No One Will Forgive If Pattaya Violence Happens Again: Chuan

[animatic]

... removal of a democraticaly elected goverment and prime minister in a coup de tat?

The guy was an interim PM for over half a year, not democractically elected. He couldn't get elected in April, remember? And the stuff he tried to pull off to win should have permanently disqaulify him from talking anything about "elections" and "democratic", but he got five year ban instead.

Obviously, you are not aware, or just do not know Thai political history.

Thaksin was first elected in 2001, first PM to serve a full term.

Re-elected with the largest recorded vote in 2005.

Deposed in 2006 in military coup. TRT banned.

Post coup elections successor to TRT party win but are slowly removed from power by the constitutional court.

To say the red shirts are the baddies make me wonder on the democratic views some TV members hold.

My view is the yellow and red power brokers have no interest in Thailand or its people. They are pushing their own agenda.

Yellows do not want to see their "Place" in Thailand threatened. The red shirts would like to taste power again.

But hey, do we have democracy, one man one vote and the party who gets the most/majority votes takes office.

Or ignore the democraticly elected individuals, grab power and exclude others by fair or foul means.

I support democracy, does not always give the goverment I want, but my vote is no better than Jimmy up the road, or down the valley.

Take away democratic rule you have unruly mobs and gangs (Being controlled) wanting justice............................aka red shirts.

Those that get the majority votes in the LEGISLATURE form the cabinet and take office.

The MP's are elected for their full terms and can vote as they choose during that time,

including join a voting block's change alliance.

MP's decided PM Chalerm was a bad idea. and switched sides.

The voters got the decisions of their PM.s and have no legal reasons to gripe.

THAT is Thai political history.

You say he doesn't know Thai political history, but your statement shows you don't understand that.

Thaksi was NOT elected Prime Minister of Thailand at the time of the coup,

he was lame duck, Interim or Acting PM with no legislature and only a dwindling cabinet.

A place holder in case of emergency, not leaving the country completely rudderless.

His TRT broke existing election laws from the top down, so egregiously there was no choice,

but to ban them based on clear thai laws, on the books well before that.

They lost from their own arrogance.

THAT is Thai political history.

Thaksin did this HIMSELF by disolving the legislature and trying to another election to white wash

or validate his Temasek sale, which enraged most every one for selling national assets ,

Thailands ONLY communications satellite to Singapore's control.

THAT is Thai political history.

Thaksin was not told to stay out of Thailand, and came back and was not arrested.

But later WAS convicted with HIS PPP PARTY in control of the government.

He was convicted with HIS cronies in power.

THAT is Thai political history.

If you must call others ill informed be well informed youself.

Edited September 3, 2009 by animatic

[tmd5855]

Those that get the majority votes in the LEGISLATURE form the cabinet and take office.

The MP's are elected for their full terms and can do as they choose dureing that time, including change alliances.

MP's decided PM Chalerm was a bad idea. and switched sides. The voters got the decisions of their PM.s

and have no legal reasons to gripe.[/b] THAT is Thai political history.

You say he doesn't know Thai political history, but your statement shows you don't understand that.

Thaksi was NOT elected Prime Minister of Thailand at the time of the coup,

he was lame duck, Interim or Acting PM with no legislature and only a dwindling cabinet.

A place holder in case of emergency, not leaving the country completely rudderless.

His TRT broke existing election laws from the top down, so egregiously there was no choice,

but to ban them based on clear thai laws, on the books well before that.

They lost from their own arrogance.

THAT is Thai political history.

Thaksin did this HIMSELF by disolving the legislature and trying to another election to white wash

or validate his Temasek sale, which enraged most every one for selling national assets ,

Thailands ONLY communications satellite to Singapore's control.

THAT is Thai political history.

Thaksin was not told to stay out of Thailand, and came back and was not arrested.

But later WAS convicted with HIS PPP PARTY in control of the government.

He was convicted with HIS cronies in power.

THAT is Thai political history.

If you must call others ill informed be well informed youself.

What I put down in print was copied from Wilkpedia.

Not my opinion, but freely available facts.

What is my opinion is that people should be voted in and out not deposed by coup de tat.

That brings anarchy................................which we seem to have.

Look at my previous posts on this subject. I bang the drum for one man one vote. Believe that the reda nad yellow shiorts have their own agenda and it will not benefit the Thais, certainly not ex-pats like me who live here.

Abandon the democracy you have mobs......................just said that

[h90]

Don't recall hearing Chuan lecturing the PAD and yellows about adhering to the law over the illegal airport occupation.

But Abhisit did.

[animatic]

Those that get the majority votes in the LEGISLATURE form the cabinet and take office.

The MP's are elected for their full terms and can do as they choose dureing that time, including change alliances.

MP's decided PM Chalerm was a bad idea. and switched sides. The voters got the decisions of their PM.s

and have no legal reasons to gripe.[/b] THAT is Thai political history.

You say he doesn't know Thai political history, but your statement shows you don't understand that.

Thaksi was NOT elected Prime Minister of Thailand at the time of the coup,

he was lame duck, Interim or Acting PM with no legislature and only a dwindling cabinet.

A place holder in case of emergency, not leaving the country completely rudderless.

His TRT broke existing election laws from the top down, so egregiously there was no choice,

but to ban them based on clear thai laws, on the books well before that.

They lost from their own arrogance.

THAT is Thai political history.

Thaksin did this HIMSELF by disolving the legislature and trying to another election to white wash

or validate his Temasek sale, which enraged most every one for selling national assets ,

Thailands ONLY communications satellite to Singapore's control.

THAT is Thai political history.

Thaksin was not told to stay out of Thailand, and came back and was not arrested.

But later WAS convicted with HIS PPP PARTY in control of the government.

He was convicted with HIS cronies in power.

THAT is Thai political history.

If you must call others ill informed be well informed youself.

What I put down in print was copied from Wilkpedia.

Not my opinion, but freely available facts.

What is my opinion is that people should be voted in and out not deposed by coup de tat.

That brings anarchy................................which we seem to have.

Look at my previous posts on this subject. I bang the drum for one man one vote. Believe that the reda nad yellow shiorts have their own agenda and it will not benefit the Thais, certainly not ex-pats like me who live here.

Abandon the democracy you have mobs......................just said that

Sorry but Wikipedia is a NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate reference.

More so in the political sphere.

Precisely because it can be edited and re-edited by ANYONE.

One day it can say one thing and another the next.

There are politically biased cyber-teams doing JUST THAT daily.

Sorry this means nothing.

What you wrote, that I rebutted, was patently incorrect.

There is nothing more to say, it was not right,

and you have now just explained why your information was incorrect.

Edited September 3, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Back to OP.

Who here would be forgiving of the government, ANY government,

for allowing a street demonstration by a group with a history of violence,

to spin out of control and cause social chaos?

Samak allowed that, and someone died. Big surprise.

Somchai had no control and couldn't stop PAD,

and coincidentally did nothing to stop the forces of disorder

from throwing live grenades at PAD's camp either multiple times.

So using those as arguments to allow Reds to run amok is against common sense.

This can no longer be allowed to go bad again,

no matter what color or LACK OF COLOR is subscribed to.

[hammered]

I remember in the days of old going on stacks of demos. Some turned out peaceful and some involved violence and destruction not that I got involved. However, all the demos organised were announced to be peaceful in advance. I cant of course know what organisers had in mind but would guess few if any actually wanted agro. On the other hand every demo I went to the authorities were prepared with riot police, horses, water cannon and loads of and loads of reserves and laws that meant the authorites could tell you exactly where you could march and break the thing up if it diverted one iota and I personally witnessed on several occaisons the police kicking it all off although it has to be said every demonstration I persoanlly went to had elements that wanted a knuckle and positively looked for it

The demonstrators should be allowed to peacefully rally, the authorities should be prepared for violence and routes etc should be agreed in advance. Then things arent much different from any country. And it would be incredibly silly to think that on occasions police dont overeact and equally silly to think a demonstration dopesnt include people up for and actively looking for violence. Quite simple really.

[Plus]

Tmd and Lomsak - Thaksin was elected in 2005 but dissolved the parliament in February 2006. That's when he lose "elected" status and became "caretake" Prime Minister. A couple of days after elections in April 2006 he went on national TV and said he was stepping down from politics and left the office. There was "acting caretaker" Prime Minister Chidchai who was at the helm for about six weeks.

Then Thaksin came back, uninvited.

[Oberkommando]

Don't recall hearing Chuan lecturing the PAD and yellows about adhering to the law over the illegal airport occupation.

But Abhisit did.

Pity they were only told off like naughty children instead of punished like the criminals they are. Criminals that cost the country billions in revenue and an unmeasurable sum in loss of reputation internationally.

They helped Chuan's party get back into office, after his 'Bitter Medicine' government in the late 90's left them unelectable, so no wonder he is silent.

[harleyclarkey]

The posts about politics here appear to get the most interest and replies. You must be a very political lot.

Out of interest....are there circumstances where a foreigner may vote in Thailand??

[Jingthing]

The posts about politics here appear to get the most interest and replies. You must be a very political lot.

Out of interest....are there circumstances where a foreigner may vote in Thailand??

I think a foreigner who obtains Thai citizenship would certainly be allowed to vote. If you are implying as I suspect you are that because almost all of us can't vote, we shouldn't care, well that is wrong. Many of us have a lot invested here, with businesses, relationships, real estate, and capital, and the consequences of a total meltdown here which is more than possible is of great interest to us. Thailand has been on the brink of civil war for some time now, these are not normal times here.

Even illegal Mexican immigrants in the US care about US politics, for many of the same reasons, they have invested part of their lives in their new country, and the political developments in that country directly impacts them.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jingthing

[Old Man River]

The posts about politics here appear to get the most interest and replies. You must be a very political lot.

Out of interest....are there circumstances where a foreigner may vote in Thailand??

Some foreigners who also have Thai citizenship can vote, but the majority of foreigners who are interested in the political and economic situation of Thailand are either retirees, staff of MNC's with operations in Thailand or those with their own businesses operating here.

[Chunkton]

Correct assessment.

Absolutely agree. Some one has to stand up the rioting thugs. I well remember Chuans inspirational speech after the Yellows overran government house:

"*",

or his rousing condemnation when they closed the main airports:

"*",

Truly a man of law and order for all.

* Insert sound of crickets chirping.

[ThNiner]

3) when my lot protest, it's "not in the interest of the country" and the full force of the law is applied (rightfully) yet, when the other side protests resulting in arguably more damaging actions in closing the major airport, the army/police watch the mob and till now nobody is found to be responsible.

Yeah so true. Hundreds (or thousands?) of the Red protesters were brutally murdered by the police and the army during Black Songkran (bloodbaths were on almost every street of Bangkok!), while the PAD terrorists were served with cakes and tea on October 7 of last year.

I think that's what Truth Today told me.

[Jingthing]

Most of the reds are busy trying to act like Black Songkran didn't happen and their dear leader wasn't responsible. I guess there is extra credit for claiming Thaksin didn't lead the drug war featuring thousands of extrajudicial killings. They have a hard job, have some compassion.

Their job reminds me of a job I interviewed for years ago. The interviewer informed me the job was like selling cancer, can I sell cancer? Um, maybe I can, but no thankee ...

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jingthing

[Rumfoord]

Obviously, the rest of the world is in error, and being a statistical sort of guy/girl with knowledge of this statistical error and misrepresentation of the data, you can kindly direct the rest of us to this new political agenda brought to us by the junta. Just the facts please, and not hair-brained opinions would be greatly appreciated. I find it strange that Thaksin himself stated "Shoot to Kill," yet you have something which contradicts his statements. Yes, I was here during Thaksin's Drug War, and yes Thaksin boasted daily about the number of killings, and went as far as to threaten areas that did not meet his quota. Either you have something the rest of us have never seen or perhaps I am responding to a troll. Which is it?

i don't have the exact numbers right now but let me try to explain.

2500 something where killed during the time of the "war on drugs". 2500 is just the total number of violent death during that time. a significant percent had nothing to do with drugs at all. around the half of that number. those death are not innocent collateral victims of the war on drugs but victims of other crimes like your daily murder, robbery, domestic violence and so on.

there are a lot of dog eat dog death, drug dealers shooting each other, maybe to silence, witnesses, confidants and former partners in crime. criminals got killed by other criminals who have been afraid of getting cought by the authorities. police corruption maybe played a part of these but you can not blame thaksin for that.

the are solved cases where the murder known and unsolved cases. that are the murky cases.

and there are cases, death, that resulted in shout out with the police, that 'offical' number was something like 55 or 65. that is the number where the authorities admitted, yes our forces and our police units have shot these culprits and maybe boast about.

claim that Thaksin had ordered the slaughter of 2500 innocent people is just not correct.

the war on drug is still objectionable, i don't want to defend it. but don't forget that this is also a no-issue for the coup makers and it not justify the coup.

ps. found a The Nation article that have some details on the statistic, but doesn't have the whole picture, but should give you a clue about what i am talking here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/16...al_30062378.php

[Publicus]

People from mature democracies who claim Thaksin is a democrat or embodies democracy just aren't credible, much less convincing.

Thaksin systematically and by design assaulted and raped the 1997 checks and balances consititution, hacked it to pieces and buried the parts of its body one by one. Thaksin consciously and willfully demolished democracy in Thailand.

Thaksin's defenders claim that in buying votes he was no different from other Thai politicians. Thaksin didn't only buy votes that were cast on election days. He handed out Baht 1 million per village after he was elected but did nothing to change the fundamental condition and circumstance of the 50% of Thais who live on less than USD$2 a day. Thaksin for instance did nothing to change education in Thailand.

Other leaders of other countries who have been deposed in one way or another have shaken it off and gone on with their lives. Yet Thaksin, who once said "I'd rather die than lose" continues to wreak havoc and chaos on and in Thailand.

Differences of opinion always exist among democratic peoples. So at the least Thais know that the huge majority of farang cannot and do not support such a fraud and fanatic anywhere at any time. Not anyway since Hitler.

[animatic]

2,500 is the low ball figure touted BY the Thaksin government for their score in the War On Drugs.

This was NOT, as you say, total deaths in the period, which was far higher anyway,

but those killed during his anti-drug squad's specific work.

Thaksin publicly kept score...,

only later did it become obvious that the pressure from above to 'meet quota's'

made police squads look for anyone they didn't like as possible upward mobility in their job.

With 'success comes rewards in Thaksinland.

The boss wants bodies, in jail, or just dead with drugs found on them, no problem,

this guy's not nice, he talked back to my date, lets getting the aggravating ass out of here.

The number of stories of people killed with NO CONNECTIONS to drugs was way to high.

Between 8-15% or more depending on source estimate. 1% would be too high.

The rhetoric from on top and the demand for results by quota was a recipe for carnage.

And when the buck stops at the top and the demands start there too, Thaksin was responsible.

A drug war could have been effectively waged without as much unconscionable collateral damage.

Edited September 3, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

From that report published in the Naiton:

"The report said 2,819 people were killed in 2,559 murder cases between February and April in 2003. Of those killed, 1,370 were related to drug dealing, while 878 of them were not. Another 571 people were killed without apparent reason.

Some 54 people were killed in shootouts with police officers, 41 with known drug-related links but two without any known ties. Another 11 people were killed but it is not known how they were involved in the shootouts.

The overall murder rate two years before and two years after the three-month 'War on Drugs' was 454 cases a month, or a third of the number killed between February and April 2003."

I can't see 2,500+ drug killings from this report, perhaps it is wrong, or includes deaths from later on.

I can't easily say how many of those victims died as a result of drug war policy either. The surge above the average rate would give something like 1,300 deaths, in three months the statistic was compiled.

[jayboy]

A drug war could have been effectively waged without as much unconscionable collateral damage.

Are you suggesting everything would have been acceptable if only those involved in the drugs trade had been murdered?

[animatic]

A drug war could have been effectively waged without as much unconscionable collateral damage.

Are you suggesting everything would have been acceptable if only those involved in the drugs trade had been murdered?

No,

and it is disingenuous of you to try and imply that.

But that IS s.o.p. from that side of the moral aisle.

857 reported by police as not drug related... related to what is never said.

571 without apparent reason.

Easy enough to make a big mistake and the say we don't know what happened

and tot it up to the normal list of unsolved deaths.

Like these cops never used throw away weapons...

The main point of the statistics is:

During a short 3 month period a HUGE escalation of deaths happened

directly concurrent with Thaksin demanding a quoa on drug dealers heads,

with shoot to kill orderes in effect,

and policemen's future prospects on the line,

relating to those quotas per area.

It all smells VERY much like it all connects those dots to Thaksin.

[jayboy]

A drug war could have been effectively waged without as much unconscionable collateral damage.

Are you suggesting everything would have been acceptable if only those involved in the drugs trade had been murdered?

No,

and it is disingenuous of you to try and imply that.

But that IS s.o.p. from that side of the moral aisle.

But your words are very clear and your response doesn't clarify matters at all.

I don't understand what s.o.p means but I gather it's part some form of ad hominem abuse (again), and that you fondly believe you have full possession of the moral high ground.

A couple of points

1.You made your position clear on collateral damage and your back pedalling doesn't alter this.It's not an unworthy or unusual position to take (not that different from mine actually) so stop whining.

2.Like many desperate to vilify Thaksin, you seize (correctly I concede) on the drugs war as his greatest crime (because in their heart of hearts even the most rabid Thaksinphobes know the actual charges made against him are comparitively minor and politically inspired).But on the drugs war to invoke your term of "collateral damage', be very very carefuL as you fling accusations around.Not only did the campaign have massive popular support but endorsement at high levels.Why do you think the elite has been so quiet about the drugs war and why has there never been a suggestion Thaksin might be charged?

[geriatrickid]

I anticipate bloodshed unless the rhetoric is toned down.

Mass protest rallies are characterized by opportunistic troublemakers. All it takes is one idiot to lob a grenade. As soon as the troops fire on the crowd Abhisit's toast. The military will have its excuse to seize power again. For everyone's sake, I hope the authorities can keep the peace as the end result would be worse than the current situation.

Just as various political extremist groups went around Europe in the 1970s killing and blowing things up in an effort to provoke a coup or "police state" I get the feeling someone in Thailand has been a good student of western political violence and is trying to do the same. In Europe the faciast groups wanted military rule and the radical lefties wanted it too, but in the hopes it would spark a popular uprising as a backlash. They both did what they could to provoke a crisis. It seems that Thailand is experiencing the same thing.

[animatic]

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

[jayboy]

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

Just dug yourself into a deeper hole.You talk about a drugs war without "innocents killed for no good reason" which implies the "guilty" deserve such a fate.So much ignorance and so much moral confusion.

[LawnGnome]

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

Just dug yourself into a deeper hole.You talk about a drugs war without "innocents killed for no good reason" which implies the "guilty" deserve such a fate.So much ignorance and so much moral confusion.

Here is Jayboy, elevating the discourse again. Keep the the good work

[Plus]

As soon as the troops fire on the crowd Abhisit's toast.

Why? If reds look like they are going for Songkran replay many will cheer the army to shoot more of them, if Thai history is any indication.

The military will have its excuse to seize power again

Well, the military are the ones who will be firing those shots, so would be the coup against themselves?

It just doesn't make sense. The coup is impossible at this time for a lot of reasons, from 2006 experience of running the country to non-existence of any particular faction powerful enough to pull it off and with protests from both red and yellow camps in between.

[animatic]

Neither am I...but really, everyone is so focussed on personalities and sides, when perhaps it is the system that is broken. The conduct of elections alone is not guarantee of a functional democracy (hence all the rhetoric by the yellow shirts). But by the same token where are the independent and "clean" referees/judges and other pillars of a democracy to make the Executive more accountable (hence the rejection by the red shirts of the status quo where the "establishment" can get away with murder).

Perhaps not only is the system broken, but also there is a lack of independent persons of integrity with public trust who can lead. And perhaps too many leaders (and potential) are tainted by corruption, bias and hidden agendas. Unfortunately, almost everyone is suspect and almost every important institution is dysfunctional (judiciary, auditor general, public service, police, armed forces). Overlay that with an impoverished and disenfranchised electorate that is uneducated and open to monetary incentives (why not, after all their elected representatives are similarly open to such incentives)...it's going to take balls, luck, vision, tenacity and a whole lot of goodwill to sort it all out and good luck to whoever uindertakes this unenviable task.

Yes the system is broken, or more aptly was never built properly.

A knock on effect of letting the Foxes make the Henhouse's rules.

Of course the chickens die in droves.

Functional democracy is not just elections but FAIR elections and then

the elected reps actually working for the people.

PTP is noted for NOT doing a damned thing for the people,

and Dems are actually doing things for the people,

but damned, by some, on legislative misunderstood technicalities.

Abhisit does have most of the appearances of having integrity,

but a man of integrity in an damed if he does damned if he doesn't position.

If his time as PM leaves any benefit it will be in his attempts to act with integrity when possibly.

The referees / Judges finally get freedom to act,

but the side they act against cries foul... Same same world wide.

And as said before the electorate is not uneducated but UNDER-educated.

The actual disenfranchisement is done, not by the loss of voting rights over their MPs,

but by those they have elected abrogating their responsibilities to the electorate,

by pursuing their own or their bosses interests MORE than the electorates.

As I see it, Newin's people are doing better for Buri ram,

than PTP is doing for ANY Issan area.

Because his crew actually works for the constituents.

Cynically no doubt, but with some positive effects.

But it seems here you don't get what you paid for,

you get stuck with what you got paid for...

[animatic]

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

Just dug yourself into a deeper hole.You talk about a drugs war without "innocents killed for no good reason" which implies the "guilty" deserve such a fate.So much ignorance and so much moral confusion.

No it doesn't imply any such thing, only YOU repeatedly attempt to imply this meaning.

Sorry that dog won't hunt.

Your unnecessary attack on my clear prose,

and attack on my moral character which a flame by forum rules,

implies that you have an agenda to get me riled,

and maybe get a ban for flying off the handle and flaming you.

Sorry no such luck either.. Wither your malign intent on the vine.

Fighting a war on drugs is not the same as killing drug dealers to do it.

And calling me ignorant when to most anyone thinking clearly sees that this is not the case,

puts paid to anyone else's confusion that YOU might be on the up and up posting here.

[jayboy]

"Collateral damage" means innocents killed for no good reason.

Saying 'a drug war could be waged effectively',

does NOT say killing drug dealers is the way to do it,

as you imply to denigrate me and change the subject,

using your S.O.P. Standard Operating Procedure of obfuscation.

Does it say anything about killing drug dealers is good?

No... you added that little canard.

What part about my originally saying "NO" can you not understand.

Apparently ALL of both letters.

Just dug yourself into a deeper hole.You talk about a drugs war without "innocents killed for no good reason" which implies the "guilty" deserve such a fate.So much ignorance and so much moral confusion.

No it doesn't imply any such thing, only YOU repeatedly attempt to imply this meaning.

Sorry that dog won't hunt.

Your unnecessary attack on my clear prose,

and attack on my moral character which a flame by forum rules,

implies that you have an agenda to get me riled,

and maybe get a ban for flying off the handle and flaming you.

Sorry no such luck either.. Wither your malign intent on the vine.

Fighting a war on drugs is not the same as killing drug dealers to do it.

And calling me ignorant when to most anyone thinking clearly sees that this is not the case,

puts paid to anyone else's confusion that YOU might be on the up and up posting here.

Perhaps a reminder is needed it was you that started spouting about standard operating procedure of those on the other side of the moral aisle (ie anyone who disagrees with your view point)

I will leave it to others to decide who has the clearest prose.

And I'm afraid on your "collateral damage" evasions, no amount of back pedalling or ranting can disguise your meaning that the killing of the "guilty" was acceptable.It's also the view of 90% of most Thais so don't get your knickers in a twist.

[animatic]

nice try, no sale.

keep preaching.