Bangkok: Red-Shirts Slam Chulalongkorn Hospital For Evacuating Patients

[Fishbucket]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

Why you send armed forces against protesters? Naive to think this was the right think to do.

It isn't the job of the Thai army to fight against Thai people who just rally against the current government.

What should we send in then??? Police with sticks and stones??

These people need to know that they can defend themselves. These people need to know that if they are fired upon, they can fire back.

This is how it works around the world. In every "democratic" countries.

How about sending in the ballot papers and respecting the result this time, like every "democratic " country.

[Fishbucket]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

Why you send armed forces against protesters? Naive to think this was the right think to do.

It isn't the job of the Thai army to fight against Thai people who just rally against the current government.

The red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok is a rally, eh? That's funny. Kind of like saying the Nazis were a mah jong society.

Yea, just like the PAD yellow mah jong society

[rixalex]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

in a word...airbrushing.

It's been a while Mr. Fishbucket. Good to see you back. Worried we had lost you.

[rixalex]

How about sending in the ballot papers and respecting the result this time, like every "democratic " country.

Caving in to mob rule under the threat of violence must be your thing i guess, although i'm sure only when it suits your red agenda. When it doesn't (i.e. yellows at airport) i'm sure you are very outspoken. Some of us consistent ones condemn such undemocratic and illegal acts on both sides.

[Humungus]

Monday morning and 11 more days of protest to go. On May 15 red shirt leaders have promised to surrender. So on May 14 we can expect them to run for their lives and that should put an end to things.

[lazurus]

@RichardBarrow: PM says plan is to contain demonstration at Ratchaprasong & to cut off their supplies /BkkPost

How many days of SomTam are left at Ratchaprasong? Reds from Pathum Thani will surely come to their aid firing baskets of sticky rice over the police lines using slingshots. Fountains in front of Central world are being converted into rice paddies as we speak in preparation for the coming siege. Smugglers from the Golden Triangle will descend on Bangkok to cash in on the now lucrative Kai Yang cartels. Are we meant to take this plan seriously?

[Herm]

Monday morning and 11 more days of protest to go. On May 15 red shirt leaders have promised to surrender. So on May 14 we can expect them to run for their lives and that should put an end to things.

You do not really believe anything they say ?

One thing is sure, the reds have turned the clock back on Thailand. Once a "Tiger" among South East Asian nations it is now a mere poor relative with a violent mob ruling in Bangkok causing anarchy. It's simply a situation of Thaksin and his accomplices paying a brain-washed mob in an aim to destabilize the country and get a red controlled interim government to allow for Thaksin's return.

The hesitation to act decisively by the government makes this a real possibility.

[Humungus]

Monday morning and 11 more days of protest to go. On May 15 red shirt leaders have promised to surrender. So on May 14 we can expect them to run for their lives and that should put an end to things.

You do not really believe anything they say ?

One thing is sure, the reds have turned the clock back on Thailand. Once a "Tiger" among South East Asian nations it is now a mere poor relative with a violent mob ruling in Bangkok causing anarchy. It's simply a situation of Thaksin and his accomplices paying a brain-washed mob in an aim to destabilize the country and get a red controlled interim government to allow for Thaksin's return.

The hesitation to act decisively by the government makes this a real possibility.

I don't believe a single word. Saturday they wanted the reds to pull back, threatened to make them. Today government is threatening to cut of supplies, but they won't. Reds say they want democracy, say they will surrender May 15. You can't believe either side to do anything they say they will. It's a complete farce.

[pontius]

Monday morning and 11 more days of protest to go. On May 15 red shirt leaders have promised to surrender. So on May 14 we can expect them to run for their lives and that should put an end to things.

You do not really believe anything they say ?

One thing is sure, the reds have turned the clock back on Thailand. Once a "Tiger" among South East Asian nations it is now a mere poor relative with a violent mob ruling in Bangkok causing anarchy. It's simply a situation of Thaksin and his accomplices paying a brain-washed mob in an aim to destabilize the country and get a red controlled interim government to allow for Thaksin's return.

The hesitation to act decisively by the government makes this a real possibility.

My clients (mostly hotels and hotel suppliers) suffered right away from the red shits, and now they stopped paying my bills. That makes me one of the many thousand who never did anything bad to those "people", yet we have to suffer (financially) for their cause.

I for one hope they'll get what they deserve, no more understanding here (never had much anyway, to be honest).

As for the government, no, I'm not impressed by their "sit & wait" tactics either.

(Reason for edit: wrote course instead cause, tsktsk)

Edited May 3, 2010 by pontius

[ableguy]

Gen Khattiya, now temporarily suspended from duty following his attacks on the army chief,

Temporarily suspended? What a complete and utter joke. Is he still pulling a salary i wonder? What is it that makes sacking a person from the army or the police such an impossibility?

So very true, how about the cop found with all the grenades? he may be in detention but I doubt he will do hard time after all he is one of the boys, I would also like to know if he is still getting paid.

[animatic]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

Why you send armed forces against protesters? Naive to think this was the right think to do.

It isn't the job of the Thai army to fight against Thai people who just rally against the current government.

It is when the police are either unwilling on incapable of doing it. As is the case here.

When a mob refusing to disperse, fires on soldiers or police, they ARE obliged to fire back in self defense,

no matter whether it's rogue elements in the mob or the whole mob.

When your leaders are killed and you are under fire you don't ask by whom.

The targeted nature of the killings of riot force leaders, belies a simple mob reaction,

and that should have been obvious to the person to whom command fell

after the incapacity of their superiours.

KD we really don't care if you keep trying this line. And finding a compliant NGO warning,

is not hard, but this argument has long past it's expiry with most all people. Give it a rest.

And regardless of Thaksin's bravado, or psychotic need to cause a conflagration to bring down

the government, this is still a moribund argument that has been well and truly lost.

PS. It also doesn't distract one jot from the hospital invasion,

which erased the last vestiges of moral authority from the red side.

[animatic]

You are the opposite of funny.

"red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok"? Who told you that, even the government doesn't use such words.

Unlike you, Falang USA, the Reds are are Thai people and you should learn to accept that Thai people "occupy" Thailand.

Wasn't it Eichmann who said it in his defense that it was all legitimate and he act according to the law? Eichmann was a Nazi.

I hope you don't imagine you are the arbiter of humor here...

Using the E word is as bad as using the H word in an 0lnine discussion,

automatic forfeit of your point.

LOSE!

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that

“as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving

Nazis, Hitler, Goebles or Eichmann approaches one.”

What that means in real terms is that sooner or later someone involved in a forum argument will be likened to a Nazi,

or displaying Hitler-like tendencies. Please note that if you're the one invoking Godwin's Law

and likening someone to a Nazi, you've immediately lost the argument because it's such a lame-a** low blow.

[pontius]

^^ LOL ^^

[agord]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

Why you send armed forces against protesters? Naive to think this was the right think to do.

It isn't the job of the Thai army to fight against Thai people who just rally against the current government.

"who just rally" are you for real or just some kind of joker looking to get a rise out of people?

[Humungus]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

Why you send armed forces against protesters? Naive to think this was the right think to do.

It isn't the job of the Thai army to fight against Thai people who just rally against the current government.

In the chain of events of April 10 it was the protesters who tried to break into the army barracks first. They weren't just rallying at that point, they were attacking the army. From that point they had hours to retreat and rally peacefully instead they continued to clash with riot police and the army. It seems unnecessary to even point out that there were armed persons within the red shirt protesters. The protesters were in clear violation of the law. A man robbing a bank, or a person committing a murder would have no reason to complain if the police used force to stop them. Similarly an angry violent mob can not expect police to stand by and allow their rampage unchecked.

[webfact]

Notice

Thaivisa is an English Language Forum with the exception of the Thai Language Forum where Thai is allowed.

One post in German language deleted

[kissdani]

There is no law that justified the massacre of 10. april.

And it is the day where Abhisit and Suthep lost their legitimacy to lead the country.

When you attack armed forces you are going to get a reaction. Naive to think otherwise.

Why you send armed forces against protesters? Naive to think this was the right think to do.

It isn't the job of the Thai army to fight against Thai people who just rally against the current government.

It is when the police are either unwilling on incapable of doing it. As is the case here.

When a mob refusing to disperse, fires on soldiers or police, they ARE obliged to fire back in self defense,

no matter whether it's rogue elements in the mob or the whole mob.

When your leaders are killed and you are under fire you don't ask by whom.

The targeted nature of the killings of riot force leaders, belies a simple mob reaction,

and that should have been obvious to the person to whom command fell

after the incapacity of their superiours.

KD we really don't care if you keep trying this line. And finding a compliant NGO warning,

is not hard, but this argument has long past it's expiry with most all people. Give it a rest.

...

That is simply not true and not the international standard Abhisit was talking about.

Police or army cannot shot at random into a group of people because they suspect some attack came from this group.

Over 20 dead, 800 in the hospital - was there any 'terrorist' amongst them? Is there evidence that the army shot the right people dead?

It was a massacre and nothing can justify it.

btw. here is the pantip thread about soldiers at chula compound on 29.04.

http://www.pantip.com/cafe/rajdumnern/topi...3/P9199793.html

[siampolee]

kissdani

it was a massacre and nothing can justify it.

You are of course referring to the Tak Bai incident along with the ''war on drugs'' both illegal actions authorised by Thaksin ?

Edited May 3, 2010 by siampolee

[viking75]

kissdani

it was a massacre and nothing can justify it.

You are of course referring to the Tak Bai incident authorised by Thaksin ?

And carried out by your good friends the Army. happy to do that, and now not happy to kill reds.

was natural for army to infiltrate hospital and when free media can access more people and when army back on leave, we will hear this more.

http://www.pantip.com/cafe/rajdumnern/topi...3/P9199793.html you can see pictures of army in hospital here.

but be quick before free and fair abhisit close it again

Yellow spin is "army were not there but were there to protect people" . yes very good, there but not there is same thaksin, dead but not dead

Edited May 3, 2010 by viking75

[Humungus]

kissdani

it was a massacre and nothing can justify it.

You are of course referring to the Tak Bai incident authorised by Thaksin ?

The reds didn't have to be there. It was a massacre of their own making, they provoked the police and army. They killed soldiers. Nothing can justify what the reds have done to their own countrymen.

[siampolee]

Viking .

if you wish to quote me feel free.

However please will you use the full quote to emphasise your point.

Your fake pidgin English fools no-one.

The truth is that Thaksin is, was a serial killer in pursuit of his own ends and not the interests of the Thai people.

Edited May 3, 2010 by siampolee

[lungmi]

You are the opposite of funny.

"red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok"? Who told you that, even the government doesn't use such words.

Unlike you, Falang USA, the Reds are are Thai people and you should learn to accept that Thai people "occupy" Thailand.

Wasn't it Eichmann who said it in his defense that it was all legitimate and he act according to the law? Eichmann was a Nazi.

I hope you don't imagine you are the arbiter of humor here...

Using the E word is as bad as using the H word in an 0lnine discussion,

automatic forfeit of your point.

LOSE!

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that

"as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving

Nazis, Hitler, Goebles or Eichmann approaches one."

What that means in real terms is that sooner or later someone involved in a forum argument will be likened to a Nazi,

or displaying Hitler-like tendencies. Please note that if you're the one invoking Godwin's Law

and likening someone to a Nazi, you've immediately lost the argument because it's such a lame-a** low blow.

In Germany it is forbidden tu use nazi-symbols, comparisons to H,G,E and so on.

"Truth today" and other publications show Abhisit as Hitler, Yellow publications Thaksin as Hitler.

This link shows the danger of these comparisons.

http://www.visalo.org/englishArticles/BkkPost_RealEnemy.htm

[frodo]

The terrorists who have illegally occupied parts of Bangkok, still refuse to allow Chula to operate the way it should be run.

These red shirts, each and every one, just don't care about safety of staff, patients and medical personal. No political game here, patients are there to recuperate and obtain needed medical care, not having to worry about terrorists rampaging through hallways or blaring speeches filled with hate on a 24/7 basis.

Still, there are those who claim this is democracy and it is perfectly fine to allow this. Sad.

Kwanchai Praiphana, a red-shirt leader, said Monday that the protesters would not leave the Rajdamri Road as demanded by Chulalongkorn Hospital.

He said it was enough for the protesters to open two lanes - each on both sides of the road beside the hospital.

The hospital demanded the protesters to leave the road from Saladaeng to Sarasin intersections for safety of medical personnel and patients.

Kwanchai said the red-shirt leaders already gave in to demand of Metropolitan police Pol Lt Gen Santhan Chayanon but the hospital still made more demand.

"The hospital is now playing political game," Kwanchai said.

He also challenged the government to use force to break up the rally on the road.

The Nation

[kissdani]

You are the opposite of funny.

"red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok"? Who told you that, even the government doesn't use such words.

Unlike you, Falang USA, the Reds are are Thai people and you should learn to accept that Thai people "occupy" Thailand.

Wasn't it Eichmann who said it in his defense that it was all legitimate and he act according to the law? Eichmann was a Nazi.

I hope you don't imagine you are the arbiter of humor here...

Using the E word is as bad as using the H word in an 0lnine discussion,

automatic forfeit of your point.

LOSE!

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that

“as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving

Nazis, Hitler, Goebles or Eichmann approaches one.”

What that means in real terms is that sooner or later someone involved in a forum argument will be likened to a Nazi,

or displaying Hitler-like tendencies. Please note that if you're the one invoking Godwin's Law

and likening someone to a Nazi, you've immediately lost the argument because it's such a lame-a** low blow.

Where your quote of Godwins law come from? Got any source for it or have it just rewritten it by yourself at this very moment, so that it fits you need and you can declare that i LOSE (in capitals)?

Anyone who thinks online discussions on web boards like this one are about WIN or LOSE is a LOSER himself. you will never learn something or become smarter, just desperately looking for counter arguments. deny everything that don't fits your belief system.

sorry, but if you would have followed the discussion you would see that my post was a reply on this entry by jingthing.

The red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok is a rally, eh? That's funny. Kind of like saying the Nazis were a mah jong society.

Mr. Animatic, you bark up the wrong tree and you also get it wrong what Godwins law means.

and take a look what you wrote yourself a while ago:

...

Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party,

who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany,

did everything they could to create chaos in the streets,

including initiating political violence and murder.

The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin.

Sound familiar to todays shenanigans?

Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election,

this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes

and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the

largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.

Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks,

Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named

Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor.

Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag,

however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to

Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.

On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany.

Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote,

and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats

in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power.

With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.

~The Reichstag fire

Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack

on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed?

Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history —

that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared

and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.”

And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.

Suspending civil liberties

The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled,

“For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against

Communist acts of violence endangering the state,”

the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion,

including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association;

and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications;

and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as

restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Two weeks after the Reichstag fire,

Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could

adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted,

“Germany will be free, but not through you!”

When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against,

giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution.

On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act”

made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

The judiciary under Hitler

One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Shirer points out,

Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent,

subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound

at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.

In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime

(who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted,

which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction

over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court, which, as Shirer points out,

Soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land.

It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials,

the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote.

There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera.

Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given,

the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.

The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom

had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism,

or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people

accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected

the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the

people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it

with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing

faith in the future of their country.

Sounds too close to home...

There you have it. Emergency laws, Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; ... and the "The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, ..."

...

[animatic]

Using the E word is as bad as using the H word in an 0lnine discussion,

automatic forfeit of your point.

LOSE!

Godwin's Law

Godwin's Law states that

“as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving

Nazis, Hitler, Goebles or Eichmann approaches one.”

What that means in real terms is that sooner or later someone involved in a forum argument will be likened to a Nazi,

or displaying Hitler-like tendencies. Please note that if you're the one invoking Godwin's Law

and likening someone to a Nazi, you've immediately lost the argument because it's such a lame-a** low blow.

Where your quote of Godwins law come from? Got any source for it or have it just rewritten it by yourself at this very moment, so that it fits you need and you can declare that i LOSE (in capitals)?

Anyone who thinks online discussions on web boards like this one are about WIN or LOSE is a LOSER himself. you will never learn something or become smarter, just desperately looking for counter arguments. deny everything that don't fits your belief system.

sorry, but if you would have followed the discussion you would see that my post was a reply on this entry by jingthing.

The red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok is a rally, eh? That's funny. Kind of like saying the Nazis were a mah jong society.

Mr. Animatic, you bark up the wrong tree and you also get it wrong what Godwins law means.

and take a look what you wrote yourself a while ago:

...

Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party,

who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany,

did everything they could to create chaos in the streets,

including initiating political violence and murder.

The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin.

Sound familiar to todays shenanigans?

Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election,

this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes

and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the

largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.

Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks,

Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named

Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor.

Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag,

however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to

Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.

On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany.

Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote,

and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats

in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power.

With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.

~The Reichstag fire

Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack

on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed?

Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history —

that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared

and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.”

And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.

Suspending civil liberties

The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled,

“For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against

Communist acts of violence endangering the state,”

the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion,

including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association;

and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications;

and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as

restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Two weeks after the Reichstag fire,

Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could

adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted,

“Germany will be free, but not through you!”

When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against,

giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution.

On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act”

made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

The judiciary under Hitler

One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Shirer points out,

Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent,

subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound

at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.

In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime

(who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted,

which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction

over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court, which, as Shirer points out,

Soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land.

It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials,

the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote.

There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera.

Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given,

the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.

The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom

had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism,

or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people

accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected

the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the

people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it

with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing

faith in the future of their country.

Sounds too close to home...

There you have it. Emergency laws, Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; ... and the "The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, ..."

...

Seems you are dealing with this in a overtly professional Perception Management manner.

PR at it's best, or lowest, depending on vantage point. Slag away dude, you do NOT diminish me.

Here for instance you have 'cherry picked' the quotes above out of my context to make your attack.

So, no win on this attack, since you use a false premise for the attack.

I was injecting facts to someone else's argument bringing in the Nazis.

I didn't bring it up out of the blue.

Out of context means the relevance is removed and so not a untrue assessment.

Par for the course.

Edited May 3, 2010 by animatic

[kissdani]

kissdani

it was a massacre and nothing can justify it.

You are of course referring to the Tak Bai incident along with the ''war on drugs'' both illegal actions authorised by Thaksin ?

No i am talking about the 10. April. Don't take my sentences out of the context.

Tak Bai was a sad day. the loss of life, because a law enforcement operation, crowd control, mass arrest went to horror. You said illegal, so you realize that there was something wrong.

And 10. April, do you think everything what the army did, authorized by Abhisit and Suthep, that all actions have been legal and can be easy justified?

[Insight]

kissdani

it was a massacre and nothing can justify it.

You are of course referring to the Tak Bai incident along with the ''war on drugs'' both illegal actions authorised by Thaksin ?

No i am talking about the 10. April. Don't take my sentences out of the context.

Tak Bai was a sad day. the loss of life, because a law enforcement operation, crowd control, mass arrest went to horror. You said illegal, so you realize that there was something wrong.

And 10. April, do you think everything what the army did, authorized by Abhisit and Suthep, that all actions have been legal and can be easy justified?

You mean send in troops firing blanks against an armed militant force? I hope they never make that mistake again.

[kissdani]

Where your quote of Godwins law come from? Got any source for it or have it just rewritten it by yourself at this very moment, so that it fits you need and you can declare that i LOSE (in capitals)?

Anyone who thinks online discussions on web boards like this one are about WIN or LOSE is a LOSER himself. you will never learn something or become smarter, just desperately looking for counter arguments. deny everything that don't fits your belief system.

sorry, but if you would have followed the discussion you would see that my post was a reply on this entry by jingthing.

The red shirt insurgent occupation of Bangkok is a rally, eh? That's funny. Kind of like saying the Nazis were a mah jong society.

Mr. Animatic, you bark up the wrong tree and you also get it wrong what Godwins law means.

Seems you are dealing with this in a overtly professional Perception Management manner.

PR at it's best, or lowest, depending on vantage point. Slag away dude, you do NOT diminish me.

Here for instance you have 'cherry picked' the quotes above out of my context to make your attack.

So, no win on this attack, since you use a false premise for the attack.

I was injecting facts to someone else's argument bringing in the Nazis.

I didn't bring it up out of the blue.

Out of context means the relevance is removed and so not a untrue assessment.

Par for the course.

Sorry, it was not possible to quote all,(there is a limit of number of quotes) but you can click always at the little arrow icon to go to the full original post.

I didn't 'cherry picked' anything.

You attacked me out of the blue for nothing, while i was merely injecting facts about one Nazi.

I didn't say "Sound familiar to todays shenanigans?" or "Sounds too close to home..." that have been your words.

"Nazi " is thrown so often into the discussion and in this thread first by someone else. Why didn't you explain that other member your version of the godwins law? blind on one side?

BTW. Where is your version of the Godwins law coming from? Is it accredited?

My guess is you wrote it by yourself, right? An imitation, fake, forgery, a fabrication. And so your talk about 'laws' is discredited right from the start by yourself.

Your ridiculous attempt to win with a strawman attack is a big failure.

[agord]

BTW. Where is your version of the Godwins law coming from? Is it accredited?

My guess is you wrote it by yourself, right? An imitation, fake, forgery, a fabrication. And so your talk about 'laws' is discredited right from the start by yourself.

Your ridiculous attempt to win with a strawman attack is a big failure.

What are you on about? That's Godwin's Law and here ya go:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html

so looks like your guess is well.....just as silly and wrong as your posts. Take off the red glasses they are not doing you any good.

[pontius]

The Nazis would've probably been humbled if they could hear some of the Rezis on stage!

Edited May 3, 2010 by pontius