.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Ferangled
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Ferangled
-
-
Well to refer to the earlier discussion - in the normal scheme of things that would not have been a problem - if there had only been politicians involved. I think you'll find that people would have accepted that and would have resulted in a different outcome.
That is why people like you will never understand why people are upset about their governments being stolen, you believe there is nothing wrong with what happened - you can't see that anything wrong happened and you keep on telling yourselves that almost daily on this forum.
In the normal scheme of things, it's not an ideal situation to have army generals, police captains, and convicted fugitives involved in the country's politics. But TIT.
Far too often, when reason and logic fail, comes the sigh, raised eyebrow, palms to the sky, "but TIT". I guess democracy works differently here just... well just because eh? Just because This is Thailand, it's acceptable to have the military acting as a check on the Government and not the people themselves?
Has anyone on this thread been following the threads concerning gun regulations in the US? This ideal that the right to bear arms is an integral part of the constitution by empowering the people of the US to keep check on their own Government, rising up if they start to act dictatorially and stray from their democratic ideals?
Personally it's an idea that I reject as I do the rights of all to own and use military grade weapons but the parallels between why this is used as a justifiable reason for keeping arms seems to contrast starkly with the response to the red shirt protests of 2010. Just because there was an armed element the entirety of the protesters have been branded thugs, armed mercenaries and the actual motivation is pushed aside as an irrelevance.
We are told that Thaksin is the man behind it, the motivation pure greed and revenge for his financial losses, while the democratic hiccups that have resulted in yet another military installed Government are irrelevant... of course one must not dare to question this or suggest that the actual situation is slightly more involved for fear of being branded a red short apologist or Thaksin lover, how convenient!
The Red shirts have been vilified for having armed elements within their ranks and I don't see many people debating the rights and wrongs of the Red portion of the aggression in 2010. It's widely decreed as wrong, the protests have been branded violent rebellion and some even justify the military response as appropriate... I just wonder how many are spouting utter hypocrisy on this issue and how similar events in the US would be met by these very same posters...
-
1
-
-
You quote something with no context to make that assertion. I guess it depends on whether you are looking to air facts or simply discredit what doesn't suit your own agenda...
"It’s no coincidence that the military budget has almost doubled since the 2006 coup and is rising faster than in other countries within the region. Abhisit’s latest budget continues the trend, despite vigorous opposition protests, and the army is now calling on the government to increase its forces in the red-shirt heartlands of the north and northeast. Abhisit is riding on the back of a very hungry tiger."
http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/
"Abhisit's government approved military budgets of 170 billion baht in 2011 and 154 billion baht in 2010. In the 2011 appropriation, 19.5 billion baht was allocated for the purchase of six JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes, in addition to the six aircraft purchased by the military junta of Surayud Chulanont.[33] Army Commander Anupong noted that the military's budget would be increased to 2% of GDP, from about 1% of GDP prior to the 2006 coup"
http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva
"The accusation isn’t far flung given all the benefits the military has reaped under Abhisit’s administration. Its annual budget since the 2006 coup has swelled to $5 billion, almost double its previous budget, according to a Reuters’ report."
http://worldblog.nbc...-elections?lite
Do you want any more links to establish the link between military control over Dem Governments and the budgets? It may be easier to simply google the term "military budget doubled under Abhisit"... there's pages of articles with reference to it. As to the earlier statement made about the military having no hand in Thai politics well, there's a hell of lot of information on that too, read some of those links if you doubt it.
Context: In the first budget after taking power, Abhisit slashed the military budget.
Did you even read your links? Between 2006 and 2010, the military budget doubled. Last I checked, Abhisit wasn't in power until the end of 2008.
Was he ever really? Follow the money as they say and it's quite clear who really holds the reigns. It is disingenuous to finger a lone budget slash within a trend that saw the budget double from the coup to the end of Abhisit's spell as the figure head.
-
Don't all coalition partners in all governments get ministries based on the number of seats (and the need for those seats) that they bring to the table?
Even the Yingluck government gave coalition partners ministries, and PTP didn't even need a coalition.
Not all then double the military budget, tipping their caps to those that handed them power...
It seems the Democrats didn't either. (21/5/2009)
Thai Military Budget Slashed By Bt19 Billion
You quote something with no context to make that assertion. I guess it depends on whether you are looking to air facts or simply discredit what doesn't suit your own agenda...
"It’s no coincidence that the military budget has almost doubled since the 2006 coup and is rising faster than in other countries within the region. Abhisit’s latest budget continues the trend, despite vigorous opposition protests, and the army is now calling on the government to increase its forces in the red-shirt heartlands of the north and northeast. Abhisit is riding on the back of a very hungry tiger."
http://inside.org.au/thailands-bad-men-and-the-challenges-for-abhisit-vejjajiva/
"Abhisit's government approved military budgets of 170 billion baht in 2011 and 154 billion baht in 2010. In the 2011 appropriation, 19.5 billion baht was allocated for the purchase of six JAS 39 Gripen fighter planes, in addition to the six aircraft purchased by the military junta of Surayud Chulanont.[33] Army Commander Anupong noted that the military's budget would be increased to 2% of GDP, from about 1% of GDP prior to the 2006 coup"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership_of_Abhisit_Vejjajiva
"The accusation isn’t far flung given all the benefits the military has reaped under Abhisit’s administration. Its annual budget since the 2006 coup has swelled to $5 billion, almost double its previous budget, according to a Reuters’ report."
Do you want any more links to establish the link between military control over Dem Governments and the budgets? It may be easier to simply google the term "military budget doubled under Abhisit"... there's pages of articles with reference to it. As to the earlier statement made about the military having no hand in Thai politics well, there's a hell of lot of information on that too, read some of those links if you doubt it.
-
1
-
-
The police were there while the 'peaceful protestors' god violent. The police did nothing even though they had the numbers and the equipment to handle the crowd. That's a fact.
The 'peaceful protestors' had firearms and grenade launchers. That's a fact.
You have 'peaceful protestors' with weapons and the police doing NOTHING, of course you send in the Army to handle these rebels.
That's as rational as you can get. There is no baseless assertion here. Tens of thousands of rebels, some armed to the teeth, with supposedly quite a few with gasoline. Do you as a government let them to as they hell please and overthrow you? Of course not, you send in your troops to knock some heads. But it's obvious you're one of those red apologists so what's there to discuss? The reds crap smell good to people like you.
I asked some fairly simple questions and raised some points pointing out the inconsistencies of some of our more zealous counterparts on here. I'm sorry that reason escapes you and rather than actually respond to these points you feel the necessity to call me names and speculate as to my motivation.
It would be refreshing to know one can actually take part in discussion here without being branded a "red apologist" but unfortunately if anyone questions anything on here regarding Abhisit or the Dems it's brought out as a way to discredit what they are saying. It's playground politics and reflects more on those that use such terms than it does those that are labelled with such childish dialogue.
What is abundantly clear is that this childish behaviour is the recourse of a certain group of people here that fail to assert their points with facts, prefer wild speculation and mud slinging to reasoned discussion. Try putting away your "loyalties" and actually discussing the issue and points raised without personal critique. The deliberate use of language like "thugs", "rebels", "armed uprising" makes a mockery of your stance. To debate in a reasoned fashion one must try some semblance of impartiality; wild generalisations add no merit.
Your post again, has done nothing to answer or even discuss the points I raised, well done.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
Could I just say, as I was in and out of Thailand at that time, to Korat, so wasn't directly affected, that I firmly believe, and I think all (most) on here would as well, that there was no way that Abhisit set out to intentionally target and kill citizens.
A mammoth decision needed to be made to put a stop to the escalation of protests/ activities/ violence/ holding the city to ransom if you will. As someone previously stated, if guilty of anything, it would be tardiness probably with the view that they thought they could get on top of it sooner. He had a critical situation on his hands, compounded by it seems lack of effective policing, and protestors unwilling to compromise or at least negotiate.
The whole who, what, when ,where has been debated to death, no pun intended, over the last couple of years. Hypothetical I know, but if we stopped to think what the outcome would have been had no action been taken, it would be quite frightening. The place would probably resemble Beirut in the 80s.
Quite so. Perhaps acknowledging that your Government was a sham, a puppet to the military and stepping down would have been preferable to letting loose armed troops on his own people... Beirut? No, I think loss of life would have been avoidable and an immediate general election would have prevented the escalation of violence that led to so many deaths.
But but but, he offered General elections... yes he did, albeit at a much later date and to a crowd that would be sceptical of the sincerity of his offer due to past history of his party's shenanigans. They had a bit of a history of ensuring that no one actually voted in by the people ever retained power.
The fact that this offer was made tells us that Abhisit knew exactly what the protests were about, what they were calling for and what it would take to resolve the situation. Given the choice between stepping down immediately and losing 6 months at the trough or turning Bangkok into a war zone and letting loose the military he chose the latter. Why?
-
4
-
Being "forced to back Abhisit" and gain extremely lucrative positions for his faction on the cabinet or the alternative being as threatened, another coup, and no snout at the trough. Remember the dust free roads project? Just one of many under Abhisits 1.43 Trillion Baht Investing from Strength to Strength gambit.
Do you mean like the extremely lucrative positions some of those MPs continued on in under the Yingluck government?
Isn't this when the But.....argument is supposed to be rolled out?
No, I was specifically talking about the rewards made available (not counting the alleged up front payments of course) to members of Newins Faction, i.e 5 Ministry post including the Interior Ministry in order to make it attractive to back Abhisits coaltion approach (albeit being an approach from his military friends).
They could have been attracted by Abhisits political policies of course, though being part of a political party that hadn't won an election for just under 20 years wouldn't really appeal to their political ambition I would have thought.
Don't all coalition partners in all governments get ministries based on the number of seats (and the need for those seats) that they bring to the table?
Even the Yingluck government gave coalition partners ministries, and PTP didn't even need a coalition.
Not all then double the military budget, tipping their caps to those that handed them power...
-
2
-
-
Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.
Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?
I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.
The fact remains the police did little to nothing to contain the protests. Whether they are are loyal to Thaksin or not doesn't matter. They failed in their job and therefore the Army had to come in and do their jobs for them. You talk about strangeness? Nothing is 'strange' when you're dealing with the red shirts. Nothing makes sense about these people.
If you don't actually have an answer to the question perhaps just keep quiet rather than voicing bizarre assertions... there's been far too much of that already and it makes debating any subject remotely political nigh on impossible here. Can we just stick to rational views backed up by either logical reasoning or facts rather than baseless assertion, speculation and all the mud slinging?
-
Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...
Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?
No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...
Riot shields and batons are used when protesters are just being rowdy. Rubber bullets, water cannons, and tear gas is used when protesters get a bit more violent.
It's a bit hard to compare how other countries deal with protesters when they're armed with guns and grenades since it rarely happens. Certainly, when the police are dealing with armed criminals, they don't go in unarmed.
Compare that to 2010. The army used riot shields and batons at Government house when the red shirts stormed that. They used tear gas and water cannons when the red shirts were using molotov cocktails when they stormed Thaicom.
During the day on April 10, they used rubber bullets. On the evening of April 10, they initially had shields and batons, which from everything I saw, were unused, as everything went to crap after Romklao was blown up by a grenade and a number of soldiers were killed in the ensuing gun fight with the red shirts.
The army were used instead of the police for most crowd control from the start. I don't know the reasoning for that, but it may have had something to do with the "bring a bottle" speech and the numbers that were expected. It was probably easier to get the thousands of personnel that they needed from the army than from the police.
As far as police are concerned, the only time I remember them being involved was when they allowed the red shirts to set up a stage at Ratchaprasong days before April 10, and when they let Arisman escape out the hotel window.
I understand that to just reply with a one sided narrative depicting the violent aspect of the Reds, while ignoring the violent response - 700 seriously injured, 800 significantly injured and 91 dead, is far easier than actually addressing the points raised. I just don't think that these disingenuous posts help anyone or further our understanding of the events of 2010.
-
2
-
-
If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.
I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .
The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.
When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?
It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...
-
Simple. The police failed in doing their job controlling the rebellion. Yes rebellion, not 'peaceful protest'. No one really wants to call it a rebellion because it's such an ugly word. But when you have people trying to overthrow the government with assault rifles and other grenade launchers, I think rebellion is the right word to use. So anyway, if the police are ineffectual in dealing with a crisis like this, you bring in the Army.
Rebellion seems to sit fine, they were by their own admission "rebelling" against what they saw as an illegitimate Government, protests being part and parcel of voicing their views and violence being a common factor in rebellions. One side has power, wants to keep hold of it, the other wants it and will do what they must to wrestle it from the grip of the other. Bloodshed is sadly rarely avoidable in such incidents... anyway, so they weren't working for Thaksin but simply fell short of the measures needed to deal with the protests... is that not contrary to what has been suggested ad nauseum on here?
I have read countless times TV members asserting that the police did nothing to contain the protests, they were loyal to Thaksin, hence the SOE and the military being called in. That doesn't sit well with the red shirts, also loyal to Thaksin, assaulting the police. Just seems a tad strange.
-
1
-
-
The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?
The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."
http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva
Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...
"Alleged"
The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.
Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...
I didn't say that. You seemed to indicate that Newin was forced to back Abhisit.
No but that was the premise to which I was actually responding. You joined in to counter that response, if you actually concurred, why the post?!
-
I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.
If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "
The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"
The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.
You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...
A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:
1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;
2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);
3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;
4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;
5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010
6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;
7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;
8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;
I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...
They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?
There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?
Who then was attacking the police and why?
An out of control red mob. Why, because they were out of control. Why were they out of control, too much pep talk from their leaders I guess..You can call it collateral damage if you want.
Please don't waste my time trying to argue that the Reds were acting peacefully. Please show some respect for the normal hardworking people whose lives were terrorized by this mob. An election within 6 months, as promised by AV, was a peaceful way out. PERIOD.
This is the last time I am replying to you and I won’t comment on any of your posts too. Please ad me to the list of people that are not interested in having a discussion with you.
Great response Nickymaster. A hint of petulance with a good dollop of false morality. I haven't tried to argue that the Reds were acting peacefully, I simply raised some points and noted some conflict in the views being aired. I guess "PERIOD" is what we'd call a full stop and would be your way of saying there's no debating your opinions, talk to your hand etc. Please take your moral high horse and ride it off into the sunset.. hi ho!
-
The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?
The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."
http://en.wikipedia....hisit_Vejjajiva
Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...
"Alleged"
The Newin group defected from the PTP group when PPP were disbanded and before the election of Abhisit. They didn't want to become part of PTP, and they still aren't today.
Yes clearly the military have never had any say in political matters in Thailand... good point, well made...
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...
They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?
There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?
Do you seriously think that police in any country wouldn't use live ammunition when dealing with "people" shooting back at them with guns and grenades?
Well in many countries the world over the police are not actually armed with firearms so it's a bit of an impossible question to answer. Generally riot shields and batons are the order of the day during protests... but I must admit don't get your point, is that somehow intended as a response to the questions I asked? Here's a reminder...
Were the police working with the Government to control the protests? If not why were they targeted and by who? If they were then why the SOE and military intervention?
No hidden meaning, no assertion simple questions that are begging to be asked given the conflicting accounts and recollections of the events in 2010. Please feel free to respond to give your thoughts, I'm genuinely interested to know what people really think. A bit less name calling and finger pointing and a bit more cards on the table discussion would I think be refreshing...
-
Only in the minds of the ignorant.
The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.
Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?
It was decided by MPs. Did you miss that bit?
The army had no say? The same army that seized power in 2006 and then came under widespread scrutiny for their hand in forming the coalition Government that brought Abhisit to power?
The defection of the powerful Friends of Newin Group came about due to the alleged coercion by Army Commander General Anupong Paochinda, a move that Senator Khamnoon Sitthisamarn called an "Anupong-style coup."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejjajiva
Again are your eyes shut or are you crossing some digits when you make that statement? Army have no say in the politics of Thailand? I guess you also believe that the moon is made of cheese...
-
1
-
-
I think that it is the best news I have read in a long while. Heads of state should be held accountable for their acts. If this was done more often then there would be far fewer dead people in the world. The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military. As for the military in Thailand, Australia or anywhere else involving itself in civil affairs—this should never be done. The military are responsible for carrying out the actions of the psychotics who run the world.
If anyone is interested in reading a book on this subject, Geoff Robertson "
The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold"
The protests in Bangkok were peaceful, there was no danger, except from the military.
You are being sarcastic.. right? There were already 7 officials killed before the army arrived. If the Police would have done their job, things would not have gotten out of control. But...
A kind reminder of some of the events leading up to the dispersal:
1) the firing of an M79 into the 11th Infantry Regiment on January 28, 2010;
2) the firing of grenades during the incidents at Kok Wua intersection on April 10, 2010, which caused 5 deaths of soldiers (including that of Col Romklao);
3) the firing into the oil depot at Prathum Thani on April 21, 2010;
4) the firing of an M79 into the BTS station at Sala-Daeng on April 22, 2010, which caused 2 deaths and 78 injuries;
5) the firing of an 3 RPGs into Dusit-Thani Hotel on May 17, 2010
6) the firing attack into the police flat at Lumpini Police Station on May 19, 2010, causing deaths and injuries of police officers and their families;
7) the firing of an M16 on police officers and soldiers in front of the Krung Thai Bank, Sala-Daeng Branch, on May 7, 2010, which caused 1 death and 2 injuries of policemen;
8) the firing into the UCL building on May 14, 2010, causing 1 deaths and 4 injuries of police officers;
I wouldn't want to suggest that your post is deliberately selective in the events depicted but I see no mention of any incidents which could have resulted in the total carnage of 700 serious injuries, 800 minor injuries and 91 deaths...
They must somehow have all been killed/ injured in relation to these events as the military were only using live rounds in self defence right?
There also seems to be some contradiction in the opinions that you have previously aired; three of these events are about police being targeted but you and others have made it very clear that the police worked for Thaksin and it was as a result of this that the military intervention was necessary and justified. Who then was attacking the police and why?
-
are you saying the Dems assumed power illegally? Or are you still blowing methane?
The only way they formed that coalition was with the explicit backing of the army. Illegal, ??, undemocratic, surely
Only in the minds of the ignorant.
The army had no say in the matter. They are not a parliamentary participant.
Did you say that with your eyes shut or your fingers crossed?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Reading the recent posts on here gives a very worrying glimpse into the paranoid mind of a pro-gun American. There seems to be an irrational fear that is being used as justification for mass armament, why? I blame the US media to a certain extent, Fox news and similar controlled news outlets have brainwashed people and it seems it's all too easy for a US citizen to get lost in the scaremongering and buy into what they are fed hook line and sinker.
There's talk about an armed population being a check on your own Government, well who's checking the moral balance in the US, who's monitoring the ethics of the situation? Since when are your rights more important than the rights of others? Somehow your right to bear arms is more important than the rights of those innocents gunned down in cold blood as a direct result of irresponsible gun ownership and weak gun control regulations?
Why this irrational fear of your own Government and your own people, your fellow man? Some vague references to Nazi Germany... some inane fantasising about guerilla warfare... is this a good example of what someone should be diagnosing as mental health and treating appropriately? Get out more, socialise with other people, I find the more widely I travel and the more people I talk to the better my perception of my fellow man is. Reality check - The vast majority of people out there are decent sorts, much like you or me, they're not seeking to enslave you, kill you, rob you or impeach on your personal freedoms, they're just trying to get by as best they can and enjoy what time they have on this earth.
In the face of this terrible incident those calling for tighter gun controls and new regulations should be commended, now is just the time to bring about change. It's a natural response to this terrible side effect of having such weapons freely available and a horrific reminder of what such lax laws can result in. It is high time that changes were made, how many more innocents have to die before people realise that something is deeply wrong?
Those digging their heels in and advocating the easy access US citizens have to such devastating firearms, firearms that have no place in the world outside the arena of war, need to take a long hard look in the mirror. To make such comments on this particular thread shows a deeply saddening lack of compassion for those that lost their lives that day and their families who will be effected forever by this tragedy. There is a distinct lack of empathy being shown and some very callous and self centred opinions being voiced.
As to the comment on WW2, good God man, you need to wind your bl@@dy neck in. The UK stood alone against Hitler and the Nazis, fighting the good fight while the fat US bankers worked out how best to extract money from the situation and your troops stood idol with their fingers up their butts. All the while true men were fighting and dying next to each other; we had no choice, war was on our doorstep, mainland Europe had succumbed to the Nazis and still the US stood idol. I guess Pearl Harbour had nothing to do with the US joining the war, just a coincidence and there was no price paid for the assistance in arms and troops from the US? Your pride is misplaced, your country profiteered from the war in a cold, calculating and mercenary fashion. Utter ignorance and the perpetuation of these lies does nothing to educate your people.
-
3
-
I agree with some of your points. First, I didn't say you hadn't read the article - I posed a question. I too run through posts and try to answer points I disagree with. You skip the points you don't want to answer & I do too.
We won't agree now about Yingluck. Maybe we will if she cuts the strings manipulated by you know who.
No, I'm not sensitive about memory loss but used all the time it gets tedious. No, I don't think you actually attacked me in this thread but let's keep the argument(s) impersonal. I won't promise never to start another 'discussion' with you but will avoid it as much as possible.
Finally, I'd like to thank the mod who is monitoring this thread for allowing a sometimes heated argument to run.
It's rare to have a clash of opinions & some cross words with someone on this forum but have it resolved with some measure of reason from both parties. Very refreshing, thank you KhunKen
-
1
-
-
Here we go again shifting your position this time. Far too much fiction - there was no 'thinly veiled threat' only a warning about flaming which you take out of context (without mentioning your personal attack then). The mods did indeed remove some of my posts & yours too (conveniently omitted).
The personal attack was on another thread (I didn't say it was on this one) & the constant jibes about 'memory loss' are here.
Still in denial about Yingluck? Mouthing off is when someone constantly talks about an issue (women's rights here) & never actually does anything about it. This is exactly Yingluck's (lack of) effort so far. She's also not her own boss, refuses to take action over sexist remarks by one of her own MPs & has to take orders to not support a woman for Bangkok governor. Oh, I forgot, also stayed silent when one of her ministers (from another party) stated that rape doesn't take place when the victim knows the perpetrator. It's actually easier to find out what she has actually done to improve women's rights - nothing.
I've already said I had nothing to do (& did not agree with) with the sexist accusations over the Four Seasons secret meeting, yet you keep on about it It's irrelevant to the argument we are having.
Ken, I'm not arguing and I'm not getting drawn into another one with you. It's simple to avoid as we have discussed previously, simply refrain from replying to each others posts. It's worked up to today...
Let's simply agree to disagree. I detect a certain sensitivity over the issue of memory loss so I will not question your "recollection" of any events. You say mouthing off, I say a solitary 3rd person reference at the end of the article is clearly not evidence of that... Please take it as you like and run with it, the floor is yours.
I apologise if somehow you have construed any of my posts as personal attacks or jibes. In response to your replies to my original post I have dissected your points and in the process the words you have used have been "attacked". You suggest that I haven't read the article, I respond with points that show the question would be better asked of the person posing it... That is how I think, I run through a post point by point and try to actually address each point.
I'm sorry if you have taken this as a personal attack, yet again, it wasn't intended as such.
-
- Popular Post
I may be a bit naive but as far as I understand this article, it has just been announced that the courts have ruled that the authorities at that time did indeed shoot a taxi driver... What are the implications of this? No one person has been accused, no mention of any action taken against "the authorities", no talk of sentencing any individual, but the courts seem to have confirmed what most I think knew... clearly the army were firing at protesters, it's been acknowledged that an order to use live rounds was given and it's a widely known fact that some people died as a result.
Clearly there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the force used by the military was appropriate or not but no one I think denies that some people died as a result of the army shooting live rounds. What accountability do "the authorities" actually have or rather, what authority do the courts have over "the authorities" that were at that period?
Can any findings from this court be used in the case brought against Abhisit? Is Abhisit expected to take responsibility for any action by the soldiers during that period in Bangkok?
It seems a far stretch given that while orders permitting the use of live fire were issued and surely those at the top have bear some responsibility for this, this wouldn't exclude any wrong doings on the part of any individual soldier. If that soldier can't actually be pinpointed where does the actual responsibility and with it sentencing power of the court, actually lie? As I understand it the terms of the use of live rounds were "in self-defence"; now if certain elements of the army weren't adhering to this, which there is significant video and witness evidence to attest to, where does the responsibility lie?
I guess my real questions are what does this actually mean in real terms and who does the term "state authorities" actually refer to?
-
3
-
KhunKen it is clear that it is impossible to have a meaningful exchange between us. We agreed to stop replying to each others posts after you got quite emotional and threatened me. I have maintained that agreement but you seem unable to. I have not "attacked" anyone and that is the very same false allegation you made in our last exchange.
You are deliberately twisting the actual events. "Mouthing off" from a line that states Yingluck made a statement? It's ridiculous. I guess by the same token I can take your irrational rants wit a pinch of salt as KhunKen simply "mouthing off" again, nothing to see here!
Similarly your response concerning the Four Season "scandal" - you are choosing to focus on the off topic allegations and ignore the sexist allegations that were made and the nature in which both the Nation, the Dem MPs and certain TV members dealt with the subject. Why do you expect me to explain anything about what happened in the meetings? How could I? I'm not saying anything about the rights and wrongs of the meeting only the sexist nature in which it was handled...
Perhaps your memory is failing... a few little gems from our very own thread on TV...
"Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut. Not only was the controversy about a conflict of interest, but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said."
"If she has any honour she has hidden it well from the world so far, in my humble opinion. She likes to keep her hands clean in her part-time job as PM, but she doesn't mind getting her knees dirty when the corporate oligarchs command her to."
"If they delivered state secrets that harm the country during sex, or sold land that protects the public to someone foreign, who used that control to harm the Thai public, then yes treason."
I'm quite sure the honourable Democrat MP would have made the exact same comment had the PM been male... no sexism here! Whether or not Yingluck was involved in some shady deals in that hotel is irrelevant to this topic. I'm not saying it is irrelevant in general but specifically to this topic, of course it is. I mentioned it because of the obvious sexism evident throughout the handling of the incident, which is relevant to this topic.
I tend to agree with your first sentence. The second sentence is fiction - we didn't agree about anything & I never threatened anyone on TV. You may be referring to a warning to report anyone who goes over the red line of flaming.
Yes, Ferangled you mouth off as well & I feel exactly the same about your arrogant rants & personal jibes. You are too often on the edge of direct insults about posters instead of their opinion.
You consistently ignore that 'Yingluck said.....' IS a statement, except to the mangled language brigade.
Posting more totally irrelevant bull about the Four Seasons episode is not worth discussing. I'm only interested in why it was a secret until the whistle was blown - which you ignore.
KhunKen, yes I was referring to your "you don't know me etc..." and the subsequent threats about reporting me to the moderators... the same ones that subsequently deleted most of your posts on that particular thread. Using a different word doesn't change the actual meaning. You say warning, I took it as a threat, both the threat of reporting me and the implied, thinly veiled threat about not knowing you and being lucky I didn't, although I'll graciously concede that I do feel lucky to not know you personally.
I haven't made any personal jibes or attacked anyone on this thread. This seems to be the product of your over active imagination or perhaps an emotional inability to deal with those that voice views contrary to your own. I even made the deliberate step of posting on here not in direct reply to you so as to not offend your easily offending sensibilities... didn't seem to work though!
Yes, "Yingluck said" is a statement. That's actually what I said in my post, it's you that has applied some speculative assertion that she was "mouthing off". What exactly was she mouthing off about KhunKen? Do you actually have any details of what she said or have you seized on that last sentence and simply added your own rhetoric and twisted it to suite what you wanted to write?
And finally, yes, I understand that you don't want to discuss the relevant, on topic aspect of the Four Seasons incident; the evident sexism in the handling of the case. That is quite apparent and understandable given your stance. I am not ignoring anything, my thoughts were already made on the subject in the thread it is relevant to!
-
KhunKen it is clear that it is impossible to have a meaningful exchange between us. We agreed to stop replying to each others posts after you got quite emotional and threatened me. I have maintained that agreement but you seem unable to. I have not "attacked" anyone and that is the very same false allegation you made in our last exchange.
You are deliberately twisting the actual events. "Mouthing off" from a line that states Yingluck made a statement? It's ridiculous. I guess by the same token I can take your irrational rants wit a pinch of salt as KhunKen simply "mouthing off" again, nothing to see here!
Similarly your response concerning the Four Season "scandal" - you are choosing to focus on the off topic allegations and ignore the sexist allegations that were made and the nature in which both the Nation, the Dem MPs and certain TV members dealt with the subject. Why do you expect me to explain anything about what happened in the meetings? How could I? I'm not saying anything about the rights and wrongs of the meeting only the sexist nature in which it was handled...
Perhaps your memory is failing... a few little gems from our very own thread on TV...
"Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut. Not only was the controversy about a conflict of interest, but also about sexual impropriety, which would disgrace her honour, he said."
"If she has any honour she has hidden it well from the world so far, in my humble opinion. She likes to keep her hands clean in her part-time job as PM, but she doesn't mind getting her knees dirty when the corporate oligarchs command her to."
"If they delivered state secrets that harm the country during sex, or sold land that protects the public to someone foreign, who used that control to harm the Thai public, then yes treason."
I'm quite sure the honourable Democrat MP would have made the exact same comment had the PM been male... no sexism here! Whether or not Yingluck was involved in some shady deals in that hotel is irrelevant to this topic. I'm not saying it is irrelevant in general but specifically to this topic, of course it is. I mentioned it because of the obvious sexism evident throughout the handling of the incident, which is relevant to this topic.
-
1
-
-
It seems that the rate of homicides with a firearm in the USA is about 3 per 100,000. Compare that with the UK at 0.07 per 100,000. Thats a factor of 40.
A trawl through the internet brings up loads of nutters trying pathetically to justify owning firearms. Frankly, it's embarrassing.
I know very many Americans and have lived in the States on 3 occassions. No-one, that I know, is in favour of the ridiculously lax gun control laws.
"It's not guns that kill, it's people who kill" Bull s--t! It's people with guns who kill. Get rid of the guns or get rid of the gun owners. Frankly, I don't care which....
I have to agree. I would say that having worked in the US for a period I encountered quite a few people that support these pro-gun ideals and were religiously staunch in their defence of their "right to bear arms". Having worked all over the world and encountered many Americans on my travels, the vast majority I have met living outside of the US have been staunchly anti and in favour of tighter controls and regulation.
I'm not sure what conclusions one can draw from that other than perhaps the more educated, well balanced and well adjusted Americans tend to expand their horizons, while the less well adjusted ones stay home, breed and polish their arsenal...
Abhisit, Suthep Could Face 700 Charges Of Attempted Murder: Tarit
in Thailand News
Posted
Yes, let's blame Thaksin instead, he was clearly pulling the strings from afar, it had nothing to do with Abhisit or his party...