muttley

".......Of course it's their own fault, if they hadn't come to Bangkok, it wouldn't have been necessary to shoot some of them in the head..........."

The faultless logic of some on Thaivisa.

That should read "if they hadn't come to Bangkok ARMED, it wouldn't have been necessary to shoot some of them in the head..........."

Peaceful protesters don't carry weapons, nor use them to kill security personnel. When they do they may be subject to violence for in excess of that which they initiated.

Some? Is that carte blanche to shoot anyone because some people were armed or were they selective and only shot those that were armed? You know that would imply that at least 80 people were armed, that includes 14 year old boys, nurses, cameramen, journalists and ordinary thai civilians.

Then why do you not feel the need to mention other people doing the same ???

How about Adm. Banawit Kengrian, the former deputy permanent secretary of defense,

who is listed as one of many shareholders in the British Virgin Islands

company Vnet Capital International Co., Ltd in 1998 ???

A member of the National Legislative Council after the military coup in 2006.

Maybe because "There is no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities."

which implies to me

1) he has disclosure responsibilities

and there being "no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities"

2) strongly implies that whatever responsibilities he may have had to disclose, he had done so.

13,000 odd posts and you don't understand the English language, don't make me laugh.

So back to the start then? If he didn't avoid his disclosure responsibilities, then there is no suggestion that he has done anything illegal in having an offshore account. So why is there a need for Buchholz to mention him?

You and buchholz are so alike its scary - you rely on obfuscation to try and wear your opponent down. Doesn't work with me. I'll just walk away and leave you in the depths of your ignorance and wilful misunderstanding. See you.

You are missing the point. This isn't about what they are voting on, this is about the terms and the conditions of the voting system itself.

If the dems had the strength of their convictions they wouldn't just be considering, you know their MO, they'd be up before the CC quicker than a robbers dog.

Thepthai said the Democrat legal team was considering legal action against Somsak for malfeasance and violation of the charter.

waiting for the forum experts telling me why Thailand industry is actually doomed.

They will only stay till they can get cheaper labour, infrustucture else where, Vietnam springs to mind, the mekong Delta crowed are moving that way, at the end of the day it's not the climate that attracted industry to Thailand.

And every man and his dog is putting his hand out for a 'cut'

Not to mention sovergn risk , one or two coups generally sends them packing, continued government interference and changing policies, other than that you're good till another kid on the block comes along, actually your industry and financial area's is the only thing that keeps you from having your sex trade as the most income producing industry , not like 1999

You write as though you don't live here, is that the case?

If the Red Shirts had not been there with weapons, there would have been no need for live fire zones ...... hence they were created by the Red Shirts.

Of course. We all know that.

We all know that but only some of us will admit knowing it.

Oh, dear.

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

When you sign up to this forum in doing so you agree to the terms and conditions already laid out. You can't sign up and then say you don't agree to the terms and conditions. The Democrats situation with regards this meeting they decided to boycott, seems somewhat similar. If they agreed to participate in the meeting, they would be forced to accept the terms and conditions, and would not be given a platform or an opportunity to argue against the terms and conditions.

So you think that in the meeting the dem MP's wouldn't be allowed to speak against? - you truly are paranoid.

So if it comes to a third reading of a bill they don't like , and they don't want to "accept the terms and conditions" and decide that rather than vote they would boycott, (which going by your logic "seems somewhat familiar"), is it an acceptable way for a supposedly political party to act?

The bill they don't like the "terms of conditions of" sails through because of their lack of opposition and this is their idea of making politics better and aiding the country?

They may have got away with it once in 2006 but that's only because the military took advantage of the situation.

Here's an analogy for you, think of your "terms and conditions" as "toys" and the parliament as a "pram" and obviously the dem MP's as the "baby"

I blame the "foreigner and foreign tourists" for the mess that Songkran has become. Thais only do what they see stupid farang do because it looks like more fun.

What utter nonsense.

http://www.richardbarrow.com/2013/04/have-songkran-waterfights-really-changed-that-much/

I'm expecting an aged expat will remember posting at the time:

"Why don't they use these new fangled plastic buckets they got now? I saw a serious accident last songkran when the handle come off and the galvanised bucket hit the farang clear in the face. Knocked him,his mother and his three circus act balancing Pit Bull Terriers clean off the bike!"

But in reality which group of peaceful protestors would you as police chief tear gas?

Wrong framing of the question Two different groups - how do you control them

1) Police and Tear Gas

2) The Military with live ammunition, snipers and "live fire" zones

If you want the real answer consult the UNHRC

Ask a hard one.

the answer is 2 because 1 refused to do any thing about it other than cower in their stations and hope it would go away.

Also you seem to forget it was the red shirts who created the live fire zones. You really didn't think they had all those guns for a marshmallow roast.

On second thought you might of.

"the red shirts who created the live fire zones".

Now that is one seriously sick joke and proof that you truly have lost the plot. See you.

Truth is painful at times and running is your only choice.

By By

It was actually a dignified shrug of the shoulders, a turn on my heel and walk away from the "truth" ("the red shirts who created the live fire zones".) as perceived and perpetuated by HelloDolly.

You quite specifically implied that the fine Junta Admiral had declared this offshore account - now it's obvious that he hasn't or you would have provided evidence that he had done so.

OK job done, now the usual suspects will believe that the Admiral is free of any accusation of stealing tax money from the Thai people. Feel good about yourself?

Where did I suggest that he had declared it? Where did I even say that he needed to declare it?

What I'm asking for is evidence that he has done something illegal in having the offshore account.

There is evidence that some others have done something illegal since they appear to have offshore accounts but have never declared them in their assets declarations.

As I said the runaround technique - now it's "What I'm asking for is evidence that he has done something illegal in having the offshore account."

whereas before all we had to reply to was:

which implies to me

1) he has disclosure responsibilities

and there being "no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities"

2) strongly implies that whatever responsibilities he may have had to disclose, he had done so.

13,000 odd posts and you don't understand the English language, don't make me laugh.

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

Except that the names that have been mentioned are of people that haven't declared their ownership of offshore accounts in their assets.

And your good friend the upstanding Junta Admiral has, I presume?

I don't know of any evidence that he hasn't. Maybe you have some.

Ah the usual whybother runaround post technique.

You quite specifically implied that the fine Junta Admiral had declared this offshore account - now it's obvious that he hasn't or you would have provided evidence that he had done so.

OK job done, now the usual suspects will believe that the Admiral is free of any accusation of stealing tax money from the Thai people. Feel good about yourself?

And people go on about Yingluck!

He and other Democrat MPs have decided to boycott the vetting panels,

The "democrat" party - they're like kids, forever throwing their toys out of the pram. If they want to make a convincing argument about something you go to meetings and put that argument forward, not boycott the meeting and flounce off in a hissy fit. How do their electorate feel about their response? Guess we'll find out in the next election.

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

Except that the names that have been mentioned are of people that haven't declared their ownership of offshore accounts in their assets.

And your good friend the upstanding Junta Admiral has, I presume?

Philw: What is the thinking/logic, when someone is caught out (hand in cookie jar), the intial response seems to be, "everyone is doing the same, look at the other individuals"?

Many of us drive over the speed limit, when pulled over, ticketed, and fined, we do not try to justify our misdeed, by pointing out those who were not caught/fined. As adults we are responsible for our misdeeds, as such we are responsible for the what got us in the situation, not our parents, extended family, co conspiritors, the 2nd cousin, etc.

Ah the ridiculous "but, but, argument" generally applied to anyone whose logic betters yours, but not in this case. This is just a misunderstanding of what philw is saying.

He is not justifying the "misdeed by pointing out those who were not caught/fined" but is pointing out that there are others involved (or have been involved) in the same "misdeed" and showing that highlighting one set of people is hypocritical to say the least.

Thats just newspaper lawyer speak for CYA.

Maybe you or phil can find some evidence that he did avoid his disclosure responsibilities then.

>Ryle cautioned, however, that many of the individuals brought to his attention by the hard drive may not have broken any laws.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/mysterious-mail-to-australian-journalist-triggers-global-tax-haven-expose-20130405-2hak3.htm

I doubt that Philw or I could add anything to the 86 investigative journalists trawling through the huge database but no doubt the truth will "out"

Recruiting the services of foreign journalists to decipher the information was necessary because of the vast amounts of detail in the hard drive, estimated as being 160 times larger than the cache released by WikiLeaks, totalling some 260 gigabytes of data.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/mysterious-mail-to-australian-journalist-triggers-global-tax-haven-expose-20130405-2hak3.html#ixzz2PeNZumAx

However, perhaps you could remind Buchholz et al who have been bandying around names (obviously related to Thaksin in some way) that the same "not guilty until charged" assurances be applied to them.

Strange how things like this only apply one way on this forum..............

But in reality which group of peaceful protestors would you as police chief tear gas?

Ahh now that there's no rice to farm, the Red Shirts are free to hold their idiot rallies again! And Thida, about the arson attacks ,look no further then your own Red Shirts. You're fooling no one.

I wonder if the police will do all in there power to control it?

One policeman per protestor and road blocks to try and keep them out.

peacefull protestors.jpg

Wrong framing of the question Two different groups - how do you control them

1) Police and Tear Gas

2) The Military with live ammunition, snipers and "live fire" zones

If you want the real answer consult the UNHRC

Ask a hard one.

the answer is 2 because 1 refused to do any thing about it other than cower in their stations and hope it would go away.

Also you seem to forget it was the red shirts who created the live fire zones. You really didn't think they had all those guns for a marshmallow roast.

On second thought you might of.

"the red shirts who created the live fire zones".

Now that is one seriously sick joke and proof that you truly have lost the plot. See you.

Well nice work Thida! first the Reds have managed to get an aquittal,now she wants to change history and get the Red Shirts completely exonerated,by claiming some other persons or parties did the burning in Bangkok.Next she will be telling us:the Red Shirts never entered Bangkok.

It gets more like a kids way of getting off the hook, e.g. you can't blame us,because you are all liars,we wasn't there!

The people arrested and charged were aquitted due to lack of evidence. If you look beyond that bias chip on your shoulder and read about the case you'd find out why they were aquitted, but you're unlikely to do that I know, your knowledge base and comfort zone is here on this board. I'll leave you to your thoughts..................

You just put up a post saying there was a video showing them doing it which was not allowed in court.

Now who has a bias chip on their shoulder?

No, Dolly, you've read it all wrong, try again from the beginning. I was joshing with yoshiwara who basically was saying that the "arisman" tape proved who it was that set fire to Central World.

Another one who would deny ever having seen the Arisman video.

Why, does the Arisman video show red shirts burning down CentralWorld? Why wasn't this video shown in court?

Now you are getting ridicules It shows it because they were doing it.

It was not shown in court because it would bring about a conviction. That in turn would put the leaders who urged them on (to be seen on u tube) in the wrong and make them co conspirators.

So you are saying that the "Arisman" tape shows red shirts setting fire to Central World? You accuse me of getting ridiculous?

Ahh now that there's no rice to farm, the Red Shirts are free to hold their idiot rallies again! And Thida, about the arson attacks ,look no further then your own Red Shirts. You're fooling no one.

I wonder if the police will do all in there power to control it?

One policeman per protestor and road blocks to try and keep them out.

Don't forget the coils of Razor wire,and Tear Gas!

But in reality which group of peaceful protestors would you as police chief tear gas?

peacefull protestors.jpg

Oh by the way could you tell us the source of the thumbnails - was it Pitak Siam or PAD?

Ahh now that there's no rice to farm, the Red Shirts are free to hold their idiot rallies again! And Thida, about the arson attacks ,look no further then your own Red Shirts. You're fooling no one.

I wonder if the police will do all in there power to control it?

One policeman per protestor and road blocks to try and keep them out.

Don't forget the coils of Razor wire,and Tear Gas!

But in reality which group of peaceful protestors would you as police chief tear gas?

peacefull protestors.jpg

Wrong framing of the question Two different groups - how do you control them

1) Police and Tear Gas

2) The Military with live ammunition, snipers and "live fire" zones

If you want the real answer consult the UNHRC

bugeyed.jpg

Looks like lovely Thida is about to make a move on Jatuporn.

It is sad that two years after the Rajaprasong Love-In, that the star of the show, DL, is still no closer to returning than before.

Maybe this year's planned memorial fest will help him?

DL, the Dalai Lama?

Well nice work Thida! first the Reds have managed to get an aquittal,now she wants to change history and get the Red Shirts completely exonerated,by claiming some other persons or parties did the burning in Bangkok.Next she will be telling us:the Red Shirts never entered Bangkok.

It gets more like a kids way of getting off the hook, e.g. you can't blame us,because you are all liars,we wasn't there!

The people arrested and charged were aquitted due to lack of evidence. If you look beyond that bias chip on your shoulder and read about the case you'd find out why they were aquitted, but you're unlikely to do that I know, your knowledge base and comfort zone is here on this board. I'll leave you to your thoughts..................

sure?

so why not investigate and nail those responsible.

Another one who would deny ever having seen the Arisman video.

Why, does the Arisman video show red shirts burning down CentralWorld? Why wasn't this video shown in court?

So it would seem as if all the platitudes concerning the stability of the supply of electricity are in truth without substance.

Yet again it would seem as if was yet another set of romantic notions uttered by assorted public stooges servants who are on but a ''nodding acquaintance with the truth.''

I don't suppose you are familiar with the phrase "be prepared". Is there anything that you won't find fault with?

I'd hate to be on a plane with you as they wouldn't let anybody off - They'd think the engines would still be running when all the time it'd just be you in the corner whining.

Then why do you not feel the need to mention other people doing the same ???

How about Adm. Banawit Kengrian, the former deputy permanent secretary of defense,

who is listed as one of many shareholders in the British Virgin Islands

company Vnet Capital International Co., Ltd in 1998 ???

A member of the National Legislative Council after the military coup in 2006.

Maybe because "There is no suggestion Kengrian avoided his disclosure responsibilities."

Thats just newspaper lawyer speak for CYA.