on about?! You are simply making things up! There is nothing for anyone to expel anyone for yet. If they are convicted that is a very different story, they haven't even been charged as it is. All these excuses why they don't/ won't? What excuses? What are you talking about man? Are you high on something?

"you can't offer any reasonable explanation for why in the multitude of previous cases involving red shirts acting illegally or violently, not one single person has ever been expelled from that group"

I haven't attempted to offer any explanation at all as this has nothing to do with this topic and I have no idea what "multitude of previous cases" you are talking about. I'm sure if I mention any specifically it will be deemed off topic so what is there to defend?! You have put this forward but you can't even verify whether anyone has ever been expelled or not, you haven't cited any specific incidents, what are you going on about? What am I supposed to defend and why should I?! I have no idea why you feel the onus is on me to defend the reds over anything, I'm simply pointing out the obvious bias in this piece, you know, the article in this topic...

You seem to have launched down some ridiculous hypothetical path and become angry that I won't play your hypothetical games with you, or not to your liking anyway, it's really quite bizarre! I am commenting on this topic, you know the one where we have a bunch of allegations, a very biased "red shirt" focused article, one side of the story, no arrests, no charges, no convictions... which topic are you on exactly, it appears to be one where you are permitted to reference any incident you like but go apoplectic with rage if I even mention the colour yellow?! Whatever you are on, it's been a long week and I could do with some of it...

It's not that the press manipulates people like us easily. It's because we know what kind of people these red shirts are and stories like these aren't surprising.

My Grandad used to use similar tag lines about all sorts of groups of people, "lad you don't know what kind of people these blacks are..." you could substitute black with arabs, chinese, japanese, germans depending on the topic of conversation. We accepted it because we knew he was a decent guy at heart but had been brought up in very different times... as it appears have many members on TV.

I would love to be so sure in my convictions that I felt I knew exactly what kinds of people the reds and yellows are, but reality is I have only personal experience and a discerning mind to go on. I will never meet 0.1% of the members of either group personally, the accounts of their exploits will be fed to me via deliberately twisted media outlets and the only "truth" available is one that we all reach through a combination of these experiences.

It's great that you feel you are so in touch with Thai life that you know exactly what "these red shirts" are like but please forgive me if your strong convictions are not enough to convince others. Personally my experiences with other farang in Thailand have led me to understand that the vast majority never interact properly with their Thai peers, don't even attempt to learn the language and live life out of foreign enclaves in the Kingdom. With this in mind as someone that speaks, reads and writes Thai fairly proficiently, spends more of my time with Thais than foreigners and have lived here on and off for years, I prefer to trust my own experiences and rely on my own opinions that I form for myself. I refuse to tow any party line and will continue to call BS when I see it.

This piece is deliberate and obvious political BS and is not definitive proof that the Red shirts are all a bunch of violent thugs in fact it serves better as evidence where the real loyalties of certain media outlets lie. Debate this point to your hearts content but don't expect me to alter my views or stop airing them. You can choose to voice your own views and supply reasoning to back them up or you can choose to simply attack other members and make sweeping statements about the Reds... the choice, as they say, is yours but please guys don't get all petty and upset because someone voices an opinion you don't like/ agree with... opinions are like @rseholes, we've all got them!

you guys are wasting your time trying to argue with "Falangled", he is always right and puts up some of the most warped misplaced stupid arguments on TV - he's right up there with the other four redshirt twisters on this forum, best to just ignore him completely, personally I don't believe one word he types and treat his posts as such

Come on guys, show some respect for the man who has been beaten up by these red thugs. Stop trying to justify criminal behavior.

Same as what happened in Bangkok during 2010. Millions of people's lives had been terrorized by the thugs. Still there are people on these forums who don't give a dam and keep on protecting these criminals.

Shame on you.

Of course the red apologists are going to justify the criminal behavior of one of their own. These people think the crap of red shirts don't stink.

You know it's just these types of fervent posts that add such weight to your opinions!

It's a pleasure to see you guys engaging your brains and coming out with such a valued critique of the situation. Enlightening as to the topic? No, but it leaves us in little doubt over how your opinions are formed or how you react to those that hold opinions that differ from your own.

It's pretty easy to understand how easily the press manipulates people when confronted with this sort of intellect. People or sheeple?

And Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Red shirts, Yellow shirts are they "born this way" or because they have chosen to join these groups do the alleged actions of certain members of these groups automatically define the entire group?

No twisting here, you could simply spin your question back to yourself and substitute red for yellow but given your political fervour I thought more obvious examples showing how ridiculous this broad generalisation is might appeal to even your sensibilities... evidently not.

No twisting? Chubby Checker couldn't have done a better job.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ, you can't stop someone being an American, you can't stop someone being black, you can't stop someone being a human.. you can stop a member of a political group being affiliated with that group. How? You kick them out. It's not difficult. It's what any responsible group would do to members that act in a manner the group disapproves of and a manner that the group does not want reflected on them.

You can't stop someone believing in Christ but you can stop someone believing in their chosen political party... if you say so!

Let me get this straight, you are suggesting that these alleged members of the red shirts should be "kicked out" for alleged offences and that because they haven't it's fair game to tar all red shirts as violent thugs... how does that logic work with the charges levied against Abhisit and the Democrats?

He is alleged to be responsible for murder, surely by your own logic that makes the entire Democrat party a gang of violent murderous thugs? It must be fair to label them all as such because they haven't distanced themselves from the alleged murderer... no matter that there's been no conviction, he hasn't yet had a chance to defend himself from these allegations, the allegations have been made so it's quite right to assume that he is in fact a murderer and by proxy all Dems are murderous thugs.

I'm sorry but I just don't subscribe to your kangaroo court style reasoning.

I agree that in the case of this story, it needs to be established whether they were red shirt members or not, and whether they have done what they are being accused of. If it is established that they were and that they did, well then they should be kicked out of the group. If upon being kicked out they wish to still go on believing in that group, fine, up to them, but at least their future actions won't in any way reflect on the group because everyone will know that the group has already kicked them out and wants nothing to do with them.

Sadly though, in the case of all the other past stories involving red shirt members doing something stupid/illgeal/violent, i can't recall one single occasion in which a member has been kicked out. It seems that you can't either...

To be fair though do you recall any yellows being kicked out over their violent behaviour? The problem you have here is that supporting a political party does not mean mandatory membership and neither of us know whether these men were actually in the employ of the party or not. Anyone is free to wear any colour short they choose and support who they choose, their actions not necessarily representative of the ideals they support. Until charges are brought and the men are convicted it would seem pretty ridiculous to expect anyone to "kick them out". This premise of innocent until proven guilty etc... I now it's sometimes inconvenient for some but it's quite an important law in protecting the rights of all to a fair trial.

Clearly beating up and intimidating elderly people is not an acceptable way for any member of society to behave and if this story proves to be true then I'm sure we all would hope to see those responsible punished for their crime. That said politicising the issue in such a crude fashion is not helping anyone here. The same members who have pointed out the hypocrisy of the current administration apparently targeting Abhisit whilst preaching reconciliation seem unable to apply similar logic to themselves when faced with such a bare faced piece of deliberate propaganda. It's not even debatable that this piece has been deliberately presented with a political agenda in mind, it's freaking obvious, right from the headline!

This is the real hurdle to reconciliation the fact that both sides supporters are so blinkered and unable to discern facts from fiction. When farang on TV are so zealous in their political views of Thailand, how do we expect the populace to rise above the BS? Western educated commentators can't but we expect those being directly fed this constant stream of BS from both sides to do so... It's this gutter journalism that really holds Thailand hostage, free the media and peoples minds will follow. The country deserves an impartial source to turn to that exposes the real ills on both sides, follows up on their stories and asks the right questions... red or yellow propaganda pieces help no one.

Since the propaganda machine is silent we can assume that the old poor man's story is accurate.

You obviously missed the OP, the propaganda machine is alive and kicking... the headline gives a fairly lucid clue!

It seems to me that you just read the bits of the article that you want to read and agree with and ignore the rest of it blaming the culprits who identified themselves very clearly as red shirt guards. More than a bit one-eyed

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

I must have read a different article to you. You must mean the alleged culprits as I have read nothing that suggests any convictions have been made or even charges brought... indeed we have only a journalists account of what the Landlord and his wife have alleged, we don't even have the other side of the story and no statement from the men being accused.

What exactly leads you to believe that they identified themselves very clearly as red shirt guards? Do you have some additional information to share about this incident or are you going on the journalist's write up of what Mrs Chalee claimed and taking this as as gospel truth?

Does no one else see the rather obvious holes in this story regarding the electrical supply, the apparent initial spark to this confrontation?

"Filing the complaint was the victim’s wife, Mrs. Chalee Chaisang, age 67, living in Laem Chabang, Sriracha. Ms. Chalee said several tenants had been illegally tapping into electricity from an electric pole connected to her house meter. The Sriracha electricity authority had already cut out the meter due to failure to pay the electric bill."

The tenants were illegally tapping electricity from Mrs Chalee's meter. Mrs Chalee didn't pay the bill and had her meter removed as a result. So the property had no electrical supply but the tenants were demanding that they reconnect to a meter that had already been removed? Wow they must have been an unreasonable bunch... perhaps they expected a working electricity supply to be part of their rental package?

How many people here are aware of the regular electricity scams used by Thai Landlords? It's where they charge tenants a vastly inflated unit rate and then pocket the difference between the actual rate and that they are charging onto their tenants. Now was Mrs Chalee renting rooms with no electricity at all? If not why did her tenants feel the need to tap into her electricity supply? Were they perhaps being shafted on the electricity rates which led them to illegally tap into the meter which the Chalee's then had removed to levy control over their tenants and ensure that they paid above the odds for their electricity?

Who knows what really happened but there's certainly more to this incident than it seems and it would appear prudent to wait for both sides of the story before using this as a stick to bash all red shirts with! We have one side of this incident, a deliberately biased write up and no actual supporting facts, the only evidence being the allegations made by the Landlord and his wife. For me that's not enough to hang draw and quarter the men involved, let alone use their alleged actions as definitive proof that all red shirts are violent thugs. That would seem a bit "one-eyed" to me, if that actually means blinkered/ biased...

We don't just have the journalist's view, we have the interviews from the landlords.

The reason the electricity had been cut was that the tenants had been bypassing their own individual meters and stealing from the direct supply.

You talk about hearing only the journalist's "write-up" and then start inventing new branches of the story yourself by saying that the landlord was ripping off the tenents

In short - your post is a pack of one-eyed rubbish

No actually I haven't suggested anything but just injected some reality into proceedings. Landlords scamming tenants on unit prices is common in Thailand. Ignore this reality if you like. This story sticks out like a sore thumb because it's the absolute reverse of the personal experiences most people I know have had renting in Thailand.

I haven't suggested that this is the case in this incident but that perhaps a more reasonable stance might be to listen to both sides of the story and not simply take a journalists account of other people's recollections as fact. Wild thinking!

I'm afraid the journalists view is totally irrelevant and what we have is actually the journalists (very biased) account of the Landlord's story. Not even a witness statement... pretty shaky ground to start throwing wild generalisations around in my opinion.

How many times have Americans done something stupid/ illegal/ violent? Millions of times daily....

How many times have said Americans been condemned by the group and kicked out forthwith? Virtually never...

So it's fair game to label all Americans violent, stupid and aggressive people because large numbers of them happen to be just that? No of course it's not despite being encumbered by a slew of emotionally repressed, intellectually challenged buffoons, some of the very best people in the world hail from the US.

How many times have black people done something stupid/ illegal/ violent? Millions of times daily...

How many times have said black people been condemned by the group and kicked out forthwith? Bit difficult really, much like the reds/ yellows, taking off a shirt won't change their skin colour or indeed their political sympathies...

Fair to label all black people violent, stupid and aggressive people because some happen to be just that?

Shall I continue or are you starting to get the point here, namely the alleged actions of a few people are not grounds to generalise about an entire group...

To continue your desperate line of twisted analogy arguing, how about:

How many times has a human done something stupid/ illegal/ violent? Millions of times daily....

How many times has said human been condemned by the group and kicked out forthwith? Virtually never..

It may have escaped your attention, but Blacks, American, humans, do not belong to groups by virtue of the colour of their skin, their nationality or their species, that they can be kicked out of. Nobody asks you to join, nobody asks you to leave, it's how you are born for goodness sake.

And Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, Red shirts, Yellow shirts are they "born this way" or because they have chosen to join these groups do the alleged actions of certain members of these groups automatically define the entire group?

No twisting here, you could simply spin your question back to yourself and substitute red for yellow but given your political fervour I thought more obvious examples showing how ridiculous this broad generalisation is might appeal to even your sensibilities... evidently not.

It seems to me that you just read the bits of the article that you want to read and agree with and ignore the rest of it blaming the culprits who identified themselves very clearly as red shirt guards. More than a bit one-eyed

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Thaivisa Connect App

I must have read a different article to you. You must mean the alleged culprits as I have read nothing that suggests any convictions have been made or even charges brought... indeed we have only a journalists account of what the Landlord and his wife have alleged, we don't even have the other side of the story and no statement from the men being accused.

What exactly leads you to believe that they identified themselves very clearly as red shirt guards? Do you have some additional information to share about this incident or are you going on the journalist's write up of what Mrs Chalee claimed and taking this as as gospel truth?

Does no one else see the rather obvious holes in this story regarding the electrical supply, the apparent initial spark to this confrontation?

"Filing the complaint was the victim’s wife, Mrs. Chalee Chaisang, age 67, living in Laem Chabang, Sriracha. Ms. Chalee said several tenants had been illegally tapping into electricity from an electric pole connected to her house meter. The Sriracha electricity authority had already cut out the meter due to failure to pay the electric bill."

The tenants were illegally tapping electricity from Mrs Chalee's meter. Mrs Chalee didn't pay the bill and had her meter removed as a result. So the property had no electrical supply but the tenants were demanding that they reconnect to a meter that had already been removed? Wow they must have been an unreasonable bunch... perhaps they expected a working electricity supply to be part of their rental package?

How many people here are aware of the regular electricity scams used by Thai Landlords? It's where they charge tenants a vastly inflated unit rate and then pocket the difference between the actual rate and that they are charging onto their tenants. Now was Mrs Chalee renting rooms with no electricity at all? If not why did her tenants feel the need to tap into her electricity supply? Were they perhaps being shafted on the electricity rates which led them to illegally tap into the meter which the Chalee's then had removed to levy control over their tenants and ensure that they paid above the odds for their electricity?

Who knows what really happened but there's certainly more to this incident than it seems and it would appear prudent to wait for both sides of the story before using this as a stick to bash all red shirts with! We have one side of this incident, a deliberately biased write up and no actual supporting facts, the only evidence being the allegations made by the Landlord and his wife. For me that's not enough to hang draw and quarter the men involved, let alone use their alleged actions as definitive proof that all red shirts are violent thugs. That would seem a bit "one-eyed" to me, if that actually means blinkered/ biased...

Just asked a group of my labourers, red shirts the lot of them and proud, if they believe that they can do what they want and are above the law. They said of course not, that's a complete joke, we're breaking our backs working in the hot sun for 500 baht a day... if we could do what we wanted surely we wouldn't be here?

I'm afraid it's a bit of a simpleton, childish attitude to apply such a sweeping generalisation to such a large group of people, especially when it is so clearly false...

A handy sample of red shirts at your beckon call? Deary me, i think i've heard it all....

As for generalisations, as i stated earlier in this thread, if members of a group do something stupid/illegal/violent, as appears to be the case here, and the group denounces these rogue members, condemns them outright, without any justification or excuses, and kicks them out of the group, well then any generalisation is completely unfair.

How many times have red shirts done something stupid/illegal/violent?

How many times have said red shirts been condemned by the group and kicked out forthwith?

If you answer those two questions honestly - which i appreciate will be a struggle, but give it a go - you may begin to understand why generalisations are made about the red shirts and why doing so is not completely unfair.

There's a handy sample of all political allegiances just waiting for you to interact with them, they are called Thais... perhaps you should get out and talk to a few?

How many times have Americans done something stupid/ illegal/ violent? Millions of times daily....

How many times have said Americans been condemned by the group and kicked out forthwith? Virtually never...

So it's fair game to label all Americans violent, stupid and aggressive people because large numbers of them happen to be just that? No of course it's not despite being encumbered by a slew of emotionally repressed, intellectually challenged buffoons, some of the very best people in the world hail from the US.

How many times have black people done something stupid/ illegal/ violent? Millions of times daily...

How many times have said black people been condemned by the group and kicked out forthwith? Bit difficult really, much like the reds/ yellows, taking off a shirt won't change their skin colour or indeed their political sympathies...

Fair to label all black people violent, stupid and aggressive people because some happen to be just that?

Shall I continue or are you starting to get the point here, namely the alleged actions of a few people are not grounds to generalise about an entire group...

well in defense of Moruya

I would like to point out the red villages where you dare not speak out for the Democrats for fear of retribution from red shirt bullies.

In all fairness it would be nice to see some proof that they are in fact red shirts and not just some regular run of the mill criminals who bought some red shirts and are just playing off of the red shirt reputation.

Whenever a Thai has tried to intimidate me they claim to be from a "connected" family... at least that's how it works down here in the South, the reds here toil for a pittance while the real crooks rely on family ties and remain firmly above the law. They're the sort of families that bankroll media outlets to write deliberately biased propaganda pieces and work tirelessly in maintaining the Thai status quo of minority wealth and power manipulation vs mass poverty & ignorance... you know the sort that used the Tsunami as an opportunity to make land grabs and get into bed with developers to earn a fortune of the misery of others...

In your defence of Moruya are you actually going to defend the statement made that the blatant politicisation of this incident isn't ridiculous? Clearly there are bad apples in all groups, as there are good (in most) but as you point out we haven't been presented any evidence to actually confirm that these men were actually red shirts and if we had what bearing does this have on an isolated incident of bullying and intimidation?

It's very rare to hear a case in Thailand where the Landlord is the victim and the tenant the aggressor, the vast majority of these incidents are landlord intimidation against poor tenants. These incidents are rarely considered news worthy but I've heard countless cases of Landlord's bullying tenants here, evicting people unlawfully and violently, using electricity supplies and water as tools to intimidate tenants and raise rents etc. I wonder how many of the these rich and powerful landlords are sympathetic towards the red shirts and just why these stories don't even make the press whilst this is headline news? Hmmm... time for a bit of critical thinking

The red shirts believe they can do as they want because the people voted for them and that they are above the law - they seriously believe that

It's a simplton childish attitude that has serious implications in adults

Just asked a group of my labourers, red shirts the lot of them and proud, if they believe that they can do what they want and are above the law. They said of course not, that's a complete joke, we're breaking our backs working in the hot sun for 500 baht a day... if we could do what we wanted surely we wouldn't be here?

I'm afraid it's a bit of a simpleton, childish attitude to apply such a sweeping generalisation to such a large group of people, especially when it is so clearly false...

If the events did indeed occur as described (and I have no reason to think that they did not), it is a horrible, shameful event and the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Shirt color or political affiliation is irrelevant.

exactly, politicizing a case about four thugs like this is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't. How many more cases like this are happening around Thailand because these unelected red shirt bullies think they are part of the government, have all kinds of power and are untouchable?

Oh yes it is... Punch? Judy?

The journalist is quite obviously taking this incident and trying their best to clumsily twist it into a political propaganda piece. Red/ Yellow shirt sympathies aside if you can't see the obvious agenda here I'd venture you are a mite too gullible and it laces a huge question mark over your ability to discern fact from fiction, deliberate propaganda pieces from actual news...

Yes, clearly two wrongs doth a right make, let's abandon common sense and logic in favour of making unsubstantiated sweeping generalisations about groups of people based on their nationality, sex, political leanings, religious views... because well someone else has at some point so it's cool! Adolph, is that you?

Tell that to the current sitting government (and their band of red thugs) who preach 'reconciliation' but practice the exact opposite!

Was that an attempt at irony or are you unaware of the hypocrisy of that statement? On TV one never knows...

Sorry take off your blinkers and react in a way that indicates some measure of common sense and openly applied logic. I'm afraid your comments simply serve as a window to your own personal prejudices.

You have no idea that their political sympathies had anything to do with their tenancy; a deposit and references are the more usual formalities. Similarly you have no idea whether or not these allegations hold any water. You are taking allegations, here say & selective quotes obtained from selective questioning and forming these into "facts" to support your rants... not a great start! Should we do the same with the Abhisit case? Is he actually a murderous thug because he has been accused or should we perhaps wait an actual trial and conviction before labelling him such and extending that label to all his peers simply by proxy?

What Mrs Chalee assumed is irrelevant as is what political party the alleged attackers support, their skin colour, their religious leanings and what they ate for breakfast; these points are all similarly and equally irrelevant!

These men were also Thai nationals and devote Buddhists. Would the alleged actions of these men be definitive proof that all Thais and all Buddhists are morally corrupt and violent? Or perhaps because they are men we should take it as definitive proof that all men are violent?! Personally I think one need only read the headline to get a good indication that this incident is being politicised and used as a deliberate propaganda tool... Bullying tenants beat Landlord would have sufficed if the intention wasn't to pervert the incident into a political tool. Pretty shameful really.

Terrible incident and if the allegations are true these guys should be tried, convicted and jailed post haste but I don't see that the responsibility for their actions rests with anyone but themselves as individuals.

It's not like the PTP or Red Shirt's ever politicize anything... i guess its fine for them to do so, but should anyone else dare to try... (double standards!)

Yes, clearly two wrongs doth a right make, let's abandon common sense and logic in favour of making unsubstantiated sweeping generalisations about groups of people based on their nationality, sex, political leanings, religious views... because well someone else has at some point so it's cool! Adolph, is that you?

Sorry take off your blinkers and react in a way that indicates some measure of common sense and openly applied logic. I'm afraid your comments simply serve as a window to your own personal prejudices.

You have no idea that their political sympathies had anything to do with their tenancy; a deposit and references are the more usual formalities. Similarly you have no idea whether or not these allegations hold any water. You are taking allegations, here say & selective quotes obtained from selective questioning and forming these into "facts" to support your rants... not a great start! Should we do the same with the Abhisit case? Is he actually a murderous thug because he has been accused or should we perhaps wait an actual trial and conviction before labelling him such and extending that label to all his peers simply by proxy?

What Mrs Chalee assumed is irrelevant as is what political party the alleged attackers support, their skin colour, their religious leanings and what they ate for breakfast; these points are all similarly and equally irrelevant!

These men were also Thai nationals and devote Buddhists. Would the alleged actions of these men be definitive proof that all Thais and all Buddhists are morally corrupt and violent? Or perhaps because they are men we should take it as definitive proof that all men are violent?! Personally I think one need only read the headline to get a good indication that this incident is being politicised and used as a deliberate propaganda tool... Bullying tenants beat Landlord would have sufficed if the intention wasn't to pervert the incident into a political tool. Pretty shameful really.

Terrible incident and if the allegations are true these guys should be tried, convicted and jailed post haste but I don't see that the responsibility for their actions rests with anyone but themselves as individuals.

Here we go again, let bring out that old chestnut. But what about Ahibist? What the hell does he have to do with this post. Try sticking to the topic for a change. This constant misdirection is a poor defence and illistrates the lack of credability of your arguement.

Wow, selective reading to go with your selective reasoning!

IMHO my entire post was well on topic and while I don't believe it's your or my place to monitor whether it is or isn't, I do feel your reaction falls a tad short. Rather than responding to the one line in my post that drew a comparison to the Abhisit case, in a deliberate effort to appeal to rational thought even in your evidently biased mind, try responding to the actual content!!!

If your logic was sound I could write off every group of people under the sun as violent thugs in one post, with supporting evidence! Women, men, Christians, Muslims, entire races and creeds will be brushed aside by my cunning use of Waza's "Bad Apple" Logic... or we could just use some modicum of common sense

She was hell bent on killing herself.

I left this thread alone days ago but having returned to read the recent posts I must say I'm pretty disgusted at the lengths some are going to in "proving" their opinions. Most accept that there were a variety of contributing factors to this tragic suicide but that the prank call acted as the obvious catalyst.

I understand those that don't accept this but not when you go to the lengths of depicting the deceased as someone hell bent on killing themselves. It's just appalling and shows the same lack of sensitivity and bloody mindedness that caused this stupid prank call to be aired in the first place. Give it a rest and realise that this poor woman and her grieving family are actually real people with real emotions and not simply fodder for your internet jousts.

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

Indeed we do not need Ferangled to type anything to know his reply. Any number of us could do it for free!

Never one to speculate about others and so accepting of differing viewpoints... you are an example to us all Moruya

I don't see AV ever actually going through a court case as such, no court room would accept these clearly political trumphed up charges - they are the height of stupidity

Thaksin on the other hand should already be in Jail and answering more charges yet to be heard

and Ferangled don't bother replying as your constant repeat statements and nonesemse arguments are getting rather pathetic

That's one way of avoiding debate I guess, pre empt responses with a put down! No hypocrisy to see here, move along...

I think people have got the impression you were pro-Red by your repeated statements that the protests were peaceful, that the protestors never did anything wrong, and that lots of the events that were reported and witnessed by independent parties at the time didn't actually happen.

I don't want to put words in your mouths, but (I think) that RT and Ferangled (and a few others) think that the protests were completely legal at all points of those months and that someone should be held accountable for the deaths that occurred throughout. They put the blame on Abhisit.

Here's what I've actually written on this thread you deceitful bugger. How does this sit with your statements above?

There was certainly aggression and violence within the ranks of the protesters, there were certainly illegal and violent acts committed by them but the aim was quite clear to all but the blind or perverted. They were forcing the establishment to heed their calls for elections, forcing them to allow the people to vote their own Government into power. Ultimately they succeeded but with devastating loss of life following an unprecedented response by the powers that be. It was avoidable and a prompt promise for elections before events got out of hand and the violence escalated on both sides would surely have saved lives.

Were there those with ulterior aims working behind the scenes of the reds? I'm quite sure there were; mixed with the valid reasons for protest there was an undercurrent of revenge and that is quite clear as is the backdrop that created this situation. There were divisive elements and there were those who sought to settle their own scores that day, that is clear. There were violent elements and there were those riding the wave for their own personal gain and gratification.

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

If you're defending the red shirts, doesn't that make you pro-red?

Not at all. Exactly who is defending the red shirts? Is being critical of AV and the military during 2010 somehow defence of the red shirts? Since when did criticism of one party equal support of the other? One can defend someone without being supportive of them and one can criticise without being anti. It's all a bit too black and white for some...

Incidentally I notice that no one wants to tackle the question I posed and I sincerely doubt they will. To do so exposes a very biased trend in attacking those that hold differing viewpoints. I'll ask it again and let's see if anyone is honest enough to give an accurate response...

How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

You for a start. H090, Buchholz, Nickymaster, Pimay1 and thats without thinking.

Well smutcakes I am definitely anti-TS/YS government for obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of common sense. I am anti-red mob for the same obvious reasons. I am in no way pro any color. I try to judge the factions, people and parties by their actions not their words. So if in expressing my opinion that people should be honest, fair and caring about other people especially the poor of this country, you surmise I am pro yellow then that's up to you.

Then perhaps you could appreciate that there are many on here who are definitely anti-Dem/ AV for obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of common sense. Anti-yellow mob for the same obvious reasons. They are in no way pro any colour. They try to judge the factions and parties by their actions not their words... hmm sound familiar?

If by expressing their opinions you feel the need to label them childishly the red under pants brigade, red apologist or red sympathiser then so be it. This is more an indication of your total hypocrisy and infantile tendencies than it is of any actual truth or relevance to discussion.

Being pro-Dem / AV is not the same as being pro-yellow.

Quite true and being critical of the Democrats or Abhisit is not the same as being pro-red, pro-Thaksin or any other leaps of logic that have been made repeatedly on this and virtually every other thread on TV...

Taking offence when someone labels you pro-yellow when you have a habit of branding people pro-red seems a tad hypocritical. How many times have the infantile red tag lines been used on this thread compared with say, infantile yellow tags and by whom...?

You for a start. H090, Buchholz, Nickymaster, Pimay1 and thats without thinking.

Well smutcakes I am definitely anti-TS/YS government for obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of common sense. I am anti-red mob for the same obvious reasons. I am in no way pro any color. I try to judge the factions, people and parties by their actions not their words. So if in expressing my opinion that people should be honest, fair and caring about other people especially the poor of this country, you surmise I am pro yellow then that's up to you.

Then perhaps you could appreciate that there are many on here who are definitely anti-Dem/ AV for obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of common sense. Anti-yellow mob for the same obvious reasons. They are in no way pro any colour. They try to judge the factions and parties by their actions not their words... hmm sound familiar?

If by expressing their opinions you feel the need to label them childishly the red under pants brigade, red apologist or red sympathiser then so be it. This is more an indication of your total hypocrisy and infantile tendencies than it is of any actual truth or relevance to discussion.