People's Alliance For Democracy To Renew Movement

[Plus]

It's not unusual for you to display complete ignorance of even the basic facts. Go to wikipedia article, it's all covered in there.

Yes, I am completely ignorant of the basic facts of this issue and admit it openly and freely. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant....that can easily be changed if one is open minded by simply learning the facts....I'm very fortunate that I am not closed minded since being closed minded gets in the way of dispelling igorance by learning the facts and tends to perpetuate ignorance.

Which wikipedia article (unbiased source??....maybe...maybe not) are you referring to?

If you think you don't know the facts maybe you should refrain from posting opinions, too.

Go to wikipedia and type "Samak" in the search field. There's only one article to choose from.

And you should have done it BEFORE you write anything about him, not after. It denigrates the value of your contributions, both past and future ones.

[chownah]

It's not unusual for you to display complete ignorance of even the basic facts. Go to wikipedia article, it's all covered in there.

Yes, I am completely ignorant of the basic facts of this issue and admit it openly and freely. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant....that can easily be changed if one is open minded by simply learning the facts....I'm very fortunate that I am not closed minded since being closed minded gets in the way of dispelling igorance by learning the facts and tends to perpetuate ignorance.

Which wikipedia article (unbiased source??....maybe...maybe not) are you referring to?

If you think you don't know the facts maybe you should refrain from posting opinions, too.

Go to wikipedia and type "Samak" in the search field. There's only one article to choose from.

And you should have done it BEFORE you write anything about him, not after. It denigrates the value of your contributions, both past and future ones.

I read the article you suggested and nowhere did it claim that Samak cheered the massacre as you have asserted. Am I missing it somewhere in the article....or why do you claim that Samak cheered the massacre and then claim this article shows that?

Chownah

P.S. I think you should not expect me to have checked out every site on the internet before posting on a subject!!!...(and especially not Wikipedia for such a heavily spun topic!!).....and in this case it seems that even if I had read your reference it would not have lead me to accept the notion that Samak cheered the massacre......do you have any information that indicates that he cheered the massacre?...if not then I request that you either retract your statement or indicate that it is conjecture...or please explain what is up....I can't figure where you get it from....I'm open minded and would gladly accept evidence to support what you have claimed but I need to see some evidence for this....but maybe it actually does say that Samak cheered the massacre in the article and I'm missing it...I'll go read it again and report back later with an update if time allows.

Chownah

P.P.S. You wrote, "If you think you don't know the facts maybe you should refrain from posting opinions, too."..........being ignorant of the facts does not seem to have stopped others from posting opinions.

Chownah

P.P.P.S. I went and looked at the article again and this seems to be the relevant part:

"Accounts from witnesses, documents and published reports clearly identify Samak as chief operator of "Armored Car" radio program, an ultra-right wing broadcast that constantly expounded anticommunist and pro-right propaganda. Samak used this program to stir up hatred against Thammasat University students, and intentionally disobeyed the Prime Minister's orders at the time to "stop creating divisiveness." In defending the return of 1973-ousted General Prapas over the radio, Samak told listeners that students demonstrating against the dictator's return were committing suicide."

It doesn't say that Samak cheered the massacre....where do you get this notion from?

Chownah

Edited March 3, 2008 by chownah

[traveller5000]

It doesn't say that Samak cheered the massacre....where do you get this notion from?

sorry to butt in here, but i thought i'd add my 2 cents.

"Cheering" means to encourage with shouts. (one dictionary definition)

"stirring up" is a type of encouragement, and "broadcasting" is a type of shouting.

eg. "samak cheered the massacre"

... "samak encouraged the massacre by shouting to the people"

... "samak stirred up the massacre by broadcasting over the radio"

The choice of word is accurate enough, not misleading IMO... and in the bigger scheme of things certainly no need to make a big fuss over, chownah. IMO.

Edited March 3, 2008 by traveller5000

[Plus]

"...an ultra-right wing broadcast that constantly expounded anticommunist and pro-right propaganda. Samak used this program to stir up hatred against Thammasat University students.."

What else did you expect? A photograph of Samak dancing with pom poms?

Despite alleged heavy spin I doubt you'll find any evidence to the contrary. He was always described as a cheerleder for the right wing militias, everywhere.

[Polsevogn]

Yawn.. what a bunch of losers in PAD.. nobody want them. Or need them. If they want to be someone, maybe they should have run in the election?

[traveller5000]

What else did you expect? A photograph of Samak dancing with pom poms?

[sriracha john]

Yawn.. what a bunch of losers in PAD.. nobody want them. Or need them. If they want to be someone, maybe they should have run in the election?

In a way, they did, having got elected yesterday as the sole Bangkok Senator.

[chownah]

"...an ultra-right wing broadcast that constantly expounded anticommunist and pro-right propaganda. Samak used this program to stir up hatred against Thammasat University students.."

What else did you expect? A photograph of Samak dancing with pom poms?

Despite alleged heavy spin I doubt you'll find any evidence to the contrary. He was always described as a cheerleder for the right wing militias, everywhere.

Stirring up hatred for some group does not necessarily mean you would be willing to cheer a massacre....it does not mean he was going.."yeaaaay...three more killed....yes...good work....go kill some more....." Many politicians might stir up hatred for the opposition but it does not mean that they want the opposition killed by any stretch of the imagination.

You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article....it clearly does not indicate that Samak cheered the massacre....nor that he cheered for the massacre either before, during, or after. Quite frankly I think that even in Thailand if he had done this on the radio there would have been legal action taken against him....of course I could be wrong.

I'm still looking for evidence that Samak cheered the massacre. You said it was in the Wikipedia article and clearly it is not. I am beginning to believe that this cheering only happened in your imagination...if I am wrong then please provide the source for this view...or admit that it is just your opinion and is not supported with evidence....or something.........stirring up hatred does not necessarily mean that you cheer a massacre....there are plenty of radio talk shows in the US and I assume elsewhere which demonstrate this.

Chownah

[chevykanteve]

Winning elections doesn't justify corruption.

Yep - you're right "the only difference that matter is in who among the 'elites" get to rule" - Guess what? The masses rarely get a chance to rule for very long before Elite Big Brother steps in!

Glad you understand that. If you look at it as a choice between two evils, than Thaksin is the worst one.

I, however, see it as a natural order of things. Elites always rule, masses always follow. It doesn't work any other way. Even if masses get control, they soon choose some new elites as their new masters.

The main difference is - who gets to rule, Mahathir or Suharto. Asia doesn't offer any other choices. Dennis Hasbert from "24" was a cool president but you don't get people like that here. You get Marcoses, Lees, Hun Sens, and now Thaksin, who maid money from the farmers, sold out to Singapore and invested in England. Great fuc_king leader.

Businesmen do not have principles, they are not qualified to lead, take responsibility or make sacrifices, they look only after their own and they are simply incapable of understanding any higher values than money. Even Samak is a better leader than Thaksin in that sense.

Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating. In Namen des Fuhrers.

[chevykanteve]

It's not unusual for you to display complete ignorance of even the basic facts. Go to wikipedia article, it's all covered in there.

Yes, I am completely ignorant of the basic facts of this issue and admit it openly and freely. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant....that can easily be changed if one is open minded by simply learning the facts....I'm very fortunate that I am not closed minded since being closed minded gets in the way of dispelling igorance by learning the facts and tends to perpetuate ignorance.

Which wikipedia article (unbiased source??....maybe...maybe not) are you referring to?

If you think you don't know the facts maybe you should refrain from posting opinions, too.

Go to wikipedia and type "Samak" in the search field. There's only one article to choose from.

And you should have done it BEFORE you write anything about him, not after. It denigrates the value of your contributions, both past and future ones.

What a pompous, impolite and petty response. YOU are the biggest "denigrator" of your own cause on this thread.

[Galong]

Anyone, absolutely anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. I've tried several times to tell the facts about the Tiger Temple and my additions seem to disappear shortly after I put them up. I'm not rude in my additions, just want to question the motives and treatment of the tigers. Someone obviously feels otherwise about the place.

I don't doubt for one moment that Samak was responsible for the killing of many student protestors... in fact, I consider him to be very evil and potentially very dangerous, but the fact remains, Wikipedia is a weak source of objective information.

[Plus]

The point is ALL available evidence and accounts point to Samak's cheerleading role for 1976 massacre. Wikipedia just puts it on one page, inlcuding reference sources.

"Armored car" radio is a recently added name, btw.

"You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article" - not at all. I'm simply conveying a well known fact. There's simply no other opinion on this matter, except Chownah's fantasies.

"Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating." - the elites are ALWAYS dominating. It's just the matter of which elites exactly, especially in Asia where participative democracy does not exist in any meaningful sense.

[chevykanteve]

The point is ALL available evidence and accounts point to Samak's cheerleading role for 1976 massacre. Wikipedia just puts it on one page, inlcuding reference sources.

"Armored car" radio is a recently added name, btw.

"You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article" - not at all. I'm simply conveying a well known fact. There's simply no other opinion on this matter, except Chownah's fantasies.

"Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating." - the elites are ALWAYS dominating. It's just the matter of which elites exactly, especially in Asia where participative democracy does not exist in any meaningful sense.

Ahhh yes, sure. If you say so.

[chownah]

The point is ALL available evidence and accounts point to Samak's cheerleading role for 1976 massacre. Wikipedia just puts it on one page, inlcuding reference sources.

"Armored car" radio is a recently added name, btw.

"You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article" - not at all. I'm simply conveying a well known fact. There's simply no other opinion on this matter, except Chownah's fantasies.

"Winning elections means nothing at all --in your philosophy-- if the "elites" are not dominating." - the elites are ALWAYS dominating. It's just the matter of which elites exactly, especially in Asia where participative democracy does not exist in any meaningful sense.

I'm not indulging in fantasies....I'm not claiming he did or did not cheer the massacre....you are the one who is making the claim and I'm asking for something that supports your accusation. You indicated the Wiki article supported your claim.......and anyone who reads it with an open mind and takes the actual meaning of the words will tell you that it does not support the accusation that Samak cheered the massacre....if you continue to insist that it does then please show me the EXACT words that indicate this....you won't...you can't...it doesn't..........so I am becoming more and more of the opinion that you have no evidence and probably have never had evidence that Samak ever cheered the massacre...it seems that in your mind you have conjured up a vision of Samak as a monster who delights in other people's deaths.....this is a very viscious accusation....you really need to come up with something to support this...so far you have nothing.

Chownah

[Plus]

".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners.

If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms.

[chownah]

".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners.

If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms.

What you've got is a short quip from WIKIPEDIA.....we have not idea specifically what "stir up hatred" means or what Samak allegedly said in this regard and we have really no idea what agenda the author of the quip might have.

I'll repeat myself here as it seems that you didn't read this the first time around as it directly addresses what you have posted here:

Stirring up hatred for some group does not necessarily mean you would be willing to cheer a massacre....it does not mean he was going.."yeaaaay...three more killed....yes...good work....go kill some more....." Many politicians might stir up hatred for the opposition but it does not mean that they want the opposition killed by any stretch of the imagination.

You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article....it clearly does not indicate that Samak cheered the massacre....nor that he cheered for the massacre either before, during, or after. Quite frankly I think that even in Thailand if he had done this on the radio there would have been legal action taken against him....of course I could be wrong.

I'm still looking for evidence that Samak cheered the massacre. You said it was in the Wikipedia article and clearly it is not. I am beginning to believe that this cheering only happened in your imagination...if I am wrong then please provide the source for this view...or admit that it is just your opinion and is not supported with evidence....or something.........stirring up hatred does not necessarily mean that you cheer a massacre....there are plenty of radio talk shows in the US and I assume elsewhere which demonstrate this.

Chownah

[traveller5000]

".. stir up hatred against Thammasat University students .." who subsequently were massacred in cold blood, in broad daylight by Samak's listeners.

If that is not cheering, than what is? Dancing with pom poms.

What you've got is a short quip from WIKIPEDIA.....we have not idea specifically what "stir up hatred" means or what Samak allegedly said in this regard and we have really no idea what agenda the author of the quip might have.

I'll repeat myself here as it seems that you didn't read this the first time around as it directly addresses what you have posted here:

Stirring up hatred for some group does not necessarily mean you would be willing to cheer a massacre....it does not mean he was going.."yeaaaay...three more killed....yes...good work....go kill some more....." Many politicians might stir up hatred for the opposition but it does not mean that they want the opposition killed by any stretch of the imagination.

You are clearly reading your own meaning into the Wikipedia article....it clearly does not indicate that Samak cheered the massacre....nor that he cheered for the massacre either before, during, or after. Quite frankly I think that even in Thailand if he had done this on the radio there would have been legal action taken against him....of course I could be wrong.

I'm still looking for evidence that Samak cheered the massacre. You said it was in the Wikipedia article and clearly it is not. I am beginning to believe that this cheering only happened in your imagination...if I am wrong then please provide the source for this view...or admit that it is just your opinion and is not supported with evidence....or something.........stirring up hatred does not necessarily mean that you cheer a massacre....there are plenty of radio talk shows in the US and I assume elsewhere which demonstrate this.

Chownah

Why do you insist on going way off topic with your fixation on samak and his cheering ? It has really nothing to do with this topic and certainly not worth the stubborn diversion you have engaged in.

I'll try and make it simple... and I would ask that you open your mind just a little before responding. Cheering means "to encourage with shouts". It doesn't necessarily need to have a positive, joyous or pom pom clad meaning.

Now, i'll let you do the next bit. Try and fit this definition with the reports of what samak was doing at the time. If you have an open mind (which you have assured everyone you do have ), you will find that this definition fits!

If you can't or won't get it to fit.... well.... please just forget about it then, and put it down as a misunderstanding or a mental block or something.... AND MOVE ON.

Finally, at least consider from the angle of how your post has relevance to the topic, keeping in mind you initiated this diversion and have kept it going with your closed, defensive fixation.

Edited March 4, 2008 by traveller5000

[Plus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_October_197...acre#Background

Samak was certainly not alone, but he was at least partly responsible for whipping up the killing frenzy.

Massacre itself took only a few hours, maybe he wasn't on the air exactly at that time, and even if he was I doubt the lynch mob was listening anyway, they've heard all they needed to hear before hand, and some of it came from Samak.

It was also not the first violent incindent at that time. Some students were killed and hanged a couple of weeks earlier by the same right wing mobs encouraged by Samak, among others.

[trader1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_October_197...acre#Background

Samak was certainly not alone, but he was at least partly responsible for whipping up the killing frenzy.

Massacre itself took only a few hours, maybe he wasn't on the air exactly at that time, and even if he was I doubt the lynch mob was listening anyway, they've heard all they needed to hear before hand, and some of it came from Samak.

It was also not the first violent incindent at that time. Some students were killed and hanged a couple of weeks earlier by the same right wing mobs encouraged by Samak, among others.

And you were where at the time this was happening? How well did you understand Samak's Thai when he was instigating this? Could you tell us teh exact words he used- I assume on the TV or radio.

[Plus]

As with any other historical event we rely on witnesses and historical accounts.

In this case they are all in agreement about Samak's role. If you want to revise the history - YOU need to come with evidence to the contrary.

[Polsevogn]

I think we can all agree that Samak's role at the time was not on the side of the good guys.

[younghusband]

As with any other historical event we rely on witnesses and historical accounts.

In this case they are all in agreement about Samak's role. If you want to revise the history - YOU need to come with evidence to the contrary.

I don't disagree with any of this on Samak's role but he was essentially a bit player.If there was to be a full and transparent national enquiry into the 1976 events -there never has been (take a wild guess why not) - the results would be dynamite, with Samak's role paling into insignificance.

[Plus]

Yes, but he is the one sticking his neck out. It's natural he gets all the flack, at least at the moment.

He was awarded an Interior Minister post for his contributions, they must have been more than trivial.

[LuckyFive8888]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_October_197...acre#Background

Samak was certainly not alone, but he was at least partly responsible for whipping up the killing frenzy.

Massacre itself took only a few hours, maybe he wasn't on the air exactly at that time, and even if he was I doubt the lynch mob was listening anyway, they've heard all they needed to hear before hand, and some of it came from Samak.

It was also not the first violent incindent at that time. Some students were killed and hanged a couple of weeks earlier by the same right wing mobs encouraged by Samak, among others.

And you were where at the time this was happening? How well did you understand Samak's Thai when he was instigating this? Could you tell us teh exact words he used- I assume on the TV or radio.

another wanna be lawyer...

[bannedagain]

Yes, but he is the one sticking his neck out. It's natural he gets all the flack, at least at the moment.

He was awarded an Interior Minister post for his contributions, they must have been more than trivial.

And the man that was rewarded with the prime ministership at the time - Tanin Kraivixien, whose excesses of violence are still memorable, has been later rewarded with a seat in the privy council, which he still occupies. He also came out recently with speeches showing strong support for the latest coup.

Several other members of the leadership of Navapol, a former semisecret extreme rightwing group and the main culprit and instigator of '76 next to the Kratingdaeng, the Village Scouts and the Border Police, are still sitting in the privy council.

If you want to learn more about Samak's role in the '76 massaker, i would suggest reading 'Rituals of National Loyalty' (google the book - available on amazon.com). It is clearly spelled out, supported by unrefutable footnotes, whose close adviser Samak was during that period. There are also spelled out many of the names that are still familiar, photos shown of who else sponsored the right wing organizations responsible for the massaker (and previois and subsequent atrocities).

The facts are there for all to see, but nobody will allow an open debate and investigation on that era here in Thailand. The more people like you limiting the debate on the '76 massker and Samak's role, the more ridiculous you sound as you so openly avoid a full debate on the background of what happened in those days, and therefore fail to see the parallells to this era we are in now.

[bannedagain]

And where we are just at it...

Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence.

Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here.

[traveller5000]

^^ I've just read the first page of that book you recommended with the amazon reader. Stories in the 70s of penis shrinking potions distributed by the vietnamese to permanently halt the Thai birth rates, blood sucking vampires resembling students running around that store and give blood for transfusion for the communists..... wow. strange times indeed.

[LuckyFive8888]

And where we are just at it...

Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence.

Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here.

of course, and it's clear he was not alone. but the problem is that he distorted history and kept insisting that only one (1) died in the incident and was just an unlucky guy. it would have been better if he just accepted the fact and apologised to the general public and that the incident was unavoidable and that the clashed between the army and students thus had casualties of 46 dead. NOT ONLY ONE KHUN SAMAK!

Edited March 4, 2008 by LuckyFive8888

[sbk]

And where we are just at it...

Where is you people's outrage against Gen. Surayudh, who not just was in command of Special Warfare Command troops during the May '92 massaker, but who also personally want with his bodyguards during the demonstrations to the Royal Hotel, where his bodyguards have beaten and rifle butted injured protesters, doctors and nursing staff in Surayudh's presence.

Samak is not alone in having commited/instigated atrocities here.

Aren't you mistaking him for Chainarong Noonpakdi who was, I believe, the one actually in charge of the crackdown on protesters? I have never read anything anywhere that suggest Surayudh was in charge of the troops during that crackdown but rather recall reading in Asiaweek, that Surayudh was not in Bangkok. Do you have any proof to back up these allegations?

[bannedagain]

of course, and it's clear he was not alone. but the problem is that he distorted history and kept insisting that only one (1) died in the incident and was just an unlucky guy. it would have been better if he just accepted the fact and apologised to the general public and that the incident was unavoidable and that the clashed between the army and students thus had casualties of 46 dead. NOT ONLY ONE KHUN SAMAK!

Absolutely.

The problem though is that both Samak, and most of his accusers position have the same result - avoidance of a full investigation and an open debate on events that still haunt Thailand. The massaker is trivilalized and insrumentalised for short term political gains.